Frame, John. Worship in Spirit and Truth.
Caveat: I generally don’t like contemporary worship, so while I might agree with Frame, that doesn’t mean I like modern worship services per se.
The first 40 pages or so is a basic review of Covenantal history. This is familiar topic to most reformed readers, and while quite good, is probably not why people are reading this text. He then analyzes the RPW. He agrees with the claim that worship must be regulated by the Bible, but is concerned that RPW advocates have painted themselves in the corner. Per the RPW, Frame asks
What are these “circumstances” (WCF 21.1)? The Confession doesn’t say, except to note “light of nature.” I’m open to general revelation, and I would agree with the WCF on this point, but general revelation by its very definition resists specificity.
Saying “circumstances” are secular elements (also common to ordinary life–time, place) isn’t quite accurate. Frame notes, “There seem to be some matters in worship which are ‘not common to human actions and societies,” concerning which we must use our judgment (Frame 41; e.g., what precise words to use in our prayers). Prayer is not “common to society,” yet aside from repeating the psalms as prayers (and one could do far worse), it appears that we will have to use our own judgment. Frame scores points here.
Frame suggests we use “application” instead of “circumstance” (41). This avoids the Aristotelianism of earlier language. Can one use the language without adopting the concepts? Probably, but it’s hard and eventually something must change. I understand the Aristotelian distinction between substance and accidents, but when applied to worship we really don’t see the Bible using that approach.
Regarding Nadab and Abihu, Frame is correct to point out that this verse does not teach “What is not commanded is forbidden,” but “what is explicitly forbidden is forbidden.” Nadab and Abihu did not use the right kind of fire. They were doing a forbidden act.
I agree that the Bible regulates our worship. This statement is quite different from the typical RPW claim (see below). We have the premise:
1. We may only perform what Scripture commands.
We must add another premise:
2. In the end God only commands broad generalities (52).
Frame develops (2): Where does Scripture bifurcate worship into elements and circumstances? Scripture (a) nowhere divides worship into independent elements and (b) then brings them together. Which activity is elemental in character and which is simply an application of carrying out certain elements (53).
For example, per the above view, the Scripture prescribes singing psalms, whose content is identified. Scripture also prescribes public prayer and preaching, whose content is not really specified beyond “being biblical,” etc.
The things we do in worship are not always easily separated into elements and circumstances. Singing and teaching are not always distinct. When we sing a hymn, we teach other people (Col. 3:16).
In pp. 56-60 Frame gives his own list of a worship service, which is basically what you will find in any Reformed, non-covenanter service.
The no-instruments Presbyterians say that instruments were tied to the temple worship and were abolished in the death of Christ. Frame responds:
Instruments were not always tied to Temple worship (see Miriam and David in the Tabernacle). Later, they were, and one could argue for progressive revelation, but the point is that they did not always have a Temple-only function (nor did God say that).
Further, we do actions today that were part of Temple worship: we pray in worship; we take oaths in worship; and we teach God’s word, yet none of this was abolished in the death of Christ.
We don’t really see Music in the OT as being set forth to typify the work of Christ.
True, we don’t see music in the synagogues, but we don’t know why so we can’t give a firm reason why not. How can one claim to be no-instruments yet still rely on a pitch pipe?
What about the body?
I can agree with Frame that dancing, clapping, etc is biblical. But there are also other biblical premises: don’t distract others. Let it be done decently and in good order (the OPC theme verse). It’s hard to imagine how one can have “spontaneous dancing and clapping” and not distract others in worship.
Frame doesn’t seem give weight to a particular sequential format of worship. To be fair, Scripture is not explicit on this point, but if there are biblical patterns of God’s redemption, should not our worship incorporate that? Personally, I am undecided on this point, but it is probably not accidental that many Reformed churches have a generally similar sequential order.
On another point, I understand his concerns about needing to express God’s truth in contemporary language, but it’s really hard to separate the medium from the message on this point. Frame acknowledges the point concerning “thrash metal” music in the service (141). Some forms of entertainment are so thoroughly identified with the most degenerate elements of culture that it is not wise to import them.
And Frame is very aware that worship is “not to cater to unbelievers” (146). Being a Christian has a grammar and a way of living. Yes, it should be intelligible to others, but the Christian life is also one of growth and maturity; sometimes it might be legitimate to express worship in a way that adequately corresponds to the richness of God’s redemption. On the other hand, I understand the Puritan desire for simplicity for the sake of not distracting from Chris