The Regulative Principle: Scripture, Tradition, and Culture

An Email Debate Between Darryl Hart and John Frame

Note, 2006 (JF): In 1998, some students organized an email debate between Darryl Hart, then librarian at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, and John Frame, then Professor of Apologetics and Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in California. The debate was carried on the Warfield list, moderated by Andrew J. Webb. I have edited the text by (1) removing the email arrows and deleting some lines relevant only to the email system, (2) introducing names and titles, so that readers can more easily understand who is talking at each point, (3) setting quotations in a more standard form, so that readers can see more easily where A is quoting B, rather than stating his own position, (4) rearranging the material somewhat, so that, e.g., Hart’s answer #1 immediately follows Frame’s question #1, etc. I have also added a few footnotes to bring readers up to date on developments since 1998. I have reproduced the text and posted it at www.frame-poythress.org with the permission of Darryl Hart.

Moderator

Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 00:06:35 -0500

To: Warfield List <bbwarfld@erols.com

From: "Andrew J. Webb" <ajwebb@erols.com

Subject: WARFIELD: THE DEBATE HAS FINALLY ARRIVED!

Hi all,

As of now (12:00AM 2/5/97), no emails from anyone other than John Frame or

Darryl Hart will be processed by the list for the duration of the RPW debate.

At the end of the debate you will have an opportunity to ask both gentlemen

questions related to the topic. They have agreed to field a total of 20

questions from the audience. I will be vetting the questions, so it won't

necessarily be the first to arrive that get processed. PLEASE DO NOT BEGIN

SENDING QUESTIONS TO THE LIST UNTIL I TELL YOU TO DO SO.

The Subject of the debate is:

-----

"How does one go about defining the Regulative Principle of Worship?

The relationship of Scripture, our confessional history, and the

contemporary audience."

-----

The format is as follows:

1. INTRODUCTIONS (bios to follow)

2. INITIAL ARGUMENTS

3. INITIAL REPLIES

4. DIRECT QUESTIONING OF ONE ANOTHER (Frame to ask the first question, per

coin toss (on a 1948 two shilling piece) -- THIS PORTION OF THE DEBATE WILL

NOT RUN MORE THAN 14 DAYS

5. CLOSING STATEMENTS

6. QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE [20]

Are you all sitting comfortably? Good, then let's get started.

Your Servant in Christ,

Andy Webb

Andrew & Joy Webb

300 Horsham Rd., Apt. E6

Hatboro, PA 19040

(215) 682-9373

"...there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we

preach what is nowadays called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it

Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."

- Charles Haddon Spurgeon

Introductions

Darryl Hart

Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 00:07:55 -0500

I am an ecclesiastical mongrel. I grew up a dispensational-Scofield-Reference-Bible-toting, fundamentalist Baptist. (My folks went to Bob Jones University, all right?) Since becoming Reformed under the early influence of Schaeffer and then WTS, my wife Ann and I have been members in the PCA, the CRC (where I served as elder),

and now the OPC (where I also serve as elder -- or in PCA lingo "ruling

elder"). Our reasons for changing denominations stemmed more from grad.

school and job changes, than from dissatisfaction. (Who me, defensive?)

Even though I hold down the position as librarian as WTS,[1] my academic

training is as a historian. I studied as an undergrad at Temple

University (as a film major -- don't ask), then WTS for an MAR, then on

to Harvard Divinity School for an MTS and finally to Johns Hopkins for a

Ph.D. in American history.

My favorite authors are J. Gresham Machen, Wendell Berry, H. L. Mencken

and Joseph Epstein.

That's more than you would get on a dust jacket, but a little less, I

hope, than on late afternoon TV.

John Frame

Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 00:09:41 -0500

I was born (1939) and raised in the Pittsburgh area by a fairly

affluent family. I came to trust Jesus as my savior during the teen years

through the ministry of Beverly Heights U. P. Church. Through grade

school and high school years I studied piano, organ, clarinet, harmony,

counterpoint, improvisation, played in band and orchestra, sang in

choirs, so music has always been a big thing with me. Worship, musical and

otherwise, has been central to my Christian life.

I earned the A. B. from Princeton University in 1961, majoring in

Philosophy. It was at college that I began to study the Bible in a

serious way and, naturally, was drawn toward Reformed theology and

apologetics. I earned the B. D. at WTS (which they now call an M. Div.) in

1964, then earned two more masters' degrees at Yale, focusing on philosophical

theology and contemporary theology. I did not finish my doctorate;

finished all but the dissertation. So I am not "Dr. Frame."[2]

In 1965-66 I interrupted my graduate program to work at my home

church for a year. I was organist, choir director, pastoral visitor,

occasional preacher and Bible teacher.

In 1968 I began teaching systematic theology and apologetics at

WTS-Philadelphia. In 1980, I left there to teach at the new western WTS

campus in Escondido, CA, where I now serve as professor of apologetics

and systematic theology.[3]

I was ordained a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in

1968. In 1989 my local congregation switched from OPC to PCA and I went

along with them. I am an associate pastor of New Life PCA, Escondido,

where I lead worship from the piano.

I've published eight books on various topics: epistemology,

ethics, apologetics, ecumenism, worship. My two books on the last topic are

“Worship in Spirit and Truth” and “Contemporary Worship Music: a Biblical

Defense.” These are both published by P&R.

In 1984 I married Mary Grace Cummings. OPC people know the

family: her Dad ministered in the OPC for forty years or so. Three of her

brothers are OPC ministers. We have three grown children by her previous

marriage: Debbie (28), Doreen (26), and David, aka Skip (25). Mary and I

have by our own marriage two boys, Justin (11) and Johnny (9). Mary home

schools them. Actually they major in soccer, but we are trying to steer them into

music. Justin has played cello since age 3, and Johnny violin since about 5.

They both also study piano, but reluctantly.

Initial Arguments

Frame

Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 21:53:50 -0500

"How does one go about defining the Regulative Principle of Worship (hence

RPW)? The relation of Scripture, our confessional history, and the

contemporary audience."

I am not asked to actually define the RPW, but rather to discuss

how we should "go about defining" it. Our question is methodological rather

than substantive.

We must begin with a distinction. Definitions of the RPW can be of

two kinds: historical and normative. A historical definition will simply

try to outline what people have meant by the phrase. The actual phrase

seems to date from the early nineteenth century, but users of it have

evidently used it to summarize the principle used by the early Reformed

thinkers (say, 1520-1700) to determine what belongs in worship. Further,

the phrase "RPW" generally refers more specifically to the formulations of

the English Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians of that period. I don't, of

course, want to go into the question of how much these traditions agreed

with Reformed thought on the continent. But if I were engaging in research

as to the historical meaning of the phrase "RPW," my work would focus on

the British theologians rather than the continental ones, because the

former are the ones more often cited by those who use the term. Further,

the most elaborate confessional expressions of the RPW are in the

Westminster Confession of Faith, a product of Puritan and Scottish

theology. Study, then, of this theological and confessional tradition would

yield a historical definition of the RPW.

Search for a normative definition would overlap the above area of

study, but in some respects it would be rather different. Reformed theology

holds to the principle sola Scriptura [see my article on this subject in

the most recent Westminster Theological Journal, edited by Darryl Hart],[4] so

the goal of a normative definition would be to discover how God in

Scripture regulates human worship. At the outset, we should assume that

such a normative definition may or may not agree with the historical

definition of the term.

We do face here some strategic questions. One possibility is that

the biblical teaching will be so different from the historical concept of

the RPW that the very phrase "RPW" would be better abandoned. That is the

alternative chosen by Ralph Gore, for example, in his dissertation "The

Pursuit of Plainness."[5] My own view is that the biblical teaching about

God's regulation of worship is CLOSE to the Scottish-Puritan concept, but

not identical with it. The Bible shares with the Scots and Puritans the

central insight that we should include in worship only what pleases God,

and what pleases God is defined by the Bible, sola Scriptura. Therefore, I

am willing to describe the biblical view as the Bible's "RPW." But I

believe some aspects of the Scottish-Puritan view go beyond the Scriptures,

particularly (1) their attempt to define a RP that pertains to worship and

not to the rest of life, and (2) the calculus of "elements" and

"circumstances" by which they tried in my view to make the RPW more precise

than it is in Scripture.

So my short answer is: define RPW historically from the British

Reformed theological/confessional tradition; define it normatively by the

Scriptures.

A further complication, of course, is that for Presbyterians the

Westminster Standards have a normative function. That is, what I have

called the historical definition of the RPW is in some measure normative.

Here it is important for us to recognize immediately that the confessions

are “secondary” standards; they are not our “ultimate” norms. So our basic

distinction still holds.

The other important consideration here is that the Westminster

Divines did not put their entire theology of worship into their

confessional standards. Some seem to think that the references to the RPW

in the Confession in effect make the entire Puritan theology of worship

(secondarily) normative in our churches. I disagree. It is legitimate to

consult the Puritan theologians occasionally for help in understanding the

technical expressions in the Westminster Standards. It is not legitimate to

conclude that the WCF's reference to "circumstances" implies the

normativity of all the definitions of circumstances found in the Puritan

literature.

Does "the contemporary audience" play a role in our defining of the

RPW? In a word, no. But of course we must know something about contemporary

people if we are to communicate with them in their language. Worship is

communication, among other things. So if we are properly to apply the RPW

in planning actual worship services, we must know something about

contemporary people.

Hart

Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 12:38:28 -0500

If I were an rational, autonomous self, the kind presupposed by the Enlightenment but said not to exist by Cornelius Van Til, I would define the regulative principle of worship by reasoning as follows: there is this being bigger and more powerful than I to whom I should show some respect and honor. It only makes sense that I should ask him (I hope this isn't a gender inclusive God) how he wants to be shown respect and honor.

Then, after hearing R. C. Sproul's proofs for the existence of God,

specifically the God of the Bible, and after reading Francis Schaeffer's He

Is There, He Is Not Silent, and realizing that this God has revealed

himself in the Bible, I then figure I might as well go to that book, God's

word, to see how he wants to be worshiped.

But, of course, I am not an Enlightened, independent individual. I

am actually quite situated. I worship in a Presbyterian denomination, I

work at a Reformed seminary, I order books for a theological library on the

premise that I can tell the difference between Reformed and other kinds of

theological literature. This means that I come to the Bible not in a

vacuum but as Presbyterians and Reformed folk before me have interpreted

it. So I go to texts like Mt 4:9-10; 15:9; Acts 17:25; Col 2:23; 1 Sam

15:22; Deut 12:32; 15:1-20; Ex 20:4-6 and see the scriptural basis, though

of course contested by other Christians, for the regulative principle.

But it gets even worse. Not only do I find myself situated in a

theological tradition that shapes my understanding of the Bible and how I

interpret it to arrive at a definition of the regulative principle, but I

remember the solemn vows I have taken before God and his saints in the

visible church. One of those vows, of course, is "Do you sincerely receive

and adopt the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of this Church, as

containing the system of doctrine taught in Holy Scriptures?" In this vow

I not only locate myself explicitly within the Reformed tradition, but I

put my own integrity on the line and identify myself, my word, my honor,

with the statements and arguments of the Westminster Confession and Larger

and Shorter Catechisms. I do not want to be guilty of the same sort of

subscription that occurred during the modernist-fundamentalist controversy

(and for that matter still goes on in most mainline churches) where

officers subscribe to the creedal standards of their communion but then

deny and contradict, both implicitly and explicitly, what those standards

teach, arguing that those creeds were true in their day but not in ours.

Dr. Machen (OK, his was only honorary!) called that kind of subscription,

intellectual dishonesty. So in my answers to questions like those before

us in this debate I must give some attention to the Westminster Standards

lest I be guilty of the same kind of dishonesty.

The Westminster Standards, therefore, become like a presupposition

guiding my understanding, not only of worship but of the whole Christian

religion. And much to my relief, those standards have a very good, clear,

and concise statement of the regulative principle. The briefest statement

comes from the Shorter Catechism, answer 51, which states that the second

commandment forbids the worshiping of God by images or any other way not

appointed in his word. Other statements of this principle can also be

found in answer 109 of the Larger Catechism and chapter 21, sect 1 of the

Confession of Faith. But the important point for me is that second half of

the Shorter Catechism's answer, that we may not worship God in any way not

appointed in his word. We may not worship God as we devise, as we prefer,

or in a way that won't give the unchurched offense. Rather we must worship

God only as he desires. And given what Reformed folk believe about special

revelation and its finality, the only place to go to see how God desires

to be worshiped is in his word.

Initial Replies

Frame’s Initial Reply to Hart

Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 21:14:10 -0500

My chief problem with Hart's opening statement is that he makes no

distinction between what I called in my statement the historical and

normative forms of the RPW. Indeed, that is his whole point. His argument

is that we should never pit the biblical principles against the

historical-confessional. We should rather read the Scriptures exactly as

the tradition has done. So the historical and the normative RPWs are

exactly the same. The alternative is autonomy, enlightenment rationalism,

big-denomination modernism, etc. Here he cites his (and my) heroes Van Til

and Machen.

First of all, Van Til was as Reformed as he could be, but for him

"autonomy" did not mean having a critical attitude toward one's tradition.

He did have a high regard for Reformed tradition, and he did tend to think

that any deviation from the Reformed faith was a compromise with autonomy.

But the compromise was not in questioning the tradition. It was in

asserting one's own metaphysical (libertarian free will) and/or

epistemological (my mind over Scripture) independence from God. He never

argued as Hart does that because we are "situated" in a particular

tradition we must read the Bible exactly as that tradition has done.

Indeed, although he subscribed to the Westminster Standards ex animo, he

differed with parts of the Confession's teaching on the Sabbath.

If it is "autonomous" to differ with one's tradition, what about

people who are "situated" in Arminian, or Roman Catholic, or Charismatic

traditions? Are they, too, to be meekly submissive to their teachers and

traditions? Or are they to be like the noble Bereans and search the

Scriptures to determine if these things are so (Acts 17:11)?

In fact, Hart's kind of argument is ironically and curiously

anti-Reformed. For the Reformers were highly critical of their own received

traditions, of Popes and Councils. They taught "sola Scriptura," in which

Scripture alone is the ultimate standard of truth. They gave the Bible to

the layman, in the vernacular, and urged him to test all theological

controversies by it. Unquestioning acceptance of tradition, such as Hart

recommends to us, is much more like the Roman Catholic view of authority

than like the Reformed. It is the Romanists who have regularly told us that

we are situated in a tradition, that we should not even consider bringing

arguments against it. It is they who have brought the charge of autonomy

and individualism against Protestantism in general. On the contrary, the

Westminster Confession, to which Hart and I subscribe, makes clear that

Scripture alone is the ultimate authority (chap. 1, especially), even over

against synods and councils (chap. 31:3).

I agree with Hart that Presbyterian churches are confessional

bodies and that creedal subscription should not be tongue-in-cheek. But

Hart fails to deal with the problem we have in using confessions that are

350 years old. Is it not likely that if the Spirit has continued to teach

the church during those 350 years that we will have learned something new?

And, if the confessions are not infallible documents (Hart doesn't QUITE

say that they are) is it not possible that we might not find them wrong

about some things? Well, there are arguments between "strict"

subscriptionists and others about how to handle that problem. But nobody, I

think (or is Hart the exception?) wants to say that every officer must

literally believe every statement in the Standards. Every Reformed

denomination has some way of dealing with "exceptions," such as Van Til's

exception on the Sabbath.

Further, if no exceptions may be taken (or if exceptions may be

taken, but not taught, as some "strict" subscriptionists wish), then don't

the confessions become, for practical purposes, equal to Scripture?

Certainly they become incorrigible, unreformable. They are no longer

subject to the higher standard of Scripture.

Does Hart really wish to say that "The Westminster Standards,

therefore, become like a presupposition guiding my understanding not only

of worship but of the whole Christian religion"? I gather he has Van Tillian presuppositions in mind here. But I must ask, what does it mean to say that the Standards are "like" a

presupposition? Are they something less than ultimate presuppositions? That

would, I think, favor my point rather than his. Or are they presuppositions

in the same sense Scripture is? That view, I think, would be terribly

dangerous. Then the Standards would become the very criteria of truth and

rationality. They could never, even conceivably, be successfully

challenged. Like traditional Roman Catholicism, then, we would be subject

to two streams of authority, which are really one, equal in authority and

mutually interpretative. That view is clearly contrary to the Westminster

Confession itself, for it makes a particular council, the Westminster

Assembly, a "rule of faith, or practice," contrary to WCF 31:3.

So Hart and I are 180 degrees apart on the methodological question.

Evidently he has rejected entirely the argument of my "Biblicism" paper

that he published in the WTJ. And I reject just as vigorously what he

appears to me to be saying here.

On the substantive question, we may not be as far apart. This

statement of his is perfectly acceptable to me:

But the important point for me is that second half of

the Shorter Catechism's answer, that we may not worship God in any way not

appointed in his word. We may not worship God as we devise, as we prefer

or in a way that won't give the unchurched offense. Rather we must worship

God only as he desires. And given what Reformed folk believe about special

revelation and its finality, the only place to go to see how God desires

to be worshiped is in his word.

And the Scripture texts he cites are mostly the central ones in my

own thinking. I do think using Acts 17:25 to prove the RPW is a bit of a

stretch. Matt. 4:9-10 tells us that God is the exclusive object of worship

rather than that Scripture is the sole revelation concerning worship. It does

deny to Satan the right to tell us what to do, but I trust that is not

controversial among Christians. There is a connection between God as the

object of worship and Scripture as the exclusive law of worship, but Matt.

4:9-10 doesn't state that connection. And I assume Hart means to refer to

Deut. 18:1-20 rather than 15:1-20. The rest are unquestionably important in

establishing the doctrine. None of these, in my view, presents the Puritan

distinction between elements and circumstances, nor does any of them

differentiate between one rule for worship and another for the rest of

life.

The irony is that this very Regulative Principle clearly excludes

what Hart seems to be saying elsewhere about the incorrigible authority of

tradition. The real RPW for him seems to be the authority of Scripture plus

the Reformed tradition.

Hart’s Initial Reply to Frame

DATE: 2/9/98 7:27 PM

Sorry for the delay. I wish I could blame it on Sabbath observance alone.

But it also follows from not knowing how to import a text file into a

CompuServe "create mail" window. So I've had to type this twice. What a

guy.

One of the reasons I was ambivalent about a debate on the RPW was that it

would not really be about worship, but rather about hermeneutics,

theological method, and ecclesiology. Maybe that is what all debates about

worship finally turn into, not whether we have praise bands or sing a

capella psalms (isn't this what happened in the CRC over whether to ordain

women?). Still, I am going to write more about hermeneutics and

subscription than a definition of the RPW.

Prof. Frame's initial statement accomplishes almost by a sleight of hand

what some readers may miss because of wanting to understand the RPW. In

his rather common sensical approach to defining the RPW he distinguishes

between historical (what I would call "descriptive") and normative

meanings. Again, this should strike most of us as quite level headed,

especially when he goes on to say that the RPW historically may mean one

thing in Puritanism but another in the Bible. Churches and the authors of

creeds are not infallible and so their efforts will always fall short of

the inerrant intentions of God's word. And as it turns out, the Puritans

did err in their defintion of the RPW. For Frame the biblical RPW applies

to all of life but for the Puritan RPW it does not; and the biblical RPW

is not so precise as the Puritan RPW when it distinguishes between

circumstances and elements.

Now if we embark on a discussion of these differences between the Bible and

the Puritans we will have missed Frame's remarkable feat. For what he has

really done is not only to take issue with the Puritan RPW. He has also

set the Bible against the tradition to which he and I belong (as officers

in the PCA and OPC, and as professors at Reformed seminaries). And it is

this antagonism or, at least tension, between the Bible and the Reformed

tradition that bothers me and it is what bothered me about Prof. Frame's

book on worship, Worship In Spirit and Truth.

As I went through that book I read chapters first on the OT, the NT and

then the RPW. It all seemed so biblical, so sola-scriptura-like. But what

I ended up with was a view of worship that not only allowed for practices

that Presbyterians in the past would have disapproved. More important, I

wound up with the conclusion that the Reformed tradition is at odds (in

Frame's words, "not identical") with the Bible.

Now, of course, as an adherent of the Reformed Faith I don't like hearing

that my convictions are not biblical. But my feelings are not at issue.

Rather, what is very disconcerting is the matter-of-fact way that Prof.

Frame leads us to this conclusion. I don't sense any regret, hesitation,

or any of the angst that plagued Luther as he took his stand against the

tradition of the church. Instead, as I read Prof. Frame I come away with a

"ho-hum" expression that the Reformed tradition is not biblical on worship.

But I would think that the presuppositionalism of Van Til would make us

very cautious and regretful about reaching such a conclusion. For his

apologetics tell us that because of our enmity against God, an enmity that

still afflicts believers, we will not always interpret the Bible correctly,

but in fact may be prone to distortion and make it say what we want it to.

What is more, because of the human tendency toward sin and unbelief, I

would think that if my interpretation of the Bible conflicted with that of

the Puritans or Calvin I would be cautious about going with my

understanding. Am I wiser than they were? How could I be right and they

be wrong? Doesn't their body of work stand up better than mine? After

all, will anybody be reading me in 400 years (for edification, that is, not

for laughs)?

A related problem, though, is again the matter-of-factness of Frame's

assertion that there is the biblical RPW here and over there, not too far

away, is the Puritan RPW. (By the way, you also see the RPW in the Belgic

Confession, art. 32 and questions 96 to 98 in the Heidelberg Catechism, so

it isn't exclusively British.) Could it be that what we really have is

Frame's RPW against the Puritan RPW? In other words, is the Bible so

easily interpreted and understood? Again, if Van Til and Kuyper were right

I think the answer to that question should be "no." And if that is the

case wouldn't we want the help of saints from the past and the present who

have won reputations for their wise insights into Scripture and who are

entrusted with the faith once delivered.

But the problem of the Bible against the Reformed tradition not only

pertains to hermeneutics but also to subscription. If there is a Puritan

RPW taught in the Westminster Standards and I have taken a vow to uphold

and defend and conform to those standards (TWICE, once at the seminary and

once in the church), shouldn't I be a little more timid about saying the

Puritan RPW doesn't conform to biblical teaching? If I thought it did not

conform at the time of taking my vows then I shouldn't have affirmed them.

And if I came to this conviction since joining the WTS faculty and since

ordination, then I should notify my session about the change of my views,

and I should overture presbytery right away to initiate proceedings to

revise the doctrinal standards of my communion and my school.

In other words, the matter-of-factness of Prof. Frame's statement distorts

just how serious the issues involved in it are.

I apologize for going over my suggested limit of 750 words, but I want to

make one more point before ending. It concerns Prof. Frame's effort to

extend the biblical RPW to all of life since the whole of the believer's

life, and not just worship, is rendered as service and praise to God. This

extension, though sounding devout, is a ready-made argument for theonomy.

By limiting the RPW to corporate worship, the Westminster Divines were

putting limits upon church power and the power it has over individual

consciences. In public worship the session may bind the consciences of

believers as long as they have scriptural warrant for all that is done (or

have a good and necessary deduction from the Bible). But by extending the

RPW to all of life Prof. Frame appears to want to give the session power to

bind the consciences of believers in all areas of their vocation and

Christian walk. Frankly, this is scary. The church may have clear

teaching that pornography is sin, but it has no legitimate authority to

declare to me that John Updike's book, Couples, is pornographic and

therefore it is a sin if I read it.

Questions by Frame and Hart to One Another

Frame’s First Question

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 19:20:58 -0500

I gather that Hart and I are now to spend about the next 14 days

asking and responding to questions from one another. That would be from

today, 2/11, to 2/25 (Ash Wednesday).

My first question:

Is it possible, on your view, for the Reformed confessional RPW to

be wrong? If not, how do you distinguish your view of Scripture and

tradition from the Roman Catholic? If so, and if such an error exists, how

could we, granted your hermeneutic, discover the error and reform the

confessions according to the Word of God?

Hart’s Answer to Frame’s First Question

Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:31:18 -0500

It is possible for my understanding of the RPW to be wrong. It is also

possible for the Westminster Standards to be wrong. As the Confession of

Faith says in ch. 31.iii, synods and councils "may err; and many have

erred." The Standards, therefore, are not infallible. The Bible is our

primary standard, the Confession, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms

secondary.

But such an admission does not really settle the matter because I have

taken a vow which says that the Standards contain the system of doctrine

taught in Scripture. So if the Bible is infallible, one might think its

system of doctrine also infallible, unless we argue, as some evangelicals

do, that systematic theology diminishes the truth of the Bible. This does

not mean that the Westminster Standards contain that infallible system of

doctrine taught in the Bible. But they come close, and to my knowledge do

not contain any errors. That is why I took my ordination vows and

subscribed to the Standards, ex animo, at Westminster. My vows became my

profession of faith. If the Standards are wrong, then I am wrong. As the

Standards put it, (WCF 22.iii, a man may not "bind himself by oath to

anything but what is good and just, and what he believes so to be, and what

he is able and resolved to perform" (such as saying that the WCF RPW is

true). For this reason, vows are "solemn" acts, and bind our consciences,

even "to a man's own hurt" (WCF 22.iv). So if I have any reservations, I

can't subscribe to the Standards.

But what happens if my study of the Bible, the counsel of friends, a

particularly good sermon, or even a ruling of the Supreme Court persuades

me that the Standards are wrong? Do we have any means to revise the

Confession and catechisms? The answer is OF COURSE. But the way to revise

is not simply in my own mind, or in consultation with my editor, or by

testing my views in the publishing market. The way to revise creeds is

through the church, specifically through the Presbyterian system of graded

courts. So first I tell my session (as an elder) or my presbytery (as a

minister) of my new views. If they conclude that my views are outside the

bounds of the Standards, then either I resign my office, or I write an

overture to call for a revision of the Standards. And then I try to

persuade the church. Should I fail in my effort I can either resign or

force the church to try me for teaching views contrary to the Standards.

(The latter path lacks some of the drama of Luther's courageous stand

against Rome, thanks to the separation of church and state.) In sum, lawful

means exist for revising creedal standards and we find those means in the

visible church.

Still, as I study the Bible to see if the Standards are right, my vows do

function as a kind of presupposition. I don't see why that is an

objectionable conception of presuppositions (though I don't claim Van Til's

endorsement.) All I mean by this is that since we can't ever come to the

Bible neutrally, we must come with some kind of bias or point of view. Why

can't a Reformed perspective be the bias that shapes my reading of the

Bible? In fact, if I have taken a vow that says the Westminster Standards

are true, and if by my vow I have acknowledged that I may be judged

"according to the truth or falsehood" (WCF 22.I) of what I have sworn, then

why doesn't the conviction that the Standards teach God's truth involved in

my ordination vow become a presupposition? In other words, if Van Til is

right about the absence of neutrality in our hermeneutics, I don't see how

the very intimate, personal, and basic act of subscribing to a creed is

anything less than an indication of what I believe to be true, or the way I

look at reality, or the way I approach the word of God.

Hart’s First Question to Frame

Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:32:55 -0500

Liberal Presbyterians in the 1920s said that the Westminster Standards, as

documents written almost three centuries before, were outdated on the

vicarious atonement. Today some Presbyterians, Prof. Frame among them, say

that the Westminster Standards (now 350 years old) are dated on worship.

What is the difference between these two claims about the Standards? Why

is the latter acceptable and the former unacceptable?

Frame’s Answer to Hart’s First Question

Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 22:30:24 -0500

This comparison is disproportionate, to say the very least. A

number of things should be said about it.

1. Liberalism was not just an assault on the vicarious atonement

but also on the Virgin Birth, the miracles, the Resurrection, the Return of

Christ, the inspiration of Scripture, indeed everything supernatural in

Christianity. Machen rightly called it a different religion from biblical

Christianity. Now I realize that Hart is not claiming that my error is that

bad, but he might have chosen an example less loathed in our circles-- say,

Frank Breisch trying to maintain a continental Sabbath position in the OPC.

Hart chose, rather, to compare me to the 1920s modernists largely, I think,

for shock value. But that shock value is entirely irrelevant to my

position. I hope that the readers of the Warfield list, therefore, will be

able to distinguish Hart's substantive point from its rhetorical excess.

2. The liberal claim was not just that the vicarious atonement is

"outdated," but that it cannot be believed by modern man. On the contrary,

I don't care a fig what modern man thinks he can believe.

3. Even those who earnestly defend the Puritan elaborations of the

Regulative Principle must admit that they are not as central to Christian

tradition as is the vicarious atonement. The vicarious atonement is an

ecumenical doctrine, confessed in the Nicene Creed ("and was crucified for

us under Pontius Pilate"). All branches of the church, even those who

dissent from the Chalcedon Declaration, hold that the atonement was

vicarious. But the Puritan RP distinctives are held only in the western

church, only in the Reformed tradition, and not uniformly even there.

(Anglicans who hold to the 39 articles reject them; many Presbyterians

ignore them.)

4. Similarly, I think it is obvious that vicarious atonement is far

more central to the biblical gospel than are the Puritan elaborations of

the RPW, even granting the truth of the latter.

5. You may wonder at my phrase "Puritan elaborations." That is

important. Hart enormously exaggerates the matter when he attributes to me

the view that the Standards are "dated on worship." That makes it sound as

though I object to everything the Standards say about worship. That is

nonsense. In fact, I affirm the historic Reformed position on worship,

including all the confessional statements of the RPW to which he and I have

referred earlier in this debate. That includes WCF 20:2, concerning which

my only complaint is that it doesn't go far enough. I know that Hart

rejects my account of 20:2, but he has not persuaded me that I am wrong

about it.

6. Why is my claim "acceptable" while the liberals' claim was not?

It should be obvious why the liberals' claim was unacceptable; Hart and I

would not differ much on that score. Why is my view acceptable? Because it

is Scriptural, and Scripture is the church's primary standard. The

liberals' views were not.

7. Evidently, however, Hart is asking a narrower question: why

should Frame's view be acceptable in terms of the church polity of the PCA,

in which he has taken ordination vows? (a) Because my view is not, in my

own estimation, a dissent from the confessional documents. If others want

to pursue the matter, they are free to do so.

(b) The PCA ordination vows require that "if at any time you find

yourself out of accord with any of the fundamentals of this system of

doctrine [i.e. the system taught in Scripture, contained in the Confession

and Catechisms], you will on your own initiative, make known to your

Presbytery the change which has taken place in your views since the

assumption of this ordination vow." Now PCA people have debated the meaning

of "system of doctrine." But even a strict subscriptionist view of the

"system" cannot overcome a certain looseness in the term "fundamentals."

However that may be, I think I am right to categorize the Puritan

elaborations of the RP, which in my view are not even stated in the

Confessions, as something less than "fundamental" to the system of

doctrine.

I think it is obvious that the liberal denial of the vicarious

atonement could not be plausibly defended in this sort of way.

Frame’s Second Question to Hart

Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 22:31:59 -0500

I assure you that there is a question at the end of the following

paragraphs. It's just that that question will take a while to formulate.

I sense that Hart's position has shifted somewhat. In his earlier

statements he seems to object to any theological conclusion differing from

the Confessions, implying that the Confessions must dictate even our

interpretation of Scripture. But in his answer to my first question, he

concedes the sola Scriptura principle, agreeing that the Confessions can be

wrong and that they can and should be corrected by Scripture. Now he argues

a more qualified thesis: that the Reformed tradition can serve as a "bias:"

Why can't a Reformed perspective be the bias that shapes my reading of the

Bible? In fact, if I have taken a vow that says the Westminster Standards

are true, and if by my vow I have acknowledged that I may be judged

"according to the truth or falsehood" (WCF 22.I) of what I have sworn, then

why doesn't the conviction that the Standards teach God's truth involved in

my ordination vow become a presupposition? In other words, if Van Til is

right about the absence of neutrality in our hermeneutics, I don't see how

the very intimate, personal, and basic act of subscribing to a creed is

anything less than an indication of what I believe to be true, or the way I

look at reality, or the way I approach the word of God.

I agree that the Reformed tradition can serve as a legitimate bias,

though I would prefer not to call it a "presupposition," since for Hart

this bias is defeasible. But here is my question to Hart: should we not

also have a bias in favor of the unity of the church, a bias in favor of

breaking down, where possible, the barriers which separate the Reformed

tradition from other branches of Christianity? Shouldn't our bias include

the proposition that God has, most likely, not given all the truth to one

tradition or perfectly preserved any tradition from error? Shouldn't we

assume that if there are gifts of the Spirit in non-Reformed Christians,

these brothers might have important things to teach us? And isn't this bias

in favor of the unity of the church also a historically Reformed emphasis?

Hart’s Answer to Frame’s Second Question

Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 01:36:05 -0500

My point in talking about the Westminster Standards as a presupposition was

never that they are infallible. Rather it was that we are never objective

in interpreting the Bible. And if that is the case then something to which

I have taken a subscription vow may in fact color my reading of the Bible,

and mostly likely will. It will also color how I define the RPW. In which

case, Prof. Frame's distinction between the historical and normative

definitions is not so easy to pull off, since the historical and the

normative will naturally overlap. The way I come to understand the

normative will be affected by the historical if I have subscribed to it,

and the way I come to subscribe to the historical will be affected by how I

read the normative. In other words, interpreting the Bible is a whole lot

more complicated in a Calvinistic psychology than the distinction between

the historical and normative senses of the RPW allows.

Now to Frame's question about a bias in favor of unity? It seems to me

that Protestants have always had a bias toward truth over unity. After

all, ever since Protestantism began it meant (at least in Western Europe)

that two churches were claiming to be the true one. Presbyterians have

also lived fairly comfortably with the divisions in Protestant ranks since

at the get go there were Reformed, Lutherans, Anglicans and Anabaptists.

So it is rather late in the day to say that Presbyterians have a bias

toward unity. They have been sticklers for doctrine, and that has not

always made them popular. (And one of the reasons why Reformed have been

so interested in truth has to do with liberty of conscience and Lordship of

Christ. Far better to be obedient to Christ than to submit to the human

folly of a church council or pope. And liberty of conscience is relevant

here because it is so important to the RPW which strives hard to keep

churches from binding illegally the consciences of worshipers. I wonder that if

Prof. Frame considered the importance of liberty of conscience more he

might understand what's at stake in the RPW and not be as worried about the

organizational unity of the church.) Of course, Frame may be right that

the Reformed have not been sufficiently concerned for the unity of Christ's

body and therefore are unbiblical. But the bias in the tradition has not

been for unity at the expense of truth. The bias has been just the other

way around, unity only on the basis of truth.

Prof. Frame and I have different ideas about the way the truth of the

gospel is embodied or takes shape in history. Here two images might be

helpful. Frame seems to conceive of Christian truth as a hub with

different spokes running out from it. In the center is the Bible, and

going out from the Bible are the different branches of the Christian

church. Presbyterianism is just one spoke in the wheel. I would use

instead the image of a trunk and branches. There is a tradition of truth

growing up from the word of God, that has been articulated (simplifying

things greatly) in Augustine, Calvin, the Westminster Divines, Hodge,

Warfield, Machen, etc. This is the trunk of the tree of Christian truth.

From this trunk other branches may grow, but the farther out they go the

less true they are and their excesses need to be pruned. In some cases,

(like in the parable of the sower) other churches will grow up close to the

trunk of this tree but not be part of the real tree. But in my view the

Reformed faith is true, other traditions are more or less true. I don't

say this smugly because at the heart of the Reformed faith is the

confession, "not unto me but unto God's name be all glory and honor." The

Reformed faith is the most true because it makes sinners most humble and

gives the most glory to God.

For that reason I don't see what the Reformed have to learn from other

traditions. It may happen. And in fact, some of the theologians I read

today with the greatest profit, such Stanley Hauerwas, are not Reformed.

But that doesn't mean I want Hauerwas to become an OP minister. Nor does

it mean that the Reformed tradition needs help. It only means the Reformed

tradition today, from my perspective, is not blessed with the most

discerning social critics.

Having grown up in one of those non-Reformed churches I am not willing to

grant Frame's hypothesis that we have much to learn from them. I love my

parents and believe they are godly folks. But they still have much to

learn from the Reformed tradition. And if they did they would be better

for it. I would be going backwards to try to learn from them. If that

sounds proud it is not meant to be. It is only meant to express a

recognition of the genuine comfort and guidance the Reformed tradition has

provided to me.

Hart’s Second Question to Frame

Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 01:37:34 -0500

In comparing liberal Presbyterians on the atonement to today's

contemporary-worship tolerant Presbyterians, I was not doing so simply for

effect. I was trying to show how serious a thing it is to subscribe to

something and then to say it is a dated document or doesn't reflect changes

over the last four centuries. As much as Frame protests the comparison I

think it is more accurate than whatever shock value it might possess. On

the one hand the Westminster Standards teach far more than just

soteriology. They also teach worship and a lot of theology that goes into

the RPW. On the other hand, worship is as important to Christian faith and

practice as soteriology. Calvin said that for the reform of the churches

to occur worship and the doctrine of justifiication had to be addressed.

And if we read the Bible it seems that most of the troubles God's people

have stems from idolatrous and blasphemous worship. (Which may explain why

Calvinists have been so zealous about worship, as in the RPW.) So to say

that the theology of worship in our standards needs correction is a very

serious thing. It suggests we can have Puritan theology without Puritan

practice of worship. It also suggests that Puritan worship is wrong.

The other parallel that bears some notice is how much liberal Protestants

appealed to the Bible to say that the Standards were outdated. They

weren't appealing to Schleiermacher or Darwin or Hegel. They were

appealing to Jesus Christ and to a variety of interpretations of Scripture.

They thought they were more biblical than the conservatives. So just

because someone appeals to the Bible as the primary standard doesn't settle

the question of whether they are more biblical. Still the issue of

subscription remains: what to do with someone who has vowed that a document

is true but then doesn't agree with the document in its entirety.

So my question is -- what does it mean to be a Presbyterian? Is it

possible to be a Presbyterian in soteriology but not in worship? And why

does Prof. Frame claim to be a Presbyterian if he thinks he has so much to

learn from other traditions?

Frame’s Answer to Hart’s Second Question

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 20:25:12 -0500

Hart has prefaced his question as follows:

In comparing liberal Presbyterians on the atonement to today's

contemporary-worship tolerant Presbyterians, I was not doing so simply for

effect. I was trying to show how serious a thing it is to subscribe to

something and then to say it is a dated document or doesn't reflect changes

over the last four centuries. As much as Frame protests the comparison I

think it is more accurate than whatever shock value it might possess.

Here Hart seems to say that it doesn't matter much how serious or

extensive are the exceptions to the standards; the problem is that there

should be any exceptions at all. Any exception, he seems to say, is deadly

serious, and seriously comparable to the modernist defections. In the first

place, I have said that my own position is not in fact an exception to the

standards. In the second place, I think Hart's refusal to distinguish

levels of seriousness among exceptions is quite incredible. John Murray

took an exception to the Shorter Catechism statement in Q 31which states

that the Holy Spirit was the author of effectual calling. Murray said no,

the author is God the Father. Should we then reprobate Murray as a

crypto-modernist? What about Van Til, who took an exception on the Sabbath,

like his colleagues Stonehouse and Woolley?

Hart continues,

On the one hand the Westminster Standards teach far more than just

soteriology. They also teach worship and a lot of theology that goes into

the RPW. On the other hand, worship is as important to Christian faith and

practice as soteriology. Calvin said that for the reform of the churches

to occur worship and the doctrine of justifiication had to be addressed.

And if we read the Bible it seems that most of the troubles God's people

have stems from idolatrous and blasphemous worship. (Which may explain why

Calvinists have been so zealous about worship, as in the RPW.)

I agree entirely.

So to say that the theology of worship in our standards needs correction is a very serious thing.

Again, Hart fails to distinguish any degrees of correction. In his

mind it seems as if any difference with the view of the Standards is as bad

as advocating the worship of idols.

It suggests we can have Puritan theology without Puritan

practice of worship. It also suggests that Puritan worship is wrong.

Well, what are we talking about here? Earlier, Hart was talking

about subscription to the confessional documents. Here he is talking about

our adherence to "Puritan theology." In my mind, these are two very

different things. I have never taken a vow to uphold Puritan theology as

such. As a matter of fact, I like Puritan theology a great deal. But I

don't consider it infallible; in fact it has far less authority than the

confessions. And I certainly am not willing at add around 100,000 pages to

our doctrinal standards by making Puritan theology normative.

E.J. Young took no exceptions to the standards, to my knowledge,

except perhaps on six-day creation. But he did dissent frequently to the

exclusive Psalmody of the Scottish Presbyterian tradition. Would Hart say

that Young "regarded Scottish Presbyterian worship as wrong?" Well, he

thought it was a little bit wrong, at least. But if we refuse to

distinguish between "a little bit" and "a lot," then I guess we will have

to include Young among the ranks of the crypto-modernists because he

differed with his tradition.

Hart seems to allow no distinctions of degree. Even the smallest

disagreement seems to amount to saying "that Puritan worship is wrong," and

that is considered to be devastating to one's Reformed confession. Is

there no difference at all between some disagreements which are more

serious and others which are less so?

The other parallel that bears some notice is how much liberal Protestants

appealed to the Bible to say that the Standards were outdated. They

weren't appealing to Schleiermacher or Darwin or Hegel. They were

appealing to Jesus Christ and to a variety of interpretations of Scripture.

They thought they were more biblical than the conservatives.

That was one of their lines of defense. Of course Machen and Van

Til saw through this, and so should we.

So just because someone appeals to the Bible as the primary standard doesn't settle the question of whether they are more biblical.

Well, I wouldn't say that the liberals appealed to the Bible "as

the primary standard," as we understand the phrase "primary standard." It

is certainly true that the fact that someone appeals to the Bible doesn't

settle the question of his orthodoxy.

Still the issue of subscription remains: what to do with someone who has vowed that a document is true but then doesn't agree with the document in its entirety.

Again, Hart makes this an all or nothing issue. The smallest

deviation is the moral equivalent of liberalism. Sorry, but I don't buy it.

“So my question is -- what does it mean to be a Presbyterian?”

A Presbyterian is a member or minister in good standing in a sound

Presbyterian church. The term might also refer to people with distinctively

Presbyterian convictions outside of the Presbyterian churches.

“Is it possible to be a Presbyterian in soteriology but not in worship?”

Well, there are many good-standing members of Presbyterian churches

who don't know much beyond the basics of either soteriology or worship, or

who know much more about the one than about the other. But I guess Hart is

talking about elders or theologians. In general I would say no. To be

Presbyterian one must not only accept Presbyterian soteriology, but also

the doctrine that worship is God-centered, by divine appointment, etc.

However, in my view, it may be possible to differ in some details from the

confessional statements in both soteriology and worship, and it is even

more possible to differ with the historical practices of Puritan worship.

And why does Prof. Frame claim to be a Presbyterian if he thinks he has so much to learn from other traditions?

I still believe that the unity of the church is an important

Reformed concern. I asked Hart about this, and he replied that the Reformed

did not advocate unity at the expense of truth. That's not what I asked

about. Of course the Reformed do not advocate unity at the expense of

truth. But they certainly have advocated unity. Calvin tried mightily to

achieve unity with the Lutherans, to the point of signing the Augustana

Variata. It was the Lutherans who balked. The Puritans wanted to purify the

Church of England, not to start a new church. The WCF refers only to the

invisible and visible forms of the universal church, not to any

denominational organizations. John Murray sought various forms of

cooperation between Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists. He, followed by Ed

Clowney, opposed the concept of "pluriformity," which says that

denominations are God's intended way of giving expression to the diversity

of the church. In my Evangelical Reunion,[6] I argue that denominational

differences are always due to sin, on one side or both of the division.

Now WCF says that "particular Churches, which are members [of the

catholic Church], are more or less pure..." (25:4) and that "The purest

Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error..." (25:5).

That cautions us, certainly, against viewing the Reformed churches as

virtually infallible. Early in the debate, Hart cautioned me against

thinking that I was wiser than the great Reformers, a warning I have always

tried to heed. Fallen creatures should always be aware of their proneness

to error, especially when they become teachers (Jas. 3:1-12). But the same

considerations caution us against uncritical adulation of our

ecclesiastical-theological forefathers (Matt. 15:1-9).

And as long as we regard some non-Reformed churches as true

churches, we may not at the same time assume we have nothing to learn from

them. These are fellow-members of Christ's body, called and gifted by God

for ministry. In them is the teaching office. To divinely appointed

teachers we should give heed, even when they speak to us from outside our

tradition. That doesn't mean that they are always right, any more than we

are. But we should expect to learn from them. Such an attitude of humility

is necessary if the church is ever to reunite. And in any case a teacher

who is not teachable does not belong in the teaching office.

Hart implies that I think we need to learn much from non-Reformed

sources; so do I interpret the "so much" in Hart's "he [Frame] thinks he

has so much to learn from other traditions." Actually, I don't expect to

learn a huge amount from non-Reformed traditions. To be honest, I have a

"bias" in favor of the Reformed tradition just as Hart does. (No, I don't

think of the Reformed tradition as just one of the spokes of the wheel, of

equal value to the others.) I usually expect it to be right. Maybe the

difference between us is a difference in degree. He says he learns from

Hauerwas, but he qualifies it,

Nor does it mean that the Reformed tradition needs help. It only means the Reformed tradition today, from my perspective, is not blessed with the most

discerning social critics.

Huh? Sure sounds to me that he is admitting the Reformed tradition needs

some help, here in the area of social criticism. But for some reason, Hart

never seems to want to make his points in terms of degree. Everything has

to be absolute, black and white, all or never. Yet his practical position

seems to be that yes, you can differ from the Confession, as long as you go

through proper channels (after a proper amount of agonizing), and yes, you

can learn from the non-Reformed as long as you don't admit that your

tradition needs any help.

These are verbal games, it seems to me. I think it is clearer

simply to say that except for divine inspiration none of us is infallible.

The Reformed are best, but not perfect; the non-Reformed are less adequate

generally, but may have some insight. So our bias ought to be complex,

recognizing both the accomplishments and the fallibility of our tradition

and others.

And I do think that our loyalty to Christ, to Scripture as his

Word, and therefore to the universal church, should far transcend any bias

we may have for or against any tradition. That is simply what sola

Scriptura means.

How can I claim to be a Presbyterian? I am a minister in good

standing in a sound Presbyterian church. I have honestly subscribed to

Presbyterian doctrinal standards, with a few exceptions which my Presbytery

knows and accepts as no barrier to my good standing. I have never vowed to

learn nothing from non-Reformed traditions, so my interest in learning from

them does not constitute any barrier to my confession of Presbyterianism.

Personally speaking, I have loved Reformed theology since college:

not only soteriology, but also Reformed Worship and other aspects of

Reformed teaching. I am less enthusiastic about the way this theology has

been worked out practically in the life of the churches. But of course I

have never taken a vow to admire the history of the Reformed movement above

all others.

Frame’s Third Question to Hart

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 20:27:11 -0500

When we talk about people disagreeing with (1) the standards or

(2) the tradition, are all disagreements equal? In evaluating such a

disagreement, are we forbidden to discuss how big, or how important a

disagreement we are dealing with? Are all disagreements equally bad,

equally destructive of one's confession? Is ANY such disagreement the moral

equivalent of Modernism?

In my last answer to Hart, I suggested that for him allegiance to

Reformed creeds and the Reformed tradition is "all or nothing." This is his

opportunity to show that I have caricatured his position, if he wishes to

do so.

Hart’s Answer to Frame’s Third Question

Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 22:51:09 -0500

Prof. Frame accuses me of an all or nothing approach to the

Standards and the Reformed tradition. For me everything is allegedly black

or white. Can't I make any distinctions of degree or are all disagreements

with the Standards equally bad?

First of all I think Prof. Frame might want to admit that he can

also paint with only the colors of black and white. For instance, he says

that denominationalism is a sin, a rather black and white assertion

compared to the idea of the pluriformity of the church. He is also the one

who thinks the Puritan RPW doesn't go far enough; he wants to extend it to

all of life, which to me sounds not only like the church has power over all

areas of life (compared with only corporate worship in the Puritan RPW) but

also that every decision I make has to be a biblical one, which means that

the sources I decide to use in my historical writing has the weight and

sanctions of God's moral law attached to it. So both sides can be accused

of not making distinctions.

It is also important to note at the outset that when he and I

subscribe to the Standards (and I still don't think Prof. Frame has

reckoned with the high view of vows articulated in the Confession) we

subscribe not to the system of doctrine in them but we subscribe to them as

containing the system of doctrine taught in the Bible. This makes me very

reluctant to begin to rank the doctrines taught in the Standards and then work

my way up from the bottom to find disagreements I can tolerate. The

doctrines taught in the Standards, I believe, are truths revealed in the

Bible. And because of their biblical justification or warrant I am

inclined to think the Standards are not negotiable even though I do think

they are fallible (though why after 350 years have they not been revised

except on the doctrine of the civil magistrate?). Anyway, and this is not

a dodge, it is not up to me except when I am serving as an elder whether at

session, presbytery or General Assembly, to decide when a disagreement with

the Standards is tolerable. As a high church Presbyterian, I believe these

are matters for the courts of the church to decide. But in my own affairs

I am particularly sensitive to anyone's counsel that I have departed from

the Standards and will either seek to bring my views into accord with the

Standards or will register my exception with the proper authorities (e.g.

my session).

But we are not talking here about a hypothetical situation. We are

debating worship specifically. And even though Prof. Frame wants to put

some distance between the Puritan theology of worship and the Westminster

Standards, at other points in this debate and in his first worship book he

has implied at least that the RPW as taught by the Standards reflects

Puritan theology of worship (and I would add the Reformed tradition of

worship). What we have in the Larger and Shorter Catechisms on the second

commandment, in the questions on the "outward and ordinary means," and in

chapter 21 on worship is a condensed but nonetheless full view of the

Puritan theology of worship. We may only do in worship what Scripture

commands and that involves the elements discussed in chap. 21, sections iii

to v.

Now I consider worship to be a big deal. On simply a practical

level corporate worship is simply the one thing the whole congregation does

together each and every week. It reflects our understanding of God and of

ourselves, not to mention that God is zealous for his worship, "visiting

the iniquity of the fathers, etc." So this debate is not about a

disagreement that is minor. This debate concerns a matter of vital

importance to the church, so important that the Belgic Confession, art. 29,

teaches that we can discern true and false churches on the basis of

worship. So even if Prof. Frame and I could come up with a list of

tolerable exceptions to the Westminster Standards, worship would not be on

mine.

Now, just to make our disagreement specific, I do not understand

how the worship service that Prof. Frame describes at the end of Worship in

Spirit and Truth can meaningfully be described as Presbyterian or

Reformed. Here I not only have in mind the use of praise songs that come

out of the charismatic tradition, or the lack of an order of the elements

that reflects Reformed teaching about what is fitting for a gathering of

God with his people. I also object to the atmosphere of such worship which

Prof. Frame describes as "an informal service with a friendly, welcoming

atmosphere and contemporary styles in language and music" [84]. I think it

is incredible that anyone would try to describe Reformed worship as

friendly or welcoming considering what our theology professes concerning

the holiness, righteousness and transcendence of God, what God expects of

anyone who would approach him on his holy hill (Ps 24), and considering

what our lord and savior, Jesus Christ, had to do in order to make it

possible for us to enter into God's presence. In fact, the RPW was

designed precisely to safeguard a God who is zealous for his worship. A

jealous God is not one whose presence is welcoming and friendly if it

requires the sacrifice of his only begotten son to enter it. A somber,

serious, dignified service (no, that doesn't mean incense, vestments,

classical music, organs, choirs, or prayer books) is one that I would think

more compatible with a God who could have the kind of exchange with Job

recorded at the end of that book. But the service Prof. Frame describes

struck this reader as one that was void of any sense that God could be

offended or that blasphemy might still exist. So from my biased and

sectarian perspective, the differences between what Prof. Frame advocates

in worship and what I believe the Standards teach is profound, i.e. no

where near slight.

Prof. Frame defines a Presbyterian as some one who is a member of

good standing in a SOUND Presbyterian Church. Sorry to be so disagreeable,

but a church that has friendly and welcoming worship to my mind is not

sound. It is not only because it conveys a false sense of security to

worshipers or attendees about who God is and their standing before him. It

is also because it displeases God by not displaying the reverence and awe

that the Bible requires and the Standards articulate. Nor am I sure that I

would always agree with Prof. Frame's ideas about a sound church because he

has argued that "Shine, Jesus Shine," is a better hymn/chorus than "Of the

Father's Love Begotten." This is where my comments about the lack of

cultural discernment within the Reformed community might be applicable,

though I will also concede that differing assessments of cultural

expressions is preferable but not essential for being a faithful follower

of Jesus Christ.

Hart’s Third Question to Frame

Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 22:52:38 -0500

Perhaps I have overly complicated the differences between Prof. Frame and

me by trying to conceive of my ordination vows as a form of presupposition

that shapes the way I define the RPW. A better way to show my disagreement

with Frame's distinction between the historical and normative senses of the

RPW is to show how they overlap in this particular case, and I would

venture to argue, in all particular cases.

Imagine, for the moment, trying to define Unitarianism. Would we go to the

Bible for it? Not likely, since it reveals God as Father, Son and Holy

Spirit, though we might go to the Bible to account for how people come up

with erroneous views of God. So the Bible, not being a guide, we turn to

the historical origins of Unitarianism in the early 19th century,

particularly to the writings of William Ellery Channing and Jared Sparks.

Since they were the first Protestants to identify themselves

self-consciously as Unitarian, their historical writings, the documents

that historians would go to to describe Unitarianism, are normative. In this

sense, the historical becomes normative. And, I might add, this is the

sort of blurring of the historical and normative by which we commonly live.

A Republican believes X, not because the Bible says so but because Abraham

Lincoln said Republicanism stands for X. Or a Platonist believes Y not

because the apostle Paul said so but because Plato believed Y. We could

never lecture about intellectual movements unless they cohered in this kind

of fashion. What this also means is that if we came to a Unitarian

minister in the early twentieth century who believed that Jesus Christ was

the Son of God in the Nicean sense, we would conclude that he was no longer

a Unitarian. He might delude himself to thinks so. But for all intents

and purposes we conclude that he departed from the Unitarian fold, again,

not because the Bible defines Unitarianism but because this deluded fellow

no longer adheres to the teachings of Channing and Sparks.

A similar kind of blurring exists for our definition of the RPW. The

Reformers of the sixteenth century and the Puritans of the seventeenth

elaborated an understanding of church power and worship that forbade doing

anything in worship that the Bible did not command. Bare permission was

not good enough. A direct biblical imperative, or a good and necessary

consequence thereof, was necessary for any element of worship. This

resulted in a form of worship that was markedly different from the

liturgies of Rome, Lutheranism, or Anglicanism. And because worship was so

important both to the Reformers and the Puritans, it is fair to conclude

that the Reformed tradition became known for a particular kind of worship.

This, then, became the historical and normative standard for Reformed

worship. Because the Reformers and Puritans went first and did something

self-consciously different from other Christians, they became the benchmark

for determining whether a particular liturgy or worship practice is

Reformed. This doesn't mean they were biblical. It only means that they

defined the tradition.

So when we come to a form of and rationale for worship that departs from

the early tradition of the Reformed wing of the Reformation, we may

legitimately conclude that this form or rationale is not Reformed, or

Presbyterian or Puritan, assuming for the moment that those guys were

united on worship. Someone in a Presbyterian church may claim to be

biblical, but if that person does not follow in the footsteps of the

Reformed he has no right to claim to be Reformed, especially on something

as important to the Reformed tradition as worship and the RPW. Again, this

is one of the bigger matters that separates the Reformed tradition from

other Protestants (part of the reason why Frame may balk at the uniqueness

of the Reformed tradition of worship is because of his bias in favor of

unity.) To depart from the historical RPW, for me, is akin to a professing

Unitarian believing Jesus to be the second person of the Trinity. At some

point a certain intellectual and historical coherence has to kick in lest

we lose the any ability to define terms and communicate with each other

meaningfully.

So my question to Frame is what is wrong with this understanding of the

Reformed tradition? Perhaps a more pointed way of stating it is to ask if

it is possible for a Pentecostal order of worship to be used by

Presbyterians as an expression of Reformed theology? What makes the order

of worship at New Life Escondido Reformed, the fact that the worshipers

claim to be Presbyterian or the degree to which the order conforms to

historic understandings of what Reformed worship has looked like? Another

way of stating this is to ask if the order of worship that Calvin used in

Geneva is more Reformed that what John Frame uses in Escondido?

Frame’s Answer to Hart’s Third Question

Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 21:50:02 -0500

Again, I will quote portions of Hart’s comments and intersperse my replies among those quotes.

Perhaps I have overly complicated the differences between Prof.

Frame and me by trying to conceive of my ordination vows as a form of presupposition that shapes the way I define the RPW. A better way to show my disagreement with Frame's distinction between the historical and normative senses of the RPW is to show how they overlap in this particular case, and I would

venture to argue, in all particular cases.

Imagine, for the moment, trying to define Unitarianism. Would we go to the

Bible for it? Not likely, since it reveals God as Father, Son and Holy

Spirit, though we might go to the Bible to account for how people come up

with erroneous views of God. So the Bible, not being a guide, we turn to

the historical origins of Unitarianism in the early 19th century,

particularly to the writings of William Ellery Channing and Jared Sparks.

Since they were the first Protestants to identify themselves

self-consciously as Unitarian, their historical writings, the documents

that historians would go to describe Unitarianism, are normative. In this

sense, the historical becomes normative.

"Unitarianism" is defined as a historical movement, and so the

historical definition is normative, as normative as a definition can be.

"Regulative Principle of Worship" (henceforth RPW) is ambiguous. It is used

to describe the worship principle of a particular historical movement, and

it is also used to refer to the Biblical norm for worship. If it were used

only for the first, then defining it would be as simple as defining

Unitarianism. One would simply identify the historical meaning, and then

that definition would be normative for any further discussion. But the

phrase is also used for a biblical principle. Some people believe these

meanings to be the same; others believe them to be somewhat different.

Now the term "norm" gets confusing here. The historical definition

of RPW is normative for the historical discussion, as the historical

definition of "Unitarian" is normative for the historical discussion of

Unitarianism. But the biblical definition of RPW is normative in a higher

sense: for the Biblical RPW will govern all the worship of God's people.

RPW in the historical sense will do that only to the extent that it agrees

with the Biblical RPW. So we have two kinds of "norm" here: a norm for

describing a historical concept, and a norm for the church's worship.

The relevant logical difference between "Unitarian" and "RPW" is

that there is no concept of Unitarianism in the Bible. But most of us would

agree that there is an RPW in the Bible.

We could, of course, use the phrase "RPW" to refer only to the

historical meaning and find some other phrase to refer to the biblical

principle governing worship. But for most of us Presbyterians, the two are

at least pretty much alike. So it is convenient to use one term for both,

even if in some contexts we must make distinctions.

Here I'm snipping a few paragraphs from Hart's question. Later he

says that the RPW, historically defined, produced

a form of worship that was markedly different from the

liturgies of Rome, Lutheranism, or Anglicanism. And because worship was so

important both to the Reformers and the Puritans, it is fair to conclude

that the Reformed tradition became known for a particular kind of worship.

This, then, became the historical and normative standard for Reformed

worship. Because the Reformers and Puritans went first and did something

self-consciously different from other Christians, they became the benchmark

for determining whether a particular liturgy or worship practice is

Reformed. This doesn't mean they were biblical. It only means that they

defined the tradition.

So when we come to a form of and rationale for worship that departs from

the early tradition of the Reformed wing of the Reformation, we may

legitimately conclude that this form or rationale is not Reformed, or

Presbyterian or Puritan, assuming for the moment that those guys were

united on worship. Someone in a Presbyterian church may claim to be

biblical, but if that person does not follow in the footsteps of the

Reformed he has no right to claim to be Reformed, especially on something

as important to the Reformed tradition as worship and the RPW.

What Hart seems to be saying here is that one must follow Reformed

tradition in worship to fulfill the terms of the RPW. I reject this,

because I believe that we are subject to the RPW in the Biblical, rather

than the historical sense (granted the considerable overlap between them).

Further, it seems to me very odd to invoke the RPW to justify a rigid

traditionalism. As I've said before, the RPW is largely a weapon against

the imposition of traditional forms upon the churches. That is one of the

ways in which the historical and normative RPWs fully agree.

But now let us set the RPW aside for a moment and ask the question

Hart really has in mind here: Can we depart from the Reformed tradition and

still claim that our worship is Reformed? Here's where I have to ask my

previous question again: Departing by how much? Are there degrees of

departure, or is this an all-or-nothing matter? Certainly the Reformed in

various countries, and even within the same country, differed among

themselves somewhat, so one would think that the label "Reformed" allows

for some variation.

But perhaps Hart wants to say that however much variation there may

be in "Reformed" worship, there are some barriers that absolutely cannot be

crossed. So he asks,

if it is possible for a Pentecostal order of worship to be used by

Presbyterians as an expression of Reformed theology? What makes the order

of worship at New Life Escondido Reformed, the fact that the worshipers

claim to be Presbyterian or the degree to which the order conforms to

historic understandings of what Reformed worship has looked like? Another

way of stating this is to ask if the order of worship that Calvin used in

Geneva is more Reformed that what John Frame uses in Escondido?

Well, the worship at New Life does look rather unlike the Geneva

liturgy (see the last chapter of my Worship in Spirit and Truth for a description). But I think

there are reasons for calling our worship "Reformed," such as the following:

1. The RPW, and therefore the Reformed Faith, does not require a

slavish imitation of traditional forms. On the contrary, it opposes the

imposition of such forms. Therefore, the difference in form as such cannot

be urged against our claim to be Reformed in our worship.

2. There is no prescribed liturgy in the PCA, and we do not take

vows to follow any such liturgy. So what we are doing is fully in line with

our subscription to the Presbyterian confessions, i.e. to the Reformed

Faith.

3. It is the most Reformed thing in the world to be concerned with

communication in worship. The Reformers insisted on the use of the

vernacular and on congregational participation. The Reformers understood

that worship was to be edifying to the people as well as glorifying to God.

Therefore, they encouraged later generations to seek new ways of

communicating the Reformed faith in the worship context.

4. When I plan worship for New Life, I take great pains to choose

hymns and songs which set forth the great truths of the Reformed faith:

God's majesty and holiness, our depravity, the Lordship of Christ, the

graciousness of salvation from beginning to end. Our preaching, our

prayers, and our sacraments show forth the same truths. So the message of

our worship is unquestionably Reformed.

5. In his answer to my third question, Hart balks at a number of

things in New Life worship, which brings some responses:

Here I not only have in mind the use of praise songs that come

out of the charismatic tradition,

Again, Hart seems to be absolutizing Reformed tradition, even its

traditional aesthetics. I reject entirely the notion that to conduct

Reformed worship I can use aesthetic materials only from Reformed sources.

That seems to me to be sheer nonsense. Further, as I demonstrate in my Contemporary Worship Music,[7] the praise songs, on the whole, are preoccupied with the majesty, holiness, and greatness of God, which are certainly Reformed themes.

or the lack of an order of the elements

that reflects Reformed teaching about what is fitting for a gathering of

God with his people.

Again, there is no prescribed liturgy in the Reformed standards to

which I subscribe. And I question severely Hart's notion that the New Life

order does not reflect Reformed teaching about what is fitting. See below.

I also object to the atmosphere of such worship which

Prof. Frame describes as "an informal service with a friendly, welcoming

atmosphere and contemporary styles in language and music" [84]. I think it

is incredible that anyone would try to describe Reformed worship as

friendly or welcoming considering what our theology professes concerning

the holiness, righteousness and transcendence of God, what God expects of

anyone who would approach him on his holy hill (Ps 24), and considering

what our lord and savior, Jesus Christ, had to do in order to make it

possible for us to enter into God's presence. In fact, the RPW was

designed precisely to safeguard a God who is zealous for his worship. A

jealous God is not one whose presence is wecolming and friendly if it

requires the sacrifice of his only begotten son to enter it. A somber,

serious, dignified service (no, that doesn't mean incense, vestments,

classical music, organs, choirs, or prayer books) is one that I would think

more compatible with a God who could have the kind of exchange with Job

recorded at the end of that book.

Hart here emphasizes God's transcendence and holiness. I believe

that New Life worship emphasizes these too, and the praise songs are a

means to that. Hart has, to my knowledge, never worshiped at NL, nor does

he know much of anything about praise songs. See my discussion of his views

in my Contemporary Worship Music.

What Hart says nothing about is the other side of the Biblical

teaching, also precious to Reformed people. God is not only transcendent,

but also immanent. God is not only the judge of all the earth, but is also

our loving Father for Jesus' sake. At Christ's death, the veil of the

temple was torn in two, and the New Testament calls us to come boldly into

the holiest place, the place that struck terror into the hearts of Old

Testament worshipers. New Testament Christian worship is celebration of the

Resurrection, so it is typically to be joyful. So God does welcome his

people into his presence.

I believe that New Life worship reflects both sides of the worship

encounter: a seriousness about approaching God's presence, but also an

ecstatic joy that God has welcomed us for the sake of Christ. Hart's

suggested alternative reflects only one aspect of the meeting. I reject the

notion that Reformed teaching limits our worship only to this one aspect.

To limit worship this way is unbiblical and therefore non-Reformed.

But the service Prof. Frame describes struck this reader as one that was void of any sense that God could be offended or that blasphemy might still exist.

WST says quite a lot about the great danger of offending God. I

believe that New Life worship recognizes that, by emphasizing the greatness

and holiness of God.

So from my biased and sectarian perspective, the differences between what Prof. Frame advocates in worship and what I believe the Standards teach is profound, i.e. no where near slight.

Where do the Standards teach a liturgy? Where do they forbid praise

songs? Where do they forbid joy and celebration? I don't get it.

Prof. Frame defines a Presbyterian as some one who is a member of

good standing in a sound Presbyterian Church. Sorry to be so disagreeable,

but a church that has friendly and welcoming worship to my mind is not

sound.

This is quite astonishing. Does Hart mean that to show welcome and

love to visitors and fellow Christians is contrary to God's Word? Does he

mean to say that one cannot maintain proper reverence to God and at the

same time show friendship to one another? Nonsense. The worship service is

a meeting of God's family. We love each other, and we express that love,

along with our respect for God. Those who don't show love for one another

do not show reverence for God (1 Cor. 11:17-34, Jas. 2:1-7).

It is not only because it conveys a false sense of security to

worshipers or attendees about who God is and their standing before him.

Our songs and preaching make it clear that access to God's favor

comes only through the redemptive work of Christ. Why should expressions of

Christian love compromise this truth? Hart is tearing apart what Scripture

has brought together.

It is also because it displeases God by not displaying the

reverence and awe that the Bible requires and the Standards articulate.

Again, Hart has never worshiped in our church, so far as I know.

This is a pretty harsh judgment to make against a congregation. It

certainly does not follow from the description in WST. Again, the praise

songs themselves display reverence and awe. If Hart is saying that the only

way to express reverence and awe is through traditional liturgy, I would

have to say that his cultural parochialism is pretty extreme.

Nor am I sure that I would always agree with Prof. Frame's ideas about a sound church because he has argued that "Shine, Jesus Shine," is a better hymn/chorus than "Of the Father's Love Begotten."

I wish Hart would try to be more precise. My assessment was,

rather, that neither of these is a perfect vehicle for worship and that in

some situations, "Shine" would be a better choice. I never said that either

song was "better" in some absolute way. Again, Hart seems able to think

only in black and white. By the way, I am willing to defend my own

black-and-white distinctions. Sometimes such distinctions are justified, sometimes not.

But I'd better quit now.

Frame’s Fourth Question to Hart

Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 21:51:29 -0500

Maybe it will help for us to focus on a particular issue you seem to feel

strongly about. What is there about the RPW or about Reformed worship

generally that excludes the use of Maranatha Praise Songs? Or, if you don't

believe they should all be excluded, what criteria do you use to determine

which we may use?

Hart’s Answer to Frame’s Fourth Question

Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 23:19:57 -0500

At the most basic or confessional level, I would have to answer

Prof. Frame's question about Maranatha praise songs in two ways. First,

he asks at one point where the Standards forbid praise songs? The answer

would come from chapter 21 which says that the "singing of psalms with

grace in the heart" is one of "all the parts of the ordinary religious

worship of God." Now, I have not so recently arrived from Mars to be

unaware of the practice of hymn-singing in Presbyterian and Reformed

churches, though Presbyterians and Reformed have worshiped more years by

means of exclusive psalmody than not (the mid-nineteenth century saw

Presbyterians and the twentieth saw the Reformed begin to supplement their

singing with hymns). I am not going to rehearse arguments I have already

made in favor of exclusive psalmody (see the first two issues of the

Nicotine Theological Journal). But Prof. Frame did ask and I am answering.

The Westminster Divines were exclusive psalmodists (the exegesis may not

have been air tight but their wisdom rarely leaked) and chapter 21 in

addition to the Psalter they produced are proof of that conviction (another

hallmark of Reformed worship until 150 years ago). So once again we

stumble upon this matter of subscription, not only a problem for Frame but

also for practically 98% of the Americans claiming to hold to the

Westminster Standards. (How could I the rigid traditionalist answer this

question but by referring first to the Standards?)

The second part of my answer concerns the genre of music that by

Frame's own admission Praise Songs are. In his Music book Prof. Frame

says that this music comes primarily out of the soft rock tradition of the

early 1970s. (Frame has said that my going after rock music may indicate I

have bitten off more than I can chew, though I wonder if with this music he

has swallowed something the church will one day spit up.) Now when it comes

to rock I prefer the British Isle stuff; U2 is a band I still enjoy even if

it makes me look like I can't act my age and even though they have become

increasingly commercial. I was also in high school in the early 1970s and

know a thing or two about popular music from that decade (you would have

had to grow up on Mars not to). One further personal remark is that I

find it possible, at least in my own little brain, to separate music I

enjoy during the week from music that is appropriate to sing corporately to

God in prayer to God (maybe Frame finds this harder to do since he wants the

RPW to extend beyond the Sabbath to every day of the week). Which means

that as much as I might enjoy Arvo Part on Monday or Bono on Tuesday, Louis

Bourgeois will do just fine on the Lord's Day.

In other words, I cannot believe that I would have to argue in this

day that soft rock is not reverent. Rock music cultivates a number of

sensibilities, such as love (usually sensual), protest (often in ways that

violate the fifth commandment) and one-world utopianism (which bears

interesting resemblances to the Tower of Babel). But as much as it might

excite certain emotions or passions, it is not a fitting vehicle for

expressing godly fear, godly joy, or godly sorrow. I would argue that what

is happening in evangelical worship, as Frame even admits, is part of a

broader cultural phenomenon. Diane West in an article for The Weekly

Standard wrote about the trend of political conservatives who attempt to

show that they are cool. In 1970, for instance, when Elvis Presley met

with President Richard Nixon, both men agreed that their session should be

kept silent in order to preserve the rock star's links to the anti-middle

class culture of rock music and to protect the President's identity as the

defender of the silent majority. Today, however, anti-bourgeois cultural

forms have become the mainstream. James Dean, the rebel without a cause of

1950s youth culture, has been memorialized with a stamp by perhaps the

least rebellious of all institutions, the U.S. Postal Service. J.C.

Penney, the department store and catalog of choice for many thrifty and

hard working Americans, now features "Bad to the Bone" vinyl biker

jackets (with matching caps for dogs). And, the city fathers of Cleveland,

who in the 1960s compared offering rock concerts to teenagers with "feeding

narcotics to kids," have built a Hall of Fame for the rock music industry,

concluding that rock 'n roll not only contributed to but was the culture of

the city. West admits "an all-but-irresistible culture force pulls from

Right to Left," luring the middle-class into anti-middle-class guises. But

this cultural drift cannot change the fundamental antithesis between

bourgeois values, namely, "responsibility, fidelity, sobriety, and other

badges of maturity," and the "cumulative" message of rock culture --

"sexual and narcotic gratification, anarchism, self-pity, and other forms

of infantilism."

Now if West is right, and she is not the only one arguing this

way about rock music, soft or otherwise, then we might reasonably pause in

using its forms to communicate praise to God. And this isn't because we

are hoping to preserve middle-class culture. It is because music that

expresses sexual and narcotic gratification, anarchism, self-pity, and

other forms of infantilism is not a fitting form (more on forms below) for

worship. It cannot carry the weight that we want to put on it. So my

response to praise songs is that they are irreverent, no matter how much

Prof. Frame insists they are. Of course, we could do a better HE SAID, SHE

SAID exhibition than the President and Monica are now giving us, and our

imitation of the Miller Lite commercials, LESS REVERENT, MORE RIGID will

not solve anything. But I wonder if Prof. Frame has ever considered the

subtler message conveyed by the music he uses in his service. Again, as a

good Van Tilian I would think he would see that nothing is neutral, even

cultural forms. And therefore, the cultural message of rock music is one

that stands for something other than the virtues that Paul says are fitting

sound doctrine in Titus 2 (sobriety, moderation, self-control). Why

should we exhibit these things in our lives (which may mean I should give

up my U2), but not in our worship? I also wonder if what is going on at New Life

Escondido is the J. C. Pennification of American Presbyterianism -- the

effort of uptight, middle-class, white folk trying to be hip. Prof. Frame

is right. I have never been to his church and so I should be cautious in

what I say. But I do not live in a bomb shelter. Our CRC congregation

went hip during my time on the consistory there, and at that time we lived

close to Willow Creek, whose influence in the Chicago area was enormous

(literally). So I know a little more of what I speak that what Prof. Frame

incautiously alleges in his book and in this debate.

Maybe the reason why Prof. Frame cannot see the problems of

contemporary music is because of his understanding of what it means to be

biblical. It is an unhistorical, abstract, and largely individual notion.

In his response to me about Unitarianism and the normative nature of

historical definitions Frame does not seem to be aware that non-Reformed

folk also claim to be biblical. That includes Unitarians. Frame seems

to say that being biblical only applies to the Reformed, as if they are the

only ones who seek to make their RPW conform to the biblical RPW. But

it is not so simple. The norm of the Bible is conditioned by historical

circumstances, theological traditions, (all governed by Providence and

guided by the Holy Spirit). It does not drop out of the sky, becoming a

dictionary for the RPW and other matters of the faith. In other words,

the Reformed approach the Bible in a certain way, have a certain

hermeneutic, and a set of theological assumptions, derived from the Bible,

but never so easily extricated from the give and take between Bible,

church, and tradition that we can come to the Bible in Enlightenment fashion, as a

so-called neutral and objective scientist does to the microscope.

So here we have two traditions, the Unitarians and the Reformed

claiming to be biblical. Is there a way to solve that debate? Not

really, not in a way that will satisfy both sides and allow them to claim that

each party is biblical. That is why in part they are in separate communions

(the same would go for Lutherans and Reformed, or Pentecostals and

Reformed -- having denominations is a way to protect liberty of conscience,

something so precious to the Westminster Divines that they devoted a

whole chapter to it). At that point, we have to allow for a diversity of

views about what the Bible means (unless we have an Emperor or Pope to settle

the debate for the church).

But in another case we have two sets of Presbyterians claiming

to be biblical and also to be Reformed. We won't allow for a diversity

of views about what it means to be Presbyterian. If we were to do that

then the word Presbyterian would cease to have a specific meaning, and the

very act of communication would be impossible. We cannot make up definitions

of words as we go. Words mean something historically. And historically,

Presbyterianism has meant something that includes the RPW taught in the

Westminster Standards even if Lutherans, Anabaptists, and Pentecostals

think it is not biblical and therefore not binding on them. Nobody has

to submit to that understanding of worship, but if you claim to be

Presbyterian you must if you want the word to mean the same thing today

that it did 300 years ago.

Furthermore, no one may come along and say that Presbyterianism

means something beside the confessional standards of the tradition simply

because he or she doesn't agree with it. If we insist on historical and

fixed meanings for political and economic life (e.g. capitalism, communism,

Democrat, Republican), then why not for theological terms? This does not

mean that traditions cannot be reformed, that is, made more consistent with

their founding principles. But it also means that there is a way of

determining historically, not just biblically, when a reform is really out

of character with a tradition, both according to the tradition's founding

principles and according to the application of those principles. And in

this case, I believe Prof. Frame tinkers substantially with a founding

premise of the Reformed Tradition, namely the RPW, and you see where that

tinkering leads, that is to a service that by his own admission looks

"rather unlike" the services in Calvin's Geneva. This is why I believe

Frame's books, despite his claims to the contrary, are an assault upon

the Reformed tradition's understanding of worship. And to the extent that

he still claims to be a Presbyterian in good standing, his saying one thing

(i.e. subscription vow) and doing another (i.e. New Life Escondido) has, in

my mind, interesting and troubling historical parallels.

Another way of making this point about the inadequacy of Frame's

biblicisim is to examine how he thinks the message of the Bible can

seemingly take any number of forms. (This is why the debates about

music in worship are only the tip of the iceberg. For what usually comes with

the new music are not only new instruments -- the soft rock band -- but

also skits [liturgical drama] and interpretive dance, activities that Frame

condones in WST, 93 and 130 respectively; he also says, by the way, that

juggling is not normally consistent with worship, 42; in contrast I would

argue juggling is never appropriate in worship unless we hear a word

from the Lord to the contrary). Frame concedes that New Life Escondido uses

a different liturgy than Calvin, but he says it is still Reformed. He also

argues that the praise songs they use at New Life communicate the biblical

message of God's transcendence, immanence, majesty and our reverence and

awe. But at this point I begin to scratch my head. In Geneva we have

metrical psalms being sung, with music written specifically for

congregational singing. In Escondido we have texts being written in many

cases by musicians in the charismatic movement whose musical genre comes

out of soft rock. In Geneva we have a service designed to reflect the

biblical pattern of an assembly between God and his people. In Escondido

we have a service designed to reflect the biblical teaching that worship

should be intelligible to outsiders (see the scriptural index to Frame's

WST to see how many times he refers to 1 Cor 14). And yet, even though we

have markedly different services, and even though by our historical lights

we could say that the Geneva service was the one followed by Presbyterians

and Reformed for many centuries, while the Escondido services suggests the

strong influence of contemporary charismatic/blended worship, Frame

concludes they are both Reformed because they both communicate the truths

of the Bible. (This may also explain the particular shape of Frame's

understanding of ecumenicity and denominationalism -- the forms of the

churches don't matter as long as the message is the same.) At this point,

in my humble opinion, biblicism becomes relativism.

But it also reflects evangelical anti-formalism. Ever since the

advent of revivals, evangelicals have been telling us that it doesn't

matter what form the gospel takes. As long as it brings people to Christ

we may do it. Thus Whitefield itinerated sometimes against the desires of

local clergy, Finney gave us the new measures, all the way down to Billy

Graham who now instead of featuring solos from George Beverly Shea has

Christian Hip-Hop bands function as his warm up acts. In a certain way

this is pragmatism, which I believe is evident in contemporary worship

since so much of it is designed to make the gospel accessible to the

unchurched. But in another way it is a kind of Donatism which tests

everything on the basis of its conversionistic capacities. If you do it

they will convert.

But I would argue that forms matter. One form upon which

practically all conservative Presbyterians agree is that of human anatomy.

We don't ordain women, even though the message of female preachers may be

just as good as the preaching of a man, because the Bible prescribes a

physical form for ordination. In worship I would also argue that the Bible

prescribes the forms of prayer, the word read and preached, song, and the

sacraments. These are the forms Christians are to use in worship. Frame

says the Standards do not prescribe a liturgy. I would submit that he is

wrong. These are the elements prescribed by chapter 21 of the Confession.

Granted, how we order them is left to the discretion of the session. But

these forms do matter. These are the only ones we may use. No juggling

EVER, no dance, no drama (except the drama of assembling in God's

presence). And this is what the RPW is designed to protect. Churches may

only bind the consciences of individuals by using these elements. The

Bible may not forbid elements other than those in the Standards. But

unless there is a clear biblical warrant we are illegally binding or

wounding the consciences of worshipers by doing things other than prayer,

the word, song, and sacrament.

Now, of course, Frame will likely respond that these are the

elements that New Life Escondido uses. So what is the problem? Well, they

are also the forms that Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, and

charismatics use. But each tradition orders and carries them out

differently. After all, the Roman Catholic Mass does use the right forms,

bread and wine (not Welch’s). But it is not a stretch to say that

Catholics package them differently. So if we can make a distinction

between form and content there in the case of the mass, we can also do so

with other Christian traditions. And I would argue that there is a

Presbyterian way to structure the content of Christian worship, one that

stems directly out of the RPW as taught in the Westminster Standards, and

that reflects reverence and awe.

This is where charismatic worship, I believe, falls woefully short.

It is not reverent nor does it exhibit godly fear. (New heavens, new

earth worship will also express godly fear, if Revelation is any

indication, something which argues against the kind of "ecstatic joy" that

Frame thinks we should now display because of what Christ has

accomplished.) Frame and I can go back and forth, DOES TOO, DOES NOT until

our microprocessors melt. But his insistence that P&W music is reverent

will not be convincing in the light of what I have said above about rock

music (no matter how soft, and therefore bland and vanilla it is). Even

more important, however, in the context of the RPW is the consideration of

all the consciences of God's people in worship. I think it should trouble

Prof. Frame that there are critics of contemporary Christian music who are

saying that it wounds or binds the consciences of believers. Unless he can

argue that the Bible commands this kind of music, then love for neighbor

would force him to find music to which no one may possible object (see the

recent article on the Charity and the RPW in the Nicotine Theological

Journal), music that does not needlessly carry cultural baggage at odds

with the very thing we are doing in worship.

And this I believe is one of the strongest arguments for exclusive

psalmody. It will not make anyone happy, but it will bring an end to the

divisiveness that music has introduced by making everyone unhappy. And

more importantly, it will shift the debate from what people prefer, or what

is intelligible to worshipers, to what is pleasing to God. This is the

criteria ideally that all of us should use in worship -- what will please

God. And from my blinkered perspective it is hard to see how God could not

be pleased by singing all of the psalms that he himself has inspired. Could

men or women possible produce anything better? Then why not offer to God

the very best (no this doesn't mean Mozart, Vivaldi, or even Bach -- it has

to be singable by the congregation -- something which the syncopation of

most contemporary music prohibits, unless of course you listen to Christian

radio all week long).

So much for the 750 word limit.

Hart’s Fourth Question to Frame

Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 23:29:47 -0800

Prof. Frame in his book WST puts a lot of emphasis on

intelligibility being one of the criteria by which we determine what

biblical worship is. I am not always sure what intelligibility means.

Last time I checked our churches were all using the vernacular tongue,

not ecclesiastical Latin. Last time I also checked I heard Billy Graham

still using the King James Version -- imagine the psychological dissonance of

going from hearing DC Talk to listening to the thee's and thou's of the

KJV. Often it seems to me that intelligibility is simply a cover for doing

whatever we think will appeal to the unchurched. In other words, in the

name of intelligibility we have turned worship into evangelism, and so made

God's people conform to the ways of God's enemies.

I don't see in Frame's work a conscious recognition of the

antithesis between the church and the world in worship. If the unchurched

are at enmity with God, if they hate him, as Van Til so well taught us,

then how in the world would it be possible to design a worship service that

would be welcoming to them? It seems natural to me that God's enemies

would feel very uncomfortable in worship, sort of like the leaders of Moab

who trembled and the inhabitants of Canaan who melted away when God

delivered his people out of bondage in Egypt so they could worship him in

his sanctuary on his mountain (Ex 15:14-17).

In fact, it seems to me that by the logic of intelligibility we

have ended up trying to obey God's word to evangelize (though the Great

Commission is about discipleship and baptism more than witnessing) and in

the process have disobeyed God's word about how we ought to worship him.

A great illustration of this confusion of God's commands and applying

them to the wrong settings comes from Herman Melville's Moby Dick (thanks

go to Bob Godfrey from mentioning the following passage in an Outlook

article several years ago). In chapter 10 Ishmael is writing about his

pagan friend Queequeg, and his religious observances after a meal when he

pulled out a pocket-sized idol and began to pray to it, and also desired for

Ishmael to join him. He wrote,

I was a good Christian; born and bred in the bosom of the

infallible Presbyterian Church. How then could I unite with this wild

idolater in worshipping his piece of wood? But what is worship? thought I.

Do you suppose now, Ishmael, that the magnanimous God of heaven and earth

-- pagan and all included -- can possibly be jealous of an insignificant

bit of black wood? Impossible! But what is worship? -- to do the will of

God -- THAT is worship. And what is the will of God? -- to do to my

fellow man what I would have my fellow man to do to me -- THAT is the will

of God. Now, Queequeg is my fellow man. And what do I wish this Queequeg

would do to me? Why, unite with me in my particular Presbyterian form of

worship. Consequently, I must then unite with him in his; ergo, I must

turn idolater. So I kindled the shavings; helpd [sic] prop up the innocent

little idol; offered him burnt biscuit with Queequeg; salaamed before him

twice or thrice; kissed his nose; and that done, we undressed and went to

bed, at peace with our consciences and all the world.

Now some may object that this quotation from Melville raises the

stakes way too high. After all we are only talking about using charismatic

forms in worship, hardly the stuff of idolatry. Still, we have two

separate ideas that become blurred in current worship debates. They are 1)

the introduction of charismatic worship; 2) to reach the unchurched. On

point one I would argue that false worship is idolatrous; that's what

idolatry means. Presbyterians have worshiped historically a certain way to

please God, because to veer from that pattern is idolatry. And for

reasons I gave in my last answer about the nature of rock music (aside from

the erroneous theology of the charismatic movement) Presbyterians should

not worship as charismatics do. (And I wish that people could see that as

critical as I am of charismatic worship I am at least paying it the respect

of trying to recognize it for what it is, that is, a tradition that has

its own integrity and norms; far more disrespectful it seems to me is to

recognize those differences and then say that there is really no difference

between Presbyterians and charismatics, at least at worship; that strikes

me as condescending).

But, by another sleight of hand Presbyterians are now worshiping

like charismatics in order to attract the unchurched. As Frame writes in

WST, "we determined on a style of ministry that we believe was scriptural,

but more intelligible (1 Cor 14, again!) [his exclamation not mine] to

those we wanted to REACH WITH THE GOSPEL" [caps mine]. So the comparison

with Queequeg is not all that much of a reach. In order to reach outsiders

we change our worship. And as I have argued those changes in worship

depart from Reformed teaching about and practice of worship. And I

believe such departures are serious because worship is serious.

Now I want to maintain that worship should be intelligible. For

me that means it is in a known tongue, not that it is necessarily easy to

understand. Here I am reminded of Warfield's remark in a little essay

on theological education: "the loving lisp of the name of Jesus by the lips

of a child may carry far. But that is no reason why we should man our

pulpits with children lisping the name of Jesus." About as good an argument I

can think of for continuing the Presbyterian pattern of worship that gives

people meat rather than simplifying our worship so that it ends up

being a steady diet of milk. In fact, in Frame's argument for intelligibility

in both books I am not sure why he continues to use the Bible in worship

since it is a book written many years ago and is hard to understand. But if

we can make an exception for the Bible, then we can also make exceptions

for the word of God preached, for prayer, and for song (especially psalms).

I also want to make clear, however, that intelligibility only

applies to God's people since worship is for God's people only (only

they, in union with Christ, may ascend the holy hill). In other words,

intelligibility has to be understood in the context of the antithesis

that exists between the church and the world at all times but especially in

worship. So by intelligibility I mean we need to do more instruction

about worship so that people can participate in it more meaningfully. We need

to keep the standards high, smarten God's people up so that they know what

it means to "raise my Ebenezer" rather than dumbing down our worship by

removing such references because they aren't understood by all. Maturity

in the faith, therefore, is a higher priority than intelligibility (as in

reaching people where they are). Our commitment to intelligibility should

only mean that we educate people about worship, how they do it, and what

happens in it.

Still, intelligibility does not apply to the unchurched because

worship is not evangelism. We need to remember how evangelicals have

stripped the Great Commission of all its force. We are to disciple the

nations by teaching EVERYTHING Christ has commanded. This is a strong

argument to me for continuing the worship practices of the Reformed

tradition. We believe our theology reflects the whole counsel of God.

Our worship, that reflects our theology, should not be vulgarized in order

to make it conform to what people already understand. We need to disciple

so that people will understand why worshiping the Reformed way is to follow

our Lord's commands. In other words, the Great Commission isn't a

rationale for making worship seeker sensitive. In fact, since corporate

worship is the only time when the whole congregation gathers the argument

should be that the service is necessarily geared to believers and toward

their growth in grace, not as a device to attract outsiders. Evangelistic

services are good and appropriate. But they are not a substitute for

worship. And of course outsiders may come to worship but we should never

expect them to feel comfortable nor should we design worship so they won't

feel out of place. So again, the argument for intelligibility is used to

do more than it really can.

SO HERE IS MY QUESTION -- since intelligibility can't govern

everything (it doesn't govern the unchurched's ability to understand the

Bible) how useful is this notion of intelligibility for understanding

worship? Why should it receive as much play as it does in Frame's writing

about worship? By turning worship into evangelism don't we misapply

biblical texts and end up moving precisely in the direction of Ishmael and

Queequeg? (And I would ask that Prof. Frame go somewhere else in the Bible

other than 1 Cor. 14, in part because vs 35 there suggests that worship was

not intelligible to the wives who had to ask their husbands at home for

clarification, and also because of the Reformed hermeneutic, taught in WCF

1.ix, that we go to clearer passages to interpret less clear ones. Even

though 1 Cor. 14 talks about worship, it is a much controverted passage and

needs to be understood in the light of those passages, commonly cited in

defense of the RPW, that teach much more clearly about worship.)

Frame’s Reply to Hart’s Fourth Question

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 00:16:36 -0500

The length of these pieces has rather gotten out of hand. I do take

some responsibility for that. The aptly named Mr. Webb told me that the

"initial arguments" were limited to 750 words. Therefore I have pretty much

ignored the limit in my later statements. But Hart's last posts have been

even longer than my longest ones, and I have reached the point where I

cannot reply in any kind of detail. I hope, therefore, that Warfield list

members will understand the situation: my failure to address Hart's

specific points does not imply any concession to him on those points. I am

just trying to make the best use of time and space.

Now we shall hear from Hart:

Prof. Frame in his book WST puts a lot of emphasis on

intelligibility being one of the criteria by which we determine what

biblical worship is. I am not always sure what intelligibility means.

Last time I checked our churches were all using the vernacular tongue,

Not ecclesiastical Latin. Last time I also checked I heard Billy Graham

Still using the King James Version -- imagine the psychological dissonance of

going from hearing DC Talk to listening to the thee's and thou's of the

KJV. Often it seems to me that intelligibility is simply a cover for

Doing whatever we think will appeal to the unchurched.

Normally we expect one another to supply some evidence before

publicly questioning the motives of fellow Christians. Hart supplies none

here. In any case, I entirely disclaim the motive he attributes to me and

to others who are concerned about the intelligibility of our proclamation.

In other words, in the name of intelligibility we have turned worship into evangelism, and so made God's people conform to the ways of God's enemies.

I have never advocated "turning worship into evangelism." I have

said that evangelism is a legitimate aspect of worship. This is implicit in

the fact that the Great Commission defines the church's task, and it is

directly taught in 1 Cor. 14:24-25. As for the last clause of Hart's

comment, it is another serious criticism, offered with no evidence and less

logic. Why should evangelism, which God commands, make us conform to the

ways of God's enemies? I'm really getting tired of these rhetorical

bombshells, carelessly tossed at fellow believers. Please consider James

3:1-12.

I don't see in Frame's work a conscious recognition of the

anti-thesis between the church and the world in worship.

See CWM, p. 96, and surrounding context.

If the unchurched are at enmity with God, if they hate him, as Van Til so well taught us, then how in the world would it be possible to design a worship service that would be welcoming to them?

Maybe Jesus's example of welcoming publicans and sinners is

instructive. I discuss this issue in detail in the section of CWM mentioned

above. I do not advocate any de-emphasis on the reality of sin and Hell. I

do not advocate welcoming anybody to the family of the saved apart from

repentance and faith. But I do believe that we should be hospitable, that

we should avoid unnecessary offense, that we should let visitors know that

we are glad they have come. We should let them know that turning to Jesus

will make them part of a joyful assembly.

It seems natural to me that God's enemies

would feel very uncomfortable in worship, sort of like the leaders of

Moab who trembled and the inhabitants of Canaan who melted away when God

delivered his people out of bondage in Egypt so they could worship him in

his sanctuary on his mountain (Ex 15:14-17).

As I say in the above reference, that is ultimately what will

happen if God does not send forth his grace. But let us trust the power of

God's Word to bring grace, rather than assuming that nothing will happen.

In fact, it seems to me that by the logic of intelligibility we

have ended up trying to obey God's word to evangelize (though the Great

Commission is about discipleship and baptism more than witnessing) and

In the process have disobeyed God's word about how we ought to worship him.

God's Word does not forbid evangelism in worship. On the contrary

(above).

Then Hart cites Melville's story of Ishmael joining in Queequeg's

idolatry, Ishmael using a dubious theological rationale. His application:

Now some may object that this quotation from Melville raises the stakes way too high. After all we are only talking about using charismatic

forms in worship, hardly the stuff of idolatry. Still, we have two

separate ideas that become blurred in current worship debates. They are

1) the introduction of charismatic worship; 2) to reach the unchurched.

On point one I would argue that false worship is idolatrous; that's what

idolatry means.

But surely Hart needs to argue the premise that using some (not

all!) elements of charismatic worship constitutes idolatry. Here's how he

tries to do it:

Presbyterians have worshiped historically a certain way

To please God and because to veer from that pattern is idolatry.

And I have given many reasons for rejecting the notion that any

departure from Presbyterian tradition is idolatry. The notion that

traditional Presbyterian liturgy is the only way to avoid idolatry seems to

me to be the worst kind of sectarianism.

And for reasons I gave in my last answer about the nature of rock music (aside from the erroneous theology of the charismatic movement) Presbyterians should not worship as charismatics do. (And I wish that people could see that

As critical as I am of charismatic worship I am at least paying it the

Respect of trying to recognize it for what it is, that is, a tradition that has

Its own integrity and norms; far more disrespectful it seems to me is to

recognize those differences and then say that there is really no

difference between Presbyterians and charismatics, at least at worship; that

strikes me as condescending).

Here, and in his answer to my fourth question, Hart does what I

criticized Wells for doing in my Biblicism paper. In fact, Hart is a much

better example of this tendency than Wells is. He identifies a historical

movement (rock music) that has a lot of evil in it, and then concludes that

anything genetically related to that movement (praise choruses) are sinful.

That, of course, is what logicians call the "genetic fallacy." It says that

B is bad because it comes historically out of A which is bad.

Then Hart, like Wells, develops a Christian alternative, not by

biblical exegesis, but (1) by postulating something opposite to the

cultural movement of which he disapproves. This is theology by a via

negativa. And also (2) by requiring us all to accept uncritically a

historical tradition that he approves of. You see how dangerous it is for

historians to write theology! Often, the best they can do is to point out

historical movements they think are bad and contrast them with historical

movements they think are good. But where does the Bible enter in? Sola

Scriptura gets lost in the historical shuffle.

Now I did my duty in the CWM book by conceding that there is an

element of "soft rock" in the historical ancestry of praise songs. (I also

cited other elements.) But Hart's argument is like saying that because one

of my great-grandfathers was a horse thief, I must be one too.

To be honest, I never think of rock and roll when I hear most

praise choruses (and I did listen to rock in the '60s and '70s). Think of

"Seek Ye First" or Kendrick's "Amazing Love," arranged as they are on the

Maranatha disks. They have a modern feel about them, to be sure, but there

is no heavy beat, and the words set forth God's truth. If I heard these

songs for the first time, even without the words, it would never occur to

me that there was any "rock" in their ancestry, let alone in their actual

nature.

Now people may differ on this. Bill Edgar says he cannot hear hymn

arrangements of Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" without thinking of Schiller's

pagan poem, which Beethoven used with the tune. Bill is probably more

sensitive to cultural connections than I am. But I don't think many people

make that kind of connection, and I think even fewer of them take note of

the rock connection with praise songs.

I really think it is wrong to make these decisions on the basis of

broad generalities about cultural trends, rather than by looking at the

specific songs. As I listen to "Amazing Love," what I hear is a wonderful

praise to God in Christ. Looking at that song, by itself, just as it is, I

don't see why anyone would have a problem with its use in worship. It

measures up to all biblical standards: it is theologically right, musically

excellent, and deeply moving. It's a little "different," because it uses

some contemporary harmonies and rhythms. But hymnody has always used

contemporary devices. Certainly I am not going to stop using the song

because somebody finds a remote historical link with some bad cultural

movement.

Just about every style of hymnody has been used in the secular

world, and the secular counterparts express the sin of the fallen world.

The four part harmony that we today consider "dignified" and "churchy" has

in the past been used for bawdy songs, secular cantatas, operas, and so on.

To find a musical form with mostly religious associations, we would have to

go back to Gregorian Chant. But chanting of this sort is found in various

religions other than Christianity, and today most people associate it with

Roman Catholicism.

By the way, the original settings of Lutheran Chorales and "Geneva

Jigs" were lively and rather jazzy.

But, by another sleight of hand Presbyterians are now

Worshiping like charismatics in order to attract the unchurched. As Frame writes

In WST, "we determined on a style of ministry that we believe was

scriptural, but more intelligible (1 Cor 14, again!) [his exclamation not mine] to

those we wanted to REACH WITH THE GOSPEL" [caps mine].<

Sorry, but I still think that intelligibility is a central concern

of 1 Cor. 14, which is the most extensive treatment of NT worship in

Scripture. I don't see what is so damnable about the statement Hart quotes.

So the comparison with Queequeg is not all that much of a reach. In order to reach outsiders we change our worship.

Another example of Hart's failure to make important qualifications.

"We change our worship" makes it sound as though we are violating

everything the Bible says about worship. In fact, what I advocate are only

accommodations of form in areas where Scripture allows them. Again,

Scripture does not require us to do everything as the 17th century Puritans

did.

And as I have argued those changes in worship

depart from Reformed teaching about and practice of worship. And I believe

such departures are serious because worship is serious.

Again, Hart assumes some things I don't assume about the authority

of the historical tradition.

Now I want to maintain that worship should be

intelligible. For me that means it is in a known tongue, not that it is necessarily easy to understand. Here I am reminded of Warfield's remark in a little essay

on theological education: "the loving lisp of the name of Jesus by the lips

of a child may carry far. But that is no reason why we should man our

pulpits with children lisping the name of Jesus." About as good an argument I

can think of for continuing the Presbyterian pattern of worship that gives

people meat rather than simplifying our worship so that it ends up

being a steady diet of milk. In fact, in Frame's argument for intelligibility

in both books I am not sure why he continues to use the Bible in worship

since it is a book written many years ago and is hard to understand. But if

we can make an exception for the Bible, then we can also make exceptions

for the word of God preached, for prayer, and for song (especially psalms).

Notice that Hart criticizes my argument for intelligibility without

once referring to 1 Cor. 14. He also ignores my qualifications on the

principle of intelligibility. I do not say that everything in worship must

be intelligible to everybody. In fact I deny that. I say, rather, that

every service should include something genuinely edifying to everybody,

whether they are unbelievers, children, or mature adults. See CWM, 17ff.

I also want to make clear, however, that intelligibility only

applies to God's people since worship is for God's people only (only

they, in union with Christ, may ascend the holy hill).

Only believers truly worship God, and certainly NT worship is

primarily for believers. But 1 Cor. 14: 24f does speak of the possible

presence of unbelievers in the worship service, and it commands the church

to take that fact into account in their decisions about worship.

In other words,

intelligibility has to be understood in the context of the antithesis

that exists between the church and the world at all times but especially in

worship. So by intelligibility I mean we need to do more instruction

about worship so that people can participate in it more meaningfully. We need

to keep the standards high, smarten God's people up so that they know what

it means to "raise my Ebenezer" rather than dumbing down our worship by

removing such references because they aren't understood by all.

Maturity in the faith, therefore, is a higher priority than intelligibility (as

in reaching people where they are). Our commitment to intelligibility

should only mean that we educate people about worship, how they do it,

and what happens in it.

What Scripture proof does Hart have of this principle? Certainly

this is not Paul's point in 1 Cor. 14. And we do have biblical examples of

God reaching down to simple people to speak to them on their level. Think

of Psalms 23, 117, and 131. Certainly there is no biblical principle that

requires worship to be as intellectually demanding as possible. But that is

what H. seems to be telling us.

Still, intelligibility does not apply to the unchurched because

worship is not evangelism.

I have given reason to question this premise.

We need to remember how evangelicals have

stripped the Great Commission of all its force. We are to disciple the

nations by teaching EVERYTHING Christ has commanded. This is a strong

argument to me for continuing the worship practices of the Reformed

tradition. We believe our theology reflects the whole counsel of God.

Our worship, that reflects our theology, should not be vulgarized in order

To make it conform to what people already understand. We need to disciple

So that people will understand why worshiping the Reformed way is to follow

our Lord's commands. In other words, the Great Commission isn't a

rationale for making worship seeker sensitive. In fact, since corporate

worship is the only time when the whole congregation gathers the

argument should be that the service is necessarily geared to believers and toward

their growth in grace, not as a device to attract outsiders.

I agree that there should be something in worship to challenge

mature believers. But I don't think that everything in worship should be

geared to them. Indeed, if we are going to "educate people about worship,"

as Hart wishes, we will have to do our educating in a language that the

students already know. But I have discussed all that in detail in the CWM

book. Hart, here and elsewhere, just ignores all my detailed discussions

and qualifications, and charges me with holding a simplistic position.

That's not fair debate.

Evangelistic services are good and appropriate. But they are not a substitute for worship. And of course outsiders may come to worship but we should

never expect them to feel comfortable nor should we design worship so they

won't feel out of place. So again, the argument for intelligibility is used

to do more than it really can.<

See above comments.

SO HERE IS MY QUESTION -- since intelligibility can't govern

everything (it doesn't govern the unchurched's ability to understand the

Bible)

Yes it does. In 1 Cor. 14:24-25.

how useful is this notion of intelligibility for understanding

worship? Why should it receive as much play as it does in Frame's

writing about worship?

Because, again, it is central to 1 Cor. 14, which is central to the

NT doctrine of worship. Beyond that we can see through both testaments

God's willingness to lisp to us, to speak our language, to condescend to

our weakness, to call the little ones to his arms. We can do no less with

those who attend our services.

By turning worship into evangelism don't we misapply

biblical texts and end up moving precisely in the direction of Ishmael

and Queequeg?

No. (See above.)

(And I would ask that Prof. Frame go somewhere else in the

Bible other than 1 Cor. 14,

I have mentioned some other biblical considerations. But 1 Cor. 14

is important to NT worship, and I don't see why I should avoid it.

in part because vs 35 there suggests that worship

was not intelligible to the wives who had to ask their husbands at home for

clarification,

I mention this on p. 17 of CWM. Again, Hart ignores my

qualifications and assumes that I am teaching a more simplistic position

than I do. Simplifying my position like this makes me easier to criticize,

but it isn't worthy of a serious discussion among Christians.

and also because of the Reformed hermeneutic, taught in

WCF 1.ix, that we go to clearer passages to interpret less clear ones. Even though 1 Cor. 14 talks about worship, it is a much controverted passage

And needs to be understood in the light of those passages, commonly cited in defense of the RPW, that teach much more clearly about worship.)

I simply disagree. I don't see how you can avoid the emphasis on

intelligibility in 1 Cor. 14. In this respect, it IS a clear passage, the

central one on NT worship. (I grant there are a few references that we

don't understand today.) It should therefore govern our interpretation of

less clear passages. As for the "passages commonly cited in defense of the

RPW," I discussed those earlier in the debate and indicated my agreement

with the RPW as expressed there. We should worship only according to God's

revealed will. I don't see how this is inconsistent with my use of 1 Cor.

14. Hart and I are here debating what God's revealed will says.

Frame’s Fifth Question to Hart

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 00:19:35 -0500

My condolences and prayers go out to the families of the two

students who were killed. May God fill them with the comforts of Jesus and

the assurance of the Resurrection. These brothers are hearing the Lord's

"Well done."

My question to Hart:

Hart has said that the traditional Presbyterian "forms" are

mandated by the RPW which, we agree, means that they are commanded by

Scripture. Where does Scripture specifically command the use of Calvin's

liturgy?

Now Hart may want to claim here that Scripture does not

specifically command Calvin's liturgy, but that it does set forth a broader

principle which requires us to use forms akin to Calvin's, but not akin to

typical Anglican, Baptist, or Charismatic forms. OK. Then where can we find

this in the Bible?

Hart’s Answer to Frame’s Fifth Question

Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 21:16:43 -0500

Where do we find the Genevan liturgy in the Bible? Since the latter was

written some 1500 years prior to the former, I might, historically

speaking, have a problem with this one. That is, if I were a biblicist.

But if we look at Calvin's liturgy, lo and behold, what we find

are all of the elements that God has appointed in his word for corporate

worship. Those things are prayer, the word read and preached, song, and

the sacraments. But where do these parts of worship come from in the

Bible? Handy thing, the standards are, with those proof texts. Phil 4:6

covers prayer, as does most of the Bible. Acts 15:21 gives us the reading

of the word; 2 Tim 4:2 preaching; Col 3:16 and Eph 5:19 singing; Acts 2:41

baptism; and Acts 2:42 the Lord's Supper. These are the regular elements

of Christian worship. They are not distinctive to Presbyterians. But the

way Presbyterians practice them is different. As I have said before, Rome

did all of these things but the Reformers still thought worship with these

elements could be idolatrous. I do fear what they would make of dance,

drama, and levity.

Once having arrived at the elements of worship we need to decide

how to order them. That could be done alphabetically, randomly or on the

basis of patterns that seem to fit our theology. Here I think Terry

Johnson's (see the next Westminster Theological Journal) suggestions about a cycle of

praise, confession and pardon, means of grace, and thanksgiving fits well

with our theology. But the Reformed have historically shied away from a

set liturgy required in all congregations (see the Westminster Directory as

well as the CRC's 1968 report on liturgy). No set order is prescribed in

the Bible and I doubt that even Prof. Frame's method of Sola Scriptura will

determine New Life Escondido's order of service. In fact, the Puritan RPW

is partly responsible for giving sessions leeway to order their services,

the selection of texts, psalms, prayers, and forms for the sacraments. So

Calvin's order of service is biblical, I would argue, to the same degree

that a sermon on John 1:-14 is faithful to God's inspired word. The Bible

does not teach the outline preachers should follow in the construction of

their sermons. But we do have ways of discerning when an outline is more

or less biblical.

Once we have the elements and the order we need to decide what

forms we will use. We will pray, but which prayer, the Lord's, Mary's,

John Knox's (he did write a book of common prayer, as I understand it), or

one prepared by the pastor. We will sing, but what song? And so on. But

as I have argued one very important piece of Presbyterian forms is

reverence. As I understand it, New Life Escondido and St. Peter's Geneva

differ very little when it comes to the elements, unless the former has

begun to use dance or drama. New Life, I would argue, with its use of so

many songs is not as theologically rich as Calvin's liturgy. But I will

readily concede that the service Prof. Frame describes at the end of WST

has most of the elements of Christian worship.

But that is not saying a whole lot. The mass and the services at

Calvary Chapel have most of the same elements as well. What the latter

lacks, however, is reverence. What the former lacks is simplicity (though

the ornateness of the mass is in part an effort to display reverence). So

the way we conduct a service is very important for setting the tone, or

determining whether our worship is reverent or irreverent. Liturgical

forms matter. So we need to ask what forms fit the theology that we think

is the "system of doctrine" taught by the Bible. Will any Christian form

do? One from Rome, or Constantinople or Barrington, IL (the home of Willow

Creek Community Church)? Or might we Presbyterians have some brand

loyalty? Might we give the benefit of doubt to our forefathers in the

faith and use their forms, their order of worship, and their stress upon

the dignity, sobriety, and reverence of worship. Here I should say what

should not be necessary to say. By using forms and an order of worship

that reveals reverence we are in no way guaranteeing that the people in the

pews will worship reverently. But we are giving them a better chance than

by using forms that connote informality, casualness and celebration (as our

culture, whose morality most conservative Protestants lament, expresses

celebration), connotations that I believe are blasphemous and therefore

idolatrous. The Shorter Catechism says that the preface to the Lord's

prayer teaches that we should draw near to God with holy reverence and

confidence as children to a father. Reverence and fear are not

incompatible with joy or boldness, or with addressing our God as father,

even though our culture regards such reverence and fear as forced,

confining, uptight and lacking in joy.

What role does intelligibility play in our liturgy? What role did

it play in Calvin's Geneva? I would argue very little beyond that the forms

should be in a known language. Frame says that I cannot ignore the

importance of 1 Cor 14 or the example of Jesus welcoming publicans and

sinners (though I am not sure the latter is a text describing or

contemplating public worship, that is, the sacred assembly). But I counter

that he ignores our Lord's example in John 6 where Jesus gives his

disciples hard sayings that were difficult to hear, only to be followed a

rebuke from the Lord and the numerical decline of his followers. Nor does

Frame seem to factor in such instruction as Paul's in 1 Cor 3 about the

distinction between meat and milk, with the clear implication that the

former is preferable to the latter. At the same time I am compelled by

passages like Titus 2 with its stress upon moderation, reverence and

discipline being the forms of living that are fitting sound doctrine, a

passage with important implications for worship that is also fitting sound

doctrine, that is, worship that shows a similar moderation, reverence and

discipline (not the kind of virtues usually associated with rock music,

soft or otherwise). If Frame thinks I am simplistic he might ponder his

habit of letting 1 Cor 14 trump most other worship texts (a passage, I will

state again, that has a lack of intelligibility smack dab in the middle of

it -- verse 35). That is why I say the Reformed method of interpreting

Scripture (actually, not I but the Divines) is to let clear passages

interpret less clear ones. Which is only to suggest that Frame's argument

for intelligibility as a guiding principle of worship is not as simple as

he lets on. (I might also add that simple distinctions are by no means a

vice, especially when in Prof. Frame's hands, for example, an argument for

drama comes from an argument for preaching [WST, 93] or an apparent

prohibition of humor turns humor into a means for building "unity of the

body of Christ" [WST, 83].)

Hart’s Fifth Question to Frame

Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 21:17:59 -0500

This is the last question of the debate between Prof. Frame and me.

Tomorrow marks fourteen days of questions and answers. As I understand it,

after he responds to the following (I ask the last question because he

asked the first) we will make closing statements and then field questions

from the subscription list (sorry Andy if I have stepped on your

moderatorial toes).

My two-part question is this: why not use Calvin's liturgy? If it is

biblical, as I think it is, then why change? Or more generally, if

biblical truths transcend time and place, so should biblical worship.

What's wrong with using 16th and 17th-century liturgies in the 20th

century? Are they defective? Are they unbiblical?

The flip side of this question is where in the Bible do we find a text

telling us that "soft rock" music is an appropriate form of song for

singing in worship? If the early church could detect idolatry in so many

of the cultural forms of the Roman Empire, why is our culture (one that has

legalized the slaughter of innocents as part of the sexual revolution for

which rock music was an icon) not equally tainted with musical idioms that

are inappropriate if not blasphemous in Christian worship? And if we know

from Jay Adams and the Nouthetic Counseling folk about all of the ways in

which idolatry creeps into human behavior, thought, and emotions, why

should we not think that idolatry is just as likely to surface in our

worship or justifications for it?

Frame’s Answer to Hart’s Fifth Question

Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 16:34:53 -0500

My last answer; closing statement to follow.

My two-part question is this: why not use Calvin's liturgy? If it is

biblical, as I think it is, then why change? Or more generally, if

biblical truths transcend time and place, so should biblical worship.

First, with regard to the "elements," or the things done in

worship, I think Calvin is pretty good. His liturgy in this respect is not

much different from most of the liturgies in the history of the church, or,

as Hart points out, from that of New Life Escondido.

In WST (56ff) my own list of worship activities contains some

things that may be done in worship that are not found in Calvin's liturgy:

announcements of church discipline (1 Cor. 5:4-5) and expressions of

fellowship (agape, holy kiss, acknowledgement of members who have made

special contributions to the ministry, etc.). The former was probably done

in Geneva, though not, of course, as a regular item. I don't know about the

latter.

As Hart indicates, I am willing to explore questions about dance

and drama, though these are not part of worship at New Life. I do not

consider these to be distinguishable "elements" of worship in the Puritan

sense. If they are appropriate (and I am not actually settled on this

question), they are ways of doing traditional things: drama is a form of

teaching, dance a form of praise. Certainly these did not take place in

Geneva, but dance as worship is mentioned a number of times in Scripture,

and I believe we have to ask whether monologue (as opposed to such things

as dialogue and drama) is a necessary form of preaching.

Why change at all? Because we want to keep exploring what Scripture

requires in order to be true to the RPW, which is both Scriptural and

traditional. If Scripture authorizes change, we'd better change. If

Scripture allows various ways of doing certain things, then we ought to

think about how we can use that freedom better to achieve the purposes of

worship.

Second, with regard to the order of events: Traditional Reformed

worship begins with confession of sin and assurance of pardon. This is an

important aspect of worship, but I'm not convinced from Scripture that it

must always be first. NT worship is celebration of the Resurrection, and

therefore presupposes that in the most important sense our sins are already

forgiven.

Further, I think that Scripture does not require us to use the same

order every week. There are other orders which have a Scriptural logic to

them, and which may bring out other biblical emphases. Doing it the same

way every week may be wearisome to the congregation and therefore less

edifying than varied orders.

Third, with regard to emphasis. The New Life service includes more

singing than Calvin's liturgy. I have felt that the congregation's sense

that we are gathered to praise God needs some time to sink in. That may be

a cultural difference between our time and Calvin's. But I see nothing in

Scripture that requires me to limit singing to two or three hymns. I

believe that long periods of praise can be highly edifying to God's people,

and when you consider the length of some of the Psalms, there is certainly

biblical precedent for this.

Fourth, with regard to tone. Hart opposes my emphasis on

"celebration," but it is plainly present in the Psalms, and it is implicit

in the fact that NT worship memorializes the Resurrection. Certainly the

elements of reverence and awe should also be there. Since Hart believes joy

to be appropriate, both he and I must think about how joy and reverence are

to be kept in balance. And, equally important, we must ask how that balance

can be expressed, so that the congregation, not only the leaders, are

reverently joyful. And, just as we must distinguish real joy from

superficial smiles, we must distinguish reverence from sourpuss sanctimony.

In my opinion, if we simply reproduce Calvin's service (in English,

of course) in twentieth-century America, the joy of it will not be

effectively communicated to the congregation as a whole (all maturity

levels). I think extra efforts are necessary on the celebration-joyfulness

side. That's another reason for having longer periods for singing praise.

So another reason for change is that like all language, the

"language of worship" changes. We don't usually read the King James Bible

any more; certainly we do not preach in King James English. Symbols do lose

meaning or change meanings over the years, and we must be alert to that in

worship. The Reformers themselves insisted on the vernacular, so they knew

the importance of an understandable language. Hart says that "biblical

truths transcend time and place." Sure, but the language needed to convey

those truths changes a lot from generation to generation.

But of course words are not the only things in worship that have

symbolic value and meaning. The order of events, as Calvin and Hart

understand, carries meaning. So does the time allocated to song, preaching,

prayer, etc. So we may have to change the order, or the emphasis, in order

to convey the same meanings, and the same quality of edification, that the

Reformers conveyed in their time.

What's wrong with using 16th and 17th-century liturgies in the

20^th century? Are they defective? Are they unbiblical?

1. The activities specified in the liturgies are biblical.

2. But it is possible that there are other biblical worship

activities not mentioned in these liturgies, which as biblical Christians

we should be free to do.

3. And there are ways of performing the actions of the Reformed

liturgies which were not done 350 years ago, but which are biblically

legitimate.

4. And we should be doing some things differently because the

language of edification has changed somewhat between the Reformation period

and our own time.

The flip side of this question is where in the Bible do we find a

text telling us that "soft rock" music is an appropriate form of song for

singing in worship? If the early church could detect idolatry in so many

of the cultural forms of the Roman Empire, why is our culture (one that has

legalized the slaughter of innocents as part of the sexual revolution for

which rock music was an icon) not equally tainted with musical idioms that

are inappropriate if not blasphemous in Christian worship? And if we know

from Jay Adams and the Nouthetic Counseling folk about all of the ways in

which idolatry creeps into human behavior, thought, and emotions, why

should we not think that idolatry is just as likely to surface in our

worship or justifications for it?

Obviously there is no single text saying that "soft rock" is

appropriate, any more than there is such a text for any other style of

music. The biblical principle is simply that music should be appropriate

for worship, and we have to make that judgment, based on our knowledge of

Scripture and our knowledge of music.

We always have to be on the watch for idolatry. Idolatry takes many

forms, among them an uncritical adulation of the past. The RPW in Scripture

functions to set God's people free from mere human tradition (Isa. 29:13,

Matt. 15:8, 9). The Pharisees, by absolutizing their tradition over against

God's Word, were therefore guilty of violating the second commandment,

guilty of idolatry.

I am certainly aware that idolatry can also exist in my own

thinking about worship. If anybody can show me that one of the contemporary

songs we sing is tainted by inappropriate or blasphemous musical idioms,

I'm certainly willing to consider the argument, and, if I am persuaded, I

will no longer use the song in worship. But that argument must be made with

regard to particular songs. I will not accept the proposition that the

whole genre of praise songs is tainted by the influence of secular music.

That is genetic fallacy reasoning, as I indicated in my last exchange with

Hart, and I will not allow that kind of argument to deprive me of a

resource which God can use to edify my congregation.

In fact, I see very little taint in praise songs. Certainly no more

than has historically attached to four-part hymnody. For more argument on

this, please read my CWM book.

Hart’s Closing Statement

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 17:11:16 -0500

I hope it is not a contested assertion to say that worship reflects

theology. Our understanding of the God in whose presence we assemble will

color what we do in that sacred assembly. Here I believe that Reformed

worship best embodies the kind of encounter between God and man that we

find at the end of the book of Job. In its stress upon divine sovereignty

and man's utter dependence upon God, the Reformed tradition has captured

best what God says to Job, "who then is he that can stand before me? Who

has given to me, that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole

heaven is mine" (41:10-11) and in return Job's proper response to this

great and mighty sovereign, "I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear,

but now my eye sees thee; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust

and ashes" (42:5-6). Reformed theology is premised upon this radical gulf

between a holy and transcendent God and man who stands at the apex of God's

good creation.

When Reformed believers have worshiped, then, they have been guided

historically by the relationship between God and man such as that expressed

in this encounter between God and Job. There is an enormous gulf between

God and his creatures, not simply because of sin, but because God is, in

the language of the Shorter Catechism, a spirit, infinite, eternal and

unchangeable in his being wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and

truth. Man is not on equal footing with God. He comes before God as an

inferior, wholly dependent, and utterly impotent. The fitting way to

approach God is in humility and godly fear.

The RPW, as defined by the Westminster Divines, is a good and

necessary consequence of the Reformed tradition's understanding of God and

man, not to mention a Reformed hermeneutic. Man cannot please God on his

own. He must go to the Bible to see how God desires to be worshiped. And

what this means is that there are certain elements that are regular parts

of corporate worship and these elements must be conducted in a way that

recognizes the gulf between God and man and what God has done to make it

possible for man to enter God's presence. The RPW and Reformed theology

are like the proverbial hand and glove. If you give up one, you relinquish

the other. A different understanding of divine-human relations yields a

different understanding of worship, while a different conception of worship

means adopting a different conception of the relationship between God and

man.

I believe that true worship, that is, Presbyterian worship (sorry

to sound sectarian), is under attack in conservative Presbyterian circles

on two fronts. The first comes from church planting and home missions

efforts that make worship serve as a form of outreach. Once worship

becomes (even slightly) a means by which we self-consciously recruit new

members our understanding has shifted dramatically from that of Job in

chapter 42. This statement in no way denies that the preaching of the word

becomes an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners. But all

of the literature on contemporary worship that I keep tabs on emphasizes

music, a casual atmosphere, and such other diversions as drama, dance and

rave masses as means to attract the unchurched. The stress overwhelmingly

is on intelligibility. But there may be a biblical form of intelligibility

that is unpleasant to unbelievers, that makes them feel uncomfortable, such

as Jesus' interaction with his disciples in John 6. Our Lord in this

passage was intelligible the disciples could understand his words, but the

meaning and binding address of those words made them unacceptable.

The second form of attack comes from the common distinction in

Presbyterian circles between form and content. We have been so good

(relatively) at keeping our theology pure and our Bibles inerrant that we

have forgotten about the practice of the faith, especially the one sacred

practice that orders our week, namely, corporate worship. As I have tried

to argue at several points in this debate, forms are not indifferent. For

instance, we cannot package the dramatic encounter between God and Job in a

sit-com. Nor can soft rock music appropriately carry the weight of the

burning bush. As the writer to the Hebrews says, our God is still a

consuming fire, even in the wake of Jesus' better covenant. This means

that our posture in worship should not be like Yul Brynner's in The King

and I, bare breasted, hands on hips, and feet apart in effect, saying "look

at me." Nor should it be the casual pose of sitting in the barcalounger

with feet up and Styrofoam cup of coffee in hand in effect saying "dude!"

Instead, our posture should be like that of the angels and elders in

Revelation 7 who "fell on their faces before the throne of God" (v. 11).

This doesn't mean that we may not enter confidently into the holy of

holies. Because of Christ we are able to go boldly where only Israel's

high priests went before. But when we get there, we must know that our

response will be one of self-abasement. And again, I believe the RPW best

preserves this reverential character of worship while also guarding and

defending the proper elements of worship. In other words, it preserves

(but does not guarantee) worship that is acceptable to God.

A word also needs to be said about joy. Prof. Frame emphasizes it,

and I stress reverence, as if the two are mutually exclusive. But I would

argue that Prof. Frame's emphasis is one-sided, and that even though he

talks about reverence he hasn't explained how the "rejoice" texts of the

Bible he cites square with all of those biblical texts, like Psalm 2:11

that say we should rejoice with trembling. In other words, there are

reverent ways to express joy. But by making joy and reverence two

different things we might be tempted to think that the elders who fall face

down before God in glory are unhappy, that is, not rejoicing. I would

argue instead that those elders are joyful and part of the way they are

expressing their joy is through their utter self-abasement. So saying that

we need to rejoice in worship doesn't solve the matter of what form our joy

takes.

Prof. Frame is by no means guilty of all the excesses that go

under the name "contemporary worship.” But his books do open the door, in

my opinion. As he explains in the introduction to WST, he writes for those

Presbyterians who worship with guilty consciences, who recognize that they

are not worshiping as the Puritans worshiped but who still adhere to

Puritan theology. I don't know how this separation is possible. I have

tried to argue that it is theologically, intellectually and historically

impossible. By saying that dance, drama and humor MAY be used in worship,

Frame technically violates the heart of the RPW. Either the Bible commands

a specific element or practice, or it doesn't. According to the RPW, if it

doesn't we may not do it. But aside from this technical reading of the

RPW's intent, even worse is the idea that I find implicit in Frame's books,

namely, that God will accept most of what we do as long as we are doing it

with the right motives. To me this nurtures the idea that God is not

zealous for his worship and that we may be more casual in our observance.

God's jealousy for his worship, I believe, is what the RPW protected so well.

In other words, I believe Frame wants it both ways. He wants to

worship like a charismatic (again, New Life Escondido sounds more like

Calvary Chapel than Geneva) but wants the blessing of being a good

Presbyterian. Would he allow the same inconsistency in apologetics? If

R.C. Sproul practiced evidential apologetics but claimed to be a

presuppositionalist would Frame let that claim go? Yet, this analogy

reveals a dynamic that has been lurking around our debate about worship. On

the one hand, it suggests that there is a wrong (of false, as I learned it

at WTS) way of doing apologetics, one that conflicts with our theology,

with our confession of God's sovereignty and human depravity. On the other

hand, the parallel I am making with apologetics also teaches that forms

matter. What Sproul is doing is apologetics; he is defending the faith.

But he is using the wrong form of argument, according to

presuppositionalism, one that contradicts his Reformed profession. This

analogy, applied to worship, means that there can be false worship even

when done by people with good theology. It also suggests that if there are

Reformed forms for apologetics (i.e. presuppositionalism) why not Reformed

forms for worship? In the same way that we need to recognize that what

Sproul is doing is a form of Christian apologetics, we also need to

recognize that the Roman Catholic mass, the charismatic P&W service and

Reformed liturgy are all forms of Christian worship. They all use the same

elements (i.e. the word, sacraments, prayer, and song). But just because

someone uses a Christian form of worship doesn't mean it is true worship,

any more than someone who uses a Christian form of apologetics (one

practiced by Christians throughout the ages) is necessarily using the true

argument.

But why, someone might ask, is historic Reformed worship so

difficult and so unappealing? If one is starting a church plant, Reformed

liturgy as practiced by Calvin and the Puritans is hardly something to

bring in the crowds. At the same time, believers who know little of

Reformed theology may find little in Reformed worship that is immediately

edifying. Here we might want to learn a few things from the social and

cultural critics. Rather than regarding contemporary worship music (CWM)

or the movements that produced them as the work of the Holy Spirit, that

is, as revivals as Frame does (WST, 115ff; CWM 5ff) we might plausibly

interpret them as the work of the spirit of the age. The English

sociologist, David Martin, argues in a book on contemporary Pentecostalism

(Tongues of Fire) that Wesleyan Arminianism has defined the cultural ethos

of the United States since 1800. One way of seeing this is to observe how

Americans insist on "sincerity and openness rather than on form and

privacy." For this reason, he says that the "whole American style was, and

is, Methodist' in its emphases, whereas in England the culturally

prestigious style remained Anglican." Of course, Martin is only a

sociologist, not an inspired author of Holy Writ. But if he is right, might

not our expectations be for forms of worship that stress sincerity and

openness to be more appealing to all Americans (Reformed or not) rather

than the formal and reverent kind of Calvin's Geneva? In other words,

David Wells, whom Frame too quickly dismisses, may be right to argue that

contemporary evangelicalism reveals much more about modernity than it does

about biblical religion. Charismatic worship may be more appealing because

it fits the cultural ethos more than because it demonstrates the power of

the Holy Spirit. Which is why the work of historians, sociologists and

cultural critics, the folks whom Wells reads and cites, is so valuable for

the church in her work of testing the spirits. Which is also why Frame's

defense of biblicism can produce a lack of discernment both about the

culture and about how it shapes religious expression. (Another argument on

behalf of the impossibility of separating form and content, by the way.)

If I have been guilty of rhetorical excess in these debates it

stems in part from how serious an issue I think worship is for the church

and how much harm I believe Prof. Frame is doing in his books. Practically

every time God punished Israel it was for idolatry and blasphemy. Also,

though my tone has been provocative, I am not entirely sure it is fitting

for Frame to claim he is a victim of unfair debating techniques or

rhetorical bombshells when those whom he has criticized may think he is not

above using them. It would seem to me that the more everyone in the church

recognizes that almost all ideas are contested then we won't be surprised

to hear that others disagree. This recognition might also make us more

cautious in what we say. Finally, Prof. Frame's penchant for citing his

own arguments to illuminate a particular point can be a frustration because

it is precisely his books that have, at least in my mind, raised questions

and provoked objections. Repeating the points of those books only raises

the same questions and provokes the same objections. It seems to me it

would have been preferable for Frame to use this occasion to explain more

fully what he meant in his books rather than appealing to them to settle

debate.

Still, Prof. Frame and the "audience" may think I have been

judgmental. I would only say in response that judgment is integral to the

existence of moral communities. Moral communities, like churches or

theological traditions always have to decide what is and what is not

acceptable. To neglect this task is to give up the possibility of saying

defining anything. Our Lord warned that we should not judge lest we be

judged. But I don't think I am guilty of judging in this sense. I want to

be judged by the same standards by which I am judging Prof. Frame, that is,

on the basis of a theological tradition that has stood the test of time

and, more importantly, that has better than any other Christian tradition

given all glory and honor to God. I do so not simply because I want to be

right, but also so that this generation and generations to come can say, as

Dr. Machen did, "isn't the Reformed Faith grand!"

Nevertheless, I am grateful to Prof. Frame for engaging in this

debate. I have learned several things through it. I hope the readers have

found it beneficial. (Don't worry Andrew; this is not goodbye. I am

sticking around for the questions.)

Frame’s Closing Statement

Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 16:37:11 -0500

We were asked how we would go about defining the Regulative

Principle of Worship. I distinguished between two kinds of definition:

confessional-historical and biblical-normative. The confessional-historical

would be determined by a study of the Reformed confessions and the Reformed

theologians of the 16th and 17th centuries. The biblical-normative

definition would arise from Scripture alone.

Hart's first statement of the matter seemed to deny this

distinction altogether, to suggest that there could be no difference

between the historical and the biblical definitions of the term. On further

reflection, however, he agreed that the Reformed confessions and tradition

could err, but we should never conclude such a thing without going through

great agony, similar to the agony Luther went through when he found himself

in conflict with the teaching of the Church of Rome. So horrifying is this

prospect for Hart that throughout this dialogue he has, for practical

purposes, assumed that both the confessions and the tradition contain no

error at all, and that we must adhere to them in every detail. He evidently

believes that an error in the tradition is so unlikely, and the very

possibility so terrifying, that we must adopt a rhetoric that denies that

possibility, even though he knows that possibility exists. Even when we go

behind the tradition to look at Scripture, he says, we must have a "bias"

which is almost a "presupposition" in favor of the tradition. On his view,

we must read the Bible the way the tradition does, which of course

practically insulates the tradition from any possible criticism. Any other

methodology is, he thinks, the moral equivalent of modernism.

In my view this does only lip-service to sola Scriptura, which is

just as fundamental to Reformed theology as the RPW. Indeed, the RPW is

the principle of sola Scriptura, applied to worship. In Scripture, the RPW

guards against the absolutization of tradition (Isa. 29:13, Matt. 15:8-9).

Sola Scriptura, the RPW, and the example of the Reformers, call us to a

respectful, but critical attitude toward tradition, testing it over and

over again by our primary standard, God's Word in Scripture.

Criticism of tradition by Scripture is the regular work of

theology. It is not an act into which we are forced only in extreme

emergency and with the greatest terror. It is rather what God expects of

everyone who is called to teach in his church.

I am not horrified at the prospect of disagreeing with Calvin (or

Knox, or Owen, or Gillespie) about something. Calvin, for example, was a

great man of God, doubtless far greater than I. But he was a man and not an

inspired writer of Scripture. Of course he made mistakes, in his life as in

his doctrine. As with Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian,

Augustine, our task is not to accept Calvin's teachings uncritically, but

to test them by Scripture and to build on them.

Fortunately, we don't have to do very much of that in Calvin's

case, as I see it. Luther was faced with the necessity of breaking with the

Church's very doctrine of salvation, and of rejecting the very authority

structure of the church itself. No wonder he was horrified at the prospect!

We don't need to do anything near as radical as that. Maybe a few minor

changes, a few different emphases here and there. Nothing to make us proud,

certainly nothing to make us think that we outshine Calvin in any way. The

fact that we live in a different time doesn't make us better, though it may

sometimes make us more knowledgeable or give us more perspective.

And since worship is communication, among other things, and since

the language of communication changes from one century to the next, we need

to reconsider our tradition also from that standpoint. We should expect to

find that traditions need to change in order better to communicate God's

truth. That is a biblical principle ("intelligibility") and a Reformational

emphasis ("vernacular"). We should not change anything mandated by

Scripture. But where Scripture allows liberty, we should choose forms that

best communicate with people today, even if that means changing our

traditions.

We also, of course, need to criticize our contemporary ideas of

worship. But again I insist that this criticism proceed by means of the

sola Scriptura principle. One may not invalidate some aspect of

contemporary worship merely by showing it is nontraditional. Nor is it

legitimate to reason in a historicist fashion, that a contemporary practice

is bad because genetically linked to some historical movement we don't like

(the charismatic movement, rock music, etc.)

The leadership of the evangelical movement has to some extent

passed from theologians, pastors, and apologists to church historians. The

most prominent names among us today are people like Marsden, Noll, Wells,

Muller, Horton, other ACE-minded folks, and so on. I've even heard the name

of Darryl Hart listed among these worthies. I greatly admire the gifts of

these men, but I do see some dangers in their ascendancy.

Their very ascendancy may have something to do with the fact that

biblical inerrancy, today, is considered a total impossibility by the

secular academic establishment. The secular establishment, therefore, will

not give recognition to evangelicals who point to Scripture and say "thus

saith the Lord." There is no cultural prestige today in making Scriptural

arguments. There is a place for biblical scholarship, but not for scholars

who appeal to the Bible as an absolute norm. But evangelicals can get

recognition from fashionable publishers and universities if they carry on

their arguments in a historical fashion. After all, nobody can blame them

if they happen to like the 17th century better than the 20th. So the

situation generating the ascendancy of historically-minded scholars may

itself presuppose an opposition between exegetical and historical modes of

reasoning that should give us pause.

That, of course, is not in itself a criticism of the historians

mentioned. In itself, a study of church history can be liberating. For some

thinkers it gives perspective and breadth, helping us to see our tradition

in the context of the broad movements of the universal church. The ideas of

historians like Paul Woolley and D. Clair Davis often seemed to me to be a

liberating breath of fresh air. They opened new possibilities for

consideration and sent us scrambling back to the Scriptures to validate or

invalidate them.

For others, the study of history seems to be narrowing. The thinker

zeroes in on some movements he likes and others he doesn't like. The

movements he likes become paradigms of truth; the ones he doesn't like

become paradigms of error. The historian, then, formulates his doctrines

historically rather than exegetically, making them agree with the movements

he likes, and making them the opposite of the movements he doesn't like.

The results: (1) his theology becomes narrowly partisan and ideas from

outside his tradition get summarily dismissed, (2) the nuances and depth of

Scripture are lost in favor of the slogans of the historical movements,

(3) we never learn anything new from God's Word, (4) such theology imposes