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
From: "Andrew J. Webb"
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
20th 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
a bondage to tradition rather than liberation, (5) we lose the flexibility
we need to communicate with our age. More on this in my "Biblicism" paper,
mentioned earlier in the debate.
Hart, unfortunately, seems (in this particular debate) to be more
the second type of historian than the first. But cheer up. There is no
problem in Hart that a good, healthy dose of Sola Scriptura won't cure.
(That, and, of course, a bit more care in logic and in the interpretation
of his opponents' writings.)
Questions From the Warfield List
1. From Peter Leithart to John Frame
John,
Your arguments all seem to come from the New Testament. What role
do Old Testament concepts and patterns of worship play in your theology of
liturgy?
Peter Leithart
Cambridge, UK
Frame’s Answer to Leithart
Early in the debate, Hart and I agreed, more or less, on a group of texts relevant to establishing the Regulative Principle, a number of which are from the OT. I also discuss OT concepts somewhat in my two books.
Obviously there is much to be derived from the OT about the nature of the God we worship, his covenant lordship, which entails our stance as servant-worshipers, our sinful condition, the necessity of worshiping on the basis of atonement, the centrality of forgiveness, the importance of God’s word, the variety of corporate musical responses (the Psalter). The OT also teaches us to worship Christocentrically, for it is focused on the promises of redemption to come. All of this is pretty standard Reformed theology, and I assume that Hart and I are agreed on these matters.
Perhaps your question, however, has to do with the ideas for which Hart has been criticizing me. Can my slightly unusual formulation of the RPW be justified from the OT?
Together with Steve Schlissel, I see a difference between the regulation of the Temple worship and that of the Synagogue. With regard to the Temple, there is a detailed architectural blueprint and much detail about the sacrificial system. We know very precisely what is to happen and when. With the Synagogue, there is almost nothing, except mention of “holy convocations” for God’s people on the Sabbath. Certainly we don’t find in the OT a “list of elements” specifically for inclusion in the Synagogue service. We can gain some general indicators of what God wants his people to do in his presence. Certainly it can be established from the OT that God approves of corporate prayer, teaching, praise, public reading of the Word.
But there are other things as well, like the ladies who danced and played the timbrela in Exodus 15; like the clapping of hands in Ps. 47:1. When I bring these up to my traditionalist friends, they tell me that, of course, these sorts of things are only occasional and are not prescribed for the regular worship of God’s people. But the trouble is that in regard to the Synagogue, nothing is prescribed specifically for its regular worship. Everything done in the Synagogue is based on theological inference, based on the general question, “What pleases God when his people assemble before him?” As an answer to this question, the argument for dancing and timbrels is just as strong as the argument for sermons expounding the Scriptures.
So I think I can appeal to the OT as well as the NT in support of an RPW based on broad theological inference rather than precise specification of “elements” for a particular service. Further, it does not seem to me that the OT limits the feasting of God’s people before the Lord to the feasts specified in Lev. 23. Scripture offers no criticism of the establishment of Purim (Esther). I would take it that the OT sets forth as a general principle that God delights in his people gathering to celebrate his deliverances; but the OT doesn’t teach that God must specify exactly what feasts are to be observed. And there seems to be flexibility, too, as to the time of their observance. (You’re not ceremonially clean to celebrate Passover at the required time? OK; celebrate it at another time, instead.)
So I see God in the OT as one who is zealous for true worship, to be sure (which in the final analysis is worship from a pure heart), and as one who reveals clearly what he delights in, but not as one who precisely describes a particular liturgy for the weekly worship of his people and who excludes everything that escapes that precise description.
So with regard to regulation as such, there isn’t much difference between the Testaments. The main differences have to do with (1) the accomplishment of the Atonement and Resurrection, memorialized in the change of Sabbath day from 7th to 1st, (2) the greater fullness of the Spirit on the NT people of God, (3) the greater boldness of NT worshipers in God’s presence, because of the rending of the veil, (4) the changing of the sacraments from bloody to unbloody ordinances.
There is OT evidence as well for my “intelligibility” emphasis:
(1) OT revelation is progressive. God reveals his plans bit by bit, from the protevangelion of Gen. 3:15 to the rich Christology of Isa. 53. There are many reasons for this, but one is surely pedagogical. The revelation moves from the simple to the complex.
(2) Much of God’s teaching is very simple, though of course profound in its implications. The Ten Commandments, Psms. 23, 117, 131, 133, Micah 6:8. Exciting stories about people like Noah, Samson, David. Repetition. Teaching from various perspectives.
(3) Much OT worship consists of visual symbols as well as word: the colors of the temple. The laver. The altars of burnt offering and incense. The showbread and show-wine. The actions performed in the sacrifices, etc. God accommodates all learning styles. His people hear, sense, watch, and do.
(4) Speech in unknown tongues is a curse against Israel. The blessing comes from language which is intelligible. The clarity of God’s word to Israel is prominent in Deut. 30, e.g. Thus a clear bridge to 1 Cor. 14 and my arguments from that. The Church in Corinth is to hear God’s word in prophecy, not uninterpreted tongues, for that is where God’s blessing (edification!) resides.
I’ve probably left out a lot that is important, but that’s what comes to mind.
2. From Jonathan Barlow to Darryl Hart
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 01:19:06 -0500
Prof. Hart,
How is it not dispensational to only allow the singing of
psalms and not the Colossians hymn or the hymn of the heavenly
host in Revelation 4 and 5? Why isn't all scripture, that praises
God, fair material for singing in a worship context?
Thanks,
Jonathan Barlow
Hart’s Answer to Barlow
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 12:56:42 -0500
This may not be the place to enter an extended debate about exclusive
psalmody. Having grown up a dispensationalist I know that it is very
un-dispensational to sing psalms. Our hymnals seemed to prefer Fanny
Crosby to David. But I do understand the force of the question.
As I think I said in passing during the debate, I do not think the
exegetical case for exclusive psalmody is air-tight. And one of the
reasons is that singing the Magnificat and the Nunc Dimitis, as Calvin's
church did, would not necessarily be included by some psalms-only folk.
But I highly approve of the idea of singing any divinely-inspired words of
praise to God (or even metrical versions thereof). Which is my major
complaint not only against praise songs but also against hymnody. It does
seem that we must make qualitative assessments in thinking about worship.
For me this means that the best songs to sing are the ones God has
inspired. That means all the songs and prayers of praise throughout all of
the canon would be appropriate for corporate worship. (How is that for
biblicism?) The words of Scripture are better than those of Wesley and
Watts, and way better than those of Graham Kendrick or André Crouch. In
fact, my understanding of church history sees a decline in Protestant
congregational singing from the 17th century to the present. For a more
extended discussion of psalmody and hymns I recommend the debate in the
first two issues of the Nicotine Theological Journal.)
So no, I would not limit our words in song to the psalms, but I would limit
them to the words of the Bible. Though this is not an exegetical argument
Instead, it stems from wisdom and prudence leavened by the Word of God and
our theological and liturgical heritage.
3. From Scott Pryor to Frame and Hart
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 13:06:21 -0500
As an attorney I would assess Frame's and Hart's relative regard for tradition
vis-a-vis interpretation of the Bible in terms of differing burdens of proof.
For Frame, the burden of proof on a proponent of change from patterns of
traditional Presbyterian worship is low, analogous to the civil standard of a
mere "preponderance of the evidence". Hart, on the other hand, asserts that
such a proponent must prove his or her case something like "beyond a
reasonable doubt."
From both gentlemen, I ask the following:
1. In light of the principle of sola scriptura, how do either of you justify the
assignment of any weight to tradition?
2. Assuming that you can provide such sola scriptura justification, how
do each of you justify the varying weights of authority you assign to
tradition?
Frame’s Answer to Pryor
I discuss this at some length in my CWM, 132-36. I know Hart doesn’t like me to refer to my books, but I obviously can’t reproduce these four pages here, and I think it might help readers to know where they can find my argument at greater length. I certainly don’t think that my books are the last word on any subject, and if anyone can give me a reason to rethink any of my published ideas, I will be happy to do so.
In general: Scripture tells us that God has given us, not only an inspired book, but also teachers in the church, a continuing teaching office. The teachers are not inspired as Scripture is, but they have an important role, that of teaching the biblical message to God’s people. Even in the NT period, some taught falsely, and we need therefore to be critical of these human teachers, and weigh their words by Scripture itself. But Scripture does tell us to respect our teachers, honor them, pay them for their labor, etc. In general, we should assume their rightness and therefore be in subjection. But they are not infallible. The balance between submission and respectful criticism is not easy, but we must pursue it.
Protestants historically took a position far more critical of tradition than the Roman Catholics. So critical that they spoke of sola Scriptura. But sola, of course, does not reject the idea of subordinate authorities. It only sets Scripture forth as the one ultimate authority.
As for the second question, I can’t argue for a particular weighting in quasi-quantitative terms. It varies a lot from issue to issue and from time to time. Illiterate people who are very young in the faith must give a lot more weight to tradition than mature Christians who are able to study the Bible for themselves. Those who are competent to do so, certainly, ought to test tradition by Scripture, in areas where the tradition may seem questionable.
Of course, in many areas there’s not much point in that. We have a tradition of starting church at 9:30 A. M. I have never searched the Scriptures to determine if the Bible contradicts this practice. I can’t imagine how it would. So often, maybe most of the time, it’s best to just go along with tradition. But where controversies arise, we must go to the Word to determine the answer.
Another area where Hart and I may disagree concerns the question of which tradition takes precedence. Hart believes that for Reformed people, particularly those who have subscribed to the Reformed confessions, the Reformed tradition takes precedence over all others and, perhaps, even governs the way we should read the Bible. Certainly, I believe that the Reformed tradition is the best among the many Christian traditions, and I have, like Hart, a certain level of bias in its favor. But I have a much greater bias toward the tradition of the entire church. My chief loyalty is to the body of Christ as such, not to any denominational section of it. So I am inclined to regard those doctrines held only by the Reformed tradition as somewhat more questionable than those held by the church universal, e.g. the doctrines of the Nicene Creed of 381.
I think, therefore, that we ought to look at non-Reformed traditions more sympathetically than we usually do, to seek insight from those who are, after all, our brothers and sisters in Christ and bearers of the wisdom of God’s Spirit. And I think we ought to see if we can reduce the barriers of misunderstanding caused, among other things, by too-heated polemical language. And the goal should be the reunification of the church. So I try to honor the Bible, the tradition of the universal church, and the Reformed tradition, in that order of authority and importance.
Hart’s Answer to Pryor
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 17:41:40 -0500
Sorry, but these questions have produced a long answer, an answer
that disagrees with the question’s premises, but that because of its length
suggests they are very good and important questions. Or else they touched
a nerve.
Mr. Pryor's questions connote that sola scriptura and tradition are
at odds, as if tradition is a barrier to a proper understanding of the
Bible. This strikes me as a very modern and Enlightened understanding of
tradition (which may explain why Protestants in America embraced the
Enlightenment as much as they did.) But there have been Protestants who
did not see the two as antagonistic. Zacharias Ursinus, one of the authors
of the Heidelberg Catechism, is said to have desired that his catechism be
bound together with the Bible at the front, that church members would know
how to interpret the Bible aright. It also seems that in Presbyterian
ordination vows we have a similar view of the Bible and tradition if we
subscribe to the Westminster Standards as "the system of doctrine" taught
in the Bible. This suggests that the Bible teaches the Westminster
Standards. In other words, systematic theology is not a threat to the
Bible but in fact a defense of it. Creeds and catechisms, as Bavinck
argued, were a way to protect the church from heresy and preserve the truth
of God's word. So we can't put the Bible and tradition in air tight
compartments, opening the lid of the latter only after we have sealed the
lid to the former. For this reason, I believe Mr. Pryor's questions beg
another question about the relationship between the Bible and tradition.
To pose the Bible and tradition as rival authorities is to take a
fairly individualistic and ahistorical view of the ways that individuals
read the Bible. We never come to the Bible in a vacuum, like we are
deserted on some island and find a book that has on the binding, "Holy
Bible." We are not like the abstract individuals of whom Locke and Hobbes
conceived when talking about the origins of law and social contracts. When
we come to the Bible, if we are unbelievers, we come not only as God's
enemies, predisposed to hate what it says. But we come situated in time
and place, with assumptions about how to read (if we are literate, a big if
in the overall sweep of human history), and how to interpret words,
sentences, paragraphs, poetry, that are part of the culture in which we
find ourselves. In the same way, if we grow up as covenant children we are
reared with a presumption in favor of the Bible, along with the ways of
interpretation and theological constructions provided by parents, Sunday
School teachers, and pastors. And covenant children also carry around the
baggage of their culture about words and how to interpret ancient texts and
what to make of works claiming divine origin.
What we also need to remember is that we Americans live in a
culture shaped in large measure by the Enlightenment. That heritage is
biased against tradition, creeds, and the dead hand of the past, and seeks
liberation from all of those superstitious and bigoted barriers to truth.
In turn it is biased in favor of the rational, autonomous individual who
looks at things without prejudice because guided by reason. The
Enlightenment not only bedeviled the Princeton theology's apologetics, but
more staggering was its effects on American evangelicals who established
their own creed of "no creed but the Bible." It is amazing that in the
context of the Enlightenment and America's infatuation with science that
Princetonians were as confessional as they turned out to be. Conversely,
if we want to see the effects of the Enlightenment hermeneutic on
evangelicalism I recommend Nathan O. Hatch's The Democratization of
American Christianity, which documents the anti-creedalism, and
anti-clericalism of Baptists, Methodists, Disciples, Mormons and
African-Americans, all in the name of the Bible only, which is English for
sola scriptura.
So in talking about the rival authorities of sola scriptura and
tradition we need to recognize that what we have here are two different
traditions of reading the Bible, not simply the Reformed tradition and the
Bible. The one tradition says we must read the Bible without any prejudice
or presumption. We must come to it clean and neutral. As I understand it,
that is the evangelical tradition leavened heavily by the Enlightenment and
it is a remarkably naive view of human objectivity (both with regard to
depravity and culture) and it is ironically a tradition. Anyone who has
grown up in evangelical or fundamentalist churches knows that these Bible
only Christians have their own tradition of hermeneutics -- the Scofield
Reference Bible is one of the best examples.
The other tradition says that we have a hermeneutic (Reformed) and
that the Bible teaches a system of doctrine. It has ways of reading the
Bible, patterns of worship, forms of government that have been around for
at least 350 years. These ways have been tested and tried. And while new
things may be learned about the Bible, challenges to the tradition's
confessional standards will always be examined to see if the argument stems
exclusively from a candid reading of the Bible or from another theological
or philosophical perspective hidden by the claim of "the Bible only."
Let's make this a little less abstract. Take the case of a new
Christian who is reading the Bible through for the first time. First, does
he come to the Bible alone, really alone? Has he merely picked the Bible
up at the K-Mart and started reading and come to faith on his own? Or more
likely, has he come to the Bible under the influence of a group of
Christians, whether in a local congregation, a national denomination, or a
parachurch group. (By the way, he comes to some translation, not the
original Greek and Hebrew, so even the Bible he reads reflects some
tradition of interpretation. Isn't that why the RSV is a problem?) In
which case the young Christian comes to the Bible with a tradition of
biblical interpretation and a system of doctrine implicit in his
understanding of Christianity. Second, can this new convert decide the
controversies of two millennia of church history on his own reading of the
Bible? Can he weigh in on Arianism, Pelagianism, justification,
Arminianism, etc. on his own, sola Scriptura? Or might he and his
Christian group be relying (standing on the shoulders) of some of those
debates in the past whether he knows it or not. Is he Trinitarian, is he
Protestant, is he Anabaptist? Won't that affect his understanding of the
Bible? And shouldn't it? And as a church historian I would recommend that
he study the history of the church and of his tradition to see where it
comes from, while also looking at the way other traditions have interpreted
Scripture. The give and take of traditions will help him grow in his
understanding of the Bible. And even though some of those traditions will
turn out to be more or less wrong, the study of tradition is a good thing
because chances are none of us has an original interpretation of the Bible.
Let's take another example, this time that of a Presbyterian
minister. Does he read the Bible free from tradition? I have already
argued that it is impossible for any of us to free our selves from
tradition. Even the language that we use has not been invented anew by
every generation but depends on the uses of language through the ages. But
would it be a good thing for this minister to try to read the Bible apart
from the Reformed tradition? Not if we believe the Reformed tradition is
true. And not if this minister has fully considered the solemnity of his
ordination vows. If as the Westminster Confession teaches a person should
swear to "nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth," then why
would we expect a Presbyterian minister to come to the Bible as if the
Westminster Standards were up in the balance. Can his deeply held
convictions be turned on and off like a light so that he comes to the Bible
without prejudice? And isn't it a good thing to have Presbyterian
ministers who have firm and deep convictions about the truth of the
Reformed faith? Presbyterianism, I believe, is not just a form of
government, plus the Westminster Standards. It is a way of life, with a
distinctive piety that orders not only the way we read the Bible and the
way we worship God but also the way we order our week and live out our
vocations. Presbyterianism is an identity, not an opinion. What is more,
by the nature of his vows this minister is bound to read the Bible in
certain ways, that is, ways that promote and defend the Westminster
Standards. He is bound to do this because in taking these vows his own
integrity is at stake. If he has sworn to the Standards and then disagrees
with them without notifying the proper authorities he is in danger of
losing his integrity. (While I am at it, the kind of binding implied in
adhering to traditions, it seems to me is a good thing. Human nature being
what it is, restraint of sinfulness and pride is valuable. Of course, it
is not valuable if it leads to false religion. But liberty from tradition
for the sake of not being narrow, sectarian or rigid sounds to me like the
kind of liberty promoted by the Enlightenment, a liberty that
presuppositionalism has taught us is a bad thing.)
This does not mean that there are no dangers in tradition. As the
Confession says in chapter one, controversies of religion are to be decided
not by what Calvin, Warfield, or Machen taught, but on the basis of what
Scripture teaches. But in a church that requires subscription to the
Standards the teachings of the Standards are not supposed to be
controversial. What may be controversial are the religious implications of
scientific teachings, cultural developments, or some reading of Scripture
that falls outside the Standards. But the Standards themselves are not
supposed to be controverted in a confessional church. If they are, then
the ministers seeking ordination who believe the tradition is controverted
may want to look for another communion. As one student recently said to
me, if someone comes before presbytery and takes exception to infant
baptism, even making a credible but not persuasive exegetical case, what is
presbytery supposed to do, ordain him and change the Standards (a
possibility) or show him the exegetical case, i.e. the Reformed
interpretation of baptism as taught in the Bible? In other words,
individuals not convinced of the exegetical case that Reformed have made
historically for their confessions should not seek ordination in
Presbyterian and Reformed churches.
But if we recognize the dangers of excessive reliance on tradition,
we should also recognize the dangers of the Enlightenment tradition's quest
for liberation from tradition, that is, the tradition of no tradition. This
tradition exalts the individual and fosters the notion that the individual
is autonomous. Not only does this view conflict with God's claims upon all
his creatures, but it also flies in the face of human history. As much as
we try there is no escaping the past. For that reason we had better be
more discerning about the past to see which tradition is shaping us.
4. From Adam Brice to Frame
In WTJ 59/2 you quote Van Til favorably: ". . . [Scripture]
speaks of everything either directly or indirectly." In the debate you fault the
Puritans for "their attempt to define a RP that pertains to worship and not
to the rest of life." Aren't the Puritans simply saying with Van Til that
Scripture regulates public worship more directly (and thus differently)
than it regulates other areas of life?"
Frame’s Answer to Brice
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 17:17:00 -0500
If you mean merely that Scripture speaks explicitly of worship,
though it does not speak explicitly of airplanes, etc., then I agree that
Scripture speaks of worship "more directly." If that were all the Puritans
meant by distinguishing two RPs, I would have no trouble agreeing with
them.
Evidently, however, they did mean more than that. 20:2 of the
Westminster Confession says that we are "free from the doctrines and
commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to the Word; or
beside it, if matters of faith, or worship." The idea seems to be that we
are always free from anything contrary to the Word, but only in the
faith-worship area are we free from anything "beside" the Word. So it is
not just that Scripture addresses worship more directly than other things;
rather the point is that there are two different RPs: one for
faith-worship, the other for the rest of life.
I question the validity of that distinction. Scripture is
sufficient for all of life. Not in that it gives specific directions for
repairing cars, etc., but in that it gives us all the divine words that we
need to glorify God in auto repairing or any other activity (1 Cor. 10:31).
Since God's commands cover all of human life, everything we do should be in
obedience to a divine command. We are never to imagine that we are neutral,
or that we can act on our own, without God's wisdom.
Scripture gives us the ultimate norms for all activities, but of
course we must apply those norms to specific situations. And to do that, of
course, we must have knowledge of the situation, knowledge which is often
found outside of Scripture.
Now is the situation any different for worship? Again, Scripture is
sufficient for everything in worship, as for all the rest of life.
Everything we do in worship is to be the application of a divine command.
But, as in the rest of life, we must apply those commands to each specific
worship setting. For example, the Word tells us to worship, but it doesn't
tell us where, or at what time of day. We must decide the latter
questions, based both on Scripture and upon our knowledge of the
congregation, community, culture, etc.
When the Confession says that in worship we are free from anything
"beside" the Word, it does not mean to deny the necessity of making such
applications. It is only saying that the Word alone supplies our ultimate
norms for worship. We are free from anything "beside" the Word that claims
such ultimacy. But we are not free from the necessity of gathering
information beyond the Scriptures in order to apply the Scriptures to our
situation.
But this is the same as in other areas of life. Scripture is our
sufficient source of ultimate norms. Everything we do is obedience to a
Scriptural principle. But we do need information beyond the Bible to apply
its principles appropriately and wisely. So in both worship and in the rest
of life God governs us the same way: (1) by sufficient Scriptural
revelation, so that we are free from anything either contrary to it or
beside it; (2) by natural revelation, by which we gain information we need
to apply the biblical principles.
5. From Chris Coldwell to Hart and Frame
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 17:57:37 -0500
Here is a question to both Dr. Hart and Professor Frame:
"Given your particular understanding of the RPW, how would you go about
proving or disproving that a certain purported worship activity (dancing, sword-fights,
fire-eating or whatever) is or is not approved by God. Please demonstrate
the exegetical approach you would use rather than simply describing it."
Frame’s Answer to Chris Coldwell
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 23:35:49 -0500
Concerning purported worship activity A, I would ask these
questions, in roughly this order:
1. Has God directly commanded A in Scripture? Then God approves of
it.
2. Has God directly forbidden it in Scripture? Then God disapproves
of it.
3. Are there biblical examples of A being done in worship, without
any explicit or implicit criticism by the biblical writers? If so, then
God approves of it.
4. Is it possible to deduce the propriety of A by "good and
necessary consequence?" (logical deduction) If so, then God approves.
5. If none of the above settle the issue: Does Scripture command an
activity in worship which can best be carried out by doing A? If so, then
God approves.
I take it that God approves of dancing generally in the light of
#1, since there are biblical commands to praise him in the dance. He evidently does not require us to do this in every meeting with him, however, so he also approves of worship in which dancing does not take place.
Sword fights and fire eating fail all the tests, except, perhaps,
as portions of dramas illustrating biblical truths. In some cases that
could be justified by #5: the church makes a judgment that teaching a
particular biblical truth can best be accomplished by that kind of drama.
Hart’s Answer to Chris Coldwell
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 00:06:40 -0500
concerned that all the list members may not have received it.]
I think my answer will disappoint, so I apologize at the outset. You see,
my understanding of the RPW is not just an abstract one for how to
determine what goes in worship but comes with a firm idea of what the
acceptable elements of worship are. For instance, the WCF 21.i not only
defines the RPW but goes on in 21.iii-v to enumerate the particular
elements of biblical worship. For this reason the burden shifts to those
who want to add to this list to make an exegetical case for them. And by
the way, I can't for the life of me think of anyway to make an exegetical
case for anything mentioned in the question except for dance. But I would
hope that those who run to the examples of dance in the OT will keep in
mind to distinguish between dance done in the temple and dance performed in
the courtyard, that is dance that was liturgical versus dance that was
political (the latter would, of course, had religious dimensions since
Israel was a theocracy, but it would not be an adequate rationale for the
church whose worship is not civil).
Again, I apologize if this answer does not satisfy, or if it shows my
inability to move beyond my Presbyterian ghetto. But then again, I think
most people would understand an Orthodox Jew's refusal to make a case for
eating pork from the Torah.
6. From Ginger Dykes, to Hart and/or Frame
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 18:01:04 -0500
I have read most of the debate concerning P&W music in our worship
services. I feel you both made some very good points. Our church does P&W every other week. The youth of our church like it because they really feel they are able to praise God better when they like what is being sung. I can understand that thinking, but often wonder if some of the choices God would like. That should be #1 in our choices. It should always
praise him, and not man's activities. It seems that it should be possible to put a more modern beat to the Psalms. That way the words are what God intended, and the people's response to the tune may keep their minds on what they are actually saying.
What do you think of that?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Either or both can answer, because I truly am more conservative in my
thinking now, but once thought strictly like our youth of today.
Thanks for the thought provoking debate.
Ginger Dykes
Frame’s Answer to Ginger Dykes
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 23:33:57 -0500
I have read most of the debate concerning P&W music in our worship
services. I feel you both made some very good points.
Thanks!
Our church does P&W every other week. The youth of our church
like it because they really feel they are able to praise God better when they
like what is being sung. I can understand that thinking, but often wonder if some of the choices God would like. That should be #1 in our choices. It should always
praise him, and not man's activities.
Right. And of course this is the most important consideration no
matter what styles of song you are using. There are a lot of traditional
style songs that God doesn't like.
It seems that it should be possible to put a more modern beat to the Psalms.
Yes. Many contemporary praise songs are based on the Psalms. Some
are settings of entire Psalms.
That way the words are what God intended,
I disagree with Darryl Hart's exclusive Psalmody (actually an
almost-exclusive biblical song view, if I caught all the qualifications). I
think that there are extra-biblical hymns that are acceptable to God. I
argue the point in chapter 11 of my Worship in Spirit and Truth.
and the people's response to the tune may keep
their minds on what they are actually saying.
What do you think of that?
I think that's great. I wouldn't restrict the congregational song
to Psalm versions, but I do think we should use some Psalms in worship, and
I think that some of the contemporary arrangements are quite appropriate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Either or both can answer, because I truly am more conservative
in my thinking now, but once thought strictly like our youth of today.
Thanks for the thought provoking debate.
You're welcome.
Hart’s Answer to Ginger Dykes
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 23:47:21 -0500
It is possible to put the psalms to a more lively beat. But we don't have
to look to the twentieth century. Calvin already did with the Genevan
Psalter. Prof. Frame already referred to some of those tunes, which won
the nickname, Genevan Jigs. Though the purpose of that music was not for
dance, usually the aim of contemporary music. Instead, it was to provide a
tune that was singable and appropriate to biblical worship.
I do not object to music being composed today for congregational singing
(though I might if the Westminster Divines had composed any -- only
kidding). In fact, Leonard Payton, a musician at a PCA church in Austin,
is doing so and has written thoughtfully about church music. But I would
firmly resist any reference in contemporary compositions to rock music, the
worldly associations of which, I believe, are not fitting for Christian
worship.
I do think the church needs to give far greater attention to music. Few
Christians are musically literate and if they are they tend to want the
music they prefer, classical or jazz, in worship. But our music should not
be based on our preferences. Instead it should be singable by the whole
congregation and be appropriate to convey the congregation's praise and
prayer to God.
By the way, it sounds to me from your question that part of the problem may
not be with music but with the friction that often comes between youth and
adult culture. I recommend highly a book by a group of Calvin College
faculty on youth culture, entitled Dancing in the Dark, one of the most
thoughtful books on popular culture I have read by Christians, aside from
Ken Myers, All God's Children and Blue Suede Shoes. Teaching teenagers to
be discerning about their cultural tastes is hard work but important to
their well-being and that of God's people.
7. From Matt Irvine to Hart
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 00:33:04 -0500
Prof. Hart,
These questions refer to the "form/content" issue. It is also my attempt to see how your argument re: the RPW would work itself out in realm of missiology/contextualization.
By claiming that the biblical forms of worship are mandated in addition to the content (and then equating those forms with those implemented historically in the Presbyterian church) isn't there a danger that we are adding purely cultural items/interpretations to biblical content/truths?
Would/should the "outward form" of a "Presbyterian worship sevice" in a "Presbyterian church" (one which desires, of course, to follow the RPW) change--in ways other than mere language translation--for Presbyterian churches in 17th century Geneva, 18th century Scotland, 19th century USA, 1990 England, 1990 USA, 1990 India, 1990 Bolivia, 1990 Papua New Guinea?
If we try to use the result of the RPW being applied in other times and
cultures as our model for creating worship services faithful to the RPW in our time or our culture--without going through the same process of directly applying the (biblical) RPW to our time or our culture--aren't we in danger of committing some of the same mistakes which many of the 19th century missionaries made when they (often unknowingly) exported an admixure of biblical truth and cultural baggage?
Thanks,
Matt Irvine
Hart’s Answer to Irvine
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 22:26:05 -0500
The issue of baptizing a particular cultural form in the name of biblical
truth is indeed a problem, one that has haunted Western Christian
missionaries. I am also anxious not to be misunderstood.
We need to make distinctions between elements, circumstances and forms.
Elements are those regular parts of worship that the Confession talks about
in chapter 21, the things that the Bible requires for Christian worship,
such as the word, prayer and sacraments.
Circumstances concern those things that will allow these elements to take
place corporately, as a body, such as when, where, how long we meet,
whether to use lights, amplification, etc. These things, as chapter 1 of
the Confession says, are to be determined on the basis of Christian
prudence and the general principles of Scripture. In other words, the
Bible doesn't say we have to worship at 10:00 am on Sunday mornings but it
does say we should gather together. Setting a time for such a gathering
helps us observe what the Bible requires.
Forms concern the content of the elements. We are commanded to sing, but
what do we sing, How Great Thou Art (ok), Psalm 1 (good), or Shine Jesus,
Shine (inferior)? We are commanded to pray, but what prayer do we use, one
from Baird's book of liturgies (fine), one written by the worship committee
(ok as long as elders are in the majority), the spontaneous prayer of an
elder (well?), or the Lord's Prayer (good). The Bible does not specify
what we should do but has left it up to Christian prudence.
I am still not sure whether the music by which a congregation sings is a
circumstance or a form. From one angle it can be viewed as simply a device
to allow the congregation to sing together. But from another perspective
it is a form of human expression that communicates something even if not
propositional. For that reason I tend to think of it as a form. And here
I believe that our forms should always cultivate reverence (again keeping
in mind that I think rejoicing should also be done reverently). Different
cultures will express reverence in different ways. So I am not a Western
imperialist insisting that Reformed churches around the world use Irish and
Welsh folk tunes. But the fact that I am ignorant of other cultures does
not mean that I am incapable of assessing the forms we use here in the US
of A. And for the life of me I cannot conceive of a way to say that rock
music is reverent. It is not a musical form designed to express reverence.
So while American culture should not determine the forms used in other
parts of the world, neither should the fact that other cultures are
different relativize American cultural expressions.
8. From Daniel Lee to Hart and Frame
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 00:42:02 -0500
As a Presbyterian architect and artist, I am focused on how Christ and culture
intersect. Artistic styles and forms change in response to new ideas and
changing worldviews.
The following question is for both gentlemen:
If there is a "correct" form for music used in worship, as Prof. Hart asserts,
can we rightly assume that there must also be a correct form for the
architecture, vestments, etc., used in Reformed worship. Must we clinically
mimic the forms used in Temple worship or Calvin's Geneva, to glorify God? If
so, should we as believers encourage these "approved" artistic forms onto the
culture around us as part of our effort to be salt and light to the earth?
R.C.Sproul prefers gothic architecture; should churches we build in Japan be
in the Gothic style?
Daniel Lee
Frame’s Answer to Daniel Lee
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 22:03:21 -0500
If there is a "correct" form for music used in worship, as Prof. Hart
asserts, can we rightly assume that there must also be a correct form for the
architecture, vestments, etc., used in Reformed worship.
I don't think there is "a correct form" of music or of
architecture. That doesn't mean anything goes. Certainly we must evaluate
the possible forms with biblical standards in mind. But once that
evaluation process is completed, I think we will usually wind up with a
number of candidates, not just one, that pass biblical muster.
The evaluation process will ask questions such as (1) does the form
involve anything plainly distasteful to God (e.g. graven images)? (2) does
the form create confusion as to any biblical teaching? (3) does the form
provide advantages in achieving the goals of worship? (4) if the form is
otherwise unobjectionable (1, 2) and advantageous (3), we should ask about
the likely response of unbelievers, seekers, visitors. Will the architectural form attract them to the services or turn them away?
Must we clinically mimic the forms used in Temple worship or Calvin's Geneva, to glorify God?
Certainly not, though both may be instructive.
If so, should we as believers encourage these "approved" artistic forms onto
The culture around us as part of our effort to be salt and light to the earth?
You mean encourage their use in houses and shops? Certainly that
doesn't follow. Forms ideal for worship will not necessarily be ideal, or
even appropriate, for other purposes.
R.C.Sproul prefers gothic architecture; should churches we build
in Japan be in the Gothic style?
I disagree with RC on this, assuming you have stated his view
correctly. I love the cathedrals, but I would never advocate that for, say,
a contemporary PCA. I think that church architecture should be primarily
functional and economical, only secondarily symbolic.
I'd like to hope that fans of Gothic architecture would be wise
enough to limit their preference to areas of western culture, where Gothic
architecture has some recognizable symbolic meaning. Israel's temple was
far from Gothic, and that is the closest thing we have to a divinely
inspired architectural model.
Hart’s Answer to Daniel Lee
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 22:27:27 -0500
I think that most of what I wrote in response to Mr. Irvine applies here.
The RPW gives us a great deal of freedom with circumstances and forms, as
long as these follow the general teachings of the Bible and Christian
prudence. Though one of the hallmarks of Reformed worship has been
simplicity or a lack of ornamentation -- we don't let anything take away
from the Word, and spirituality -- we worship in spirit, not with lots of
externals (though we have to worship with some externals because we exist
as embodied souls). Evelyn Underhill's description of Calvin's and Puritan
worship in his book Worship is provocative for thinking about the links
between Reformed practice and theology of worship. So churches have
freedom in architecture and other circumstantial concerns, though
ostentatious display should be avoided. (One of the most attractive
Presbyterian churches I have seen is Bethel, OPC in Wheaton which captures
well Reformed simplicity while also being dignified.)
We also need to recognize that Old Testament worship is over. This was
what our Lord taught the Samaritan woman in John 4. Israel worshiped on
Mt. Zion but the day was coming when God's people would no longer have to
gather in Jerusalem to participate in true worship. In the age of the
Spirit, the church would worship in all nations and in all tongues. So it
seems to me a serious step backwards in redemptive history to try to
replicate some of the forms that the Israelites used. It also seems very
selective to take some of those patterns from the OT but not all of them.
9. From Gabriel Nave to Frame
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 19:11:58 -0500
Re- Frame’s Closing Statement
Prof. Frame,
My question is somewhat off the topic of the RPW but, I believe, one
which might be helpful for me in understanding where you are coming from. In your closing statement you wrote the following:
The leadership of the evangelical movement has to some extent
passed from theologians, pastors, and apologists to church historians....
In a number of recent articles you have expressed this distaste for
"church historians" (though I don't believe I've seen you make any such
comments about those who sit on the faculty with you at WTSCA). There
are two paradigmatic issues which I would like to propose and have you
respond to, as I believe they will be helpful to all of us in understanding the present debate.
1. You seem to use the term "church historians" to apply to a variety
of people as a means to minimize the fact that the men (at least most of
them) are historical theologians, who would see the Bible as normative
and see their primary task to be that of analyzing the historical development and relative truth or various doctrines. Most importantly, they recognize that doctrines do not develop in a vacuum but in real historical movements of the church. Are you willing to grant that the job of the historical theologian really incorporates the work of the systematic and biblical theologian? If not, why would you insist that our dogmatics not be founded on the historical doctrines of the church?
2. My second question is similar but perhaps more personal. It seems to me that Dr. Hart (et al) are using the common grace means of historical methodology to analyze movements within the church, with Scripture as their norm. You seem to find this wholly inappropriate. At the same time, it seems to me that you are using the common grace means of philosophy (which you derive within the historical tradition of Van Til) to analyze doctrines of the church. Is this a fair analogy for one to make? If you deny it, what is it that allows your theological method to be more valid than theirs?
Frame’s Reply to Nave
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 22:06:35 -0500
You quote me,
The leadership of the evangelical movement has to some extent
passed from theologians, pastors, and apologists to church historians....
Then you say,
In a number of recent articles you have expressed this distaste
for "church historians" (though I don't believe I've seen you make any such
comments about those who sit on the faculty with you at WTSCA).
Now, wait a minute! You're pulling a Hart on me, quoting a few
words of mine and ignoring all the qualifications, disclaimers, etc. that
I've put on them. So you state my view in a very misleading and unfair way.
I have no "distaste for 'church historians'." Every time I have written on
this subject, including the present debate, I have made clear that I
greatly admire church historians, particularly the ones I criticize. I also
mentioned in the debate my great admiration of Paul Woolley and Clair
Davis. As for my colleagues at WTSC, I have a lot of admiration for them as
well, plus a few disagreements, which I prefer now not to air in public.
I have made a few public criticisms of Wells, Muller, Hart, and
some others. But can't I make those criticisms without somebody telling me
that I dislike these men, or that I object to their efforts in some general
way? I have said some very complimentary things about Wells and Muller
specifically. They deserve their fame and their prominence, every ounce of
it. I'm not even a little bit jealous of them. But can't I admire people
and also challenge them with a few criticisms? Iron sharpening iron, as
Proverbs puts it?
Your approach is a symptom of the very problem I'm concerned about.
That problem is that as our orientation becomes more historical in focus,
and less exegetical, we seem to have a hard time making fine distinctions.
We affiliate with one group or other and defend everything that happens in
that movement. We disaffiliate with another group and thereafter find no
good in what they do. This is partisanship.
So you assume that I am partisan too. I am, supposedly,
anti-historians, because I have expressed a few criticisms of historians.
You seem to think that if I liked historians I would never say anything
critical about any of them. But I disclaim that kind of partisanship. My
position is sola Scriptura. Therefore, I am not a partisan for or against
any human movement. That is to say, I don't agree with anybody 100% of the
time, nor do I disagree with anybody 100% of the time. (To be honest, when
I hear somebody say that he subscribes to the WCF without exception, I
take it as evidence that he hasn't been thinking very hard.)
Rather, I try to love all my fellow Christians, support their
labors in the Lord, and, when necessary, challenge them with biblical
criticisms. My criticisms do not mean in the least that I am against them
or have a "distaste" for them. Please choose your words more carefully.
I may seem overly sensitive about this, because I've been reading
reviews of my Van Til book. Some have been favorable; some have made useful
criticisms. But there have been a couple that have bawled me out simply
because at some points I have dared to differ with Van Til's conclusions.
These writers evidently think that I have an obligation to agree with CVT
100% of the time, or else be totally against him.
In the book, I complained about the "movement mentality" among some
Van Til disciples: people who expect us to be totally uncritical of their
man. I expected reviewers to tell me that there weren't any such people,
that my complaints merely expressed my paranoia. I worried that I might be
charged with straw-men, caricature, etc. But, I kid you not-- two reviewers
were far worse than any caricature I might have drawn!
So come on, now, folks! We can help each other a lot more if we
learn to criticize one another-- and accept criticism-- without totally
rejecting one another's work.
Sorry for this extended preface! Gabe, you touched a hot button! Now you say,
There are two paradigmatic issues which I would like to propose and have you respond to, as I believe they will be helpful to all of us in understanding
the present debate.
1. You seem to use the term "church historians" to apply to a variety
of people as a means minimize the fact that the men (at least most of
them) are historical theologians, who would see the Bible as normative
and see their primary task to be that of analyzing the historical
development and relative truth or various doctrines.
If you read my reply to Wells in the WTJ exchange, you will see
that I warmly commend him for his allegiance to Scripture as the ultimate
norm. Certainly you are right in identifying their primary task as they see
it.
Most importantly, they recognize that doctrines do not develop in a vacuum but in real historical movements of the church.
I have never denied this. I don't know what this has to do with
anything we're debating. Certainly a historical theologian must describe
this process. And certainly if a historian attempts formulations of
doctrine, he must formulate them in view of his own historical situation.
(I call this the "situational perspective" in my *Doctrine of the Knowledge
of God.*)
Are you willing to grant that the
job of the historical theologian really incorporates the work of the
systematic and biblical theologian?
Ideally, sure. But it's hard to be expert in all of these
disciplines. So a good historical theologian will be in conversation with
those working in biblical and systematic fields.
If not, why would you insist that our dogmatics not be founded on the historical doctrines of the church?
I'm not sure what you're asking here. Are you asking why I object
to basing dogmatics on historical theology? Well, if historical theologians
did their job perfectly well, there would be no problem. Historical
theology would differ from biblical and systematics only in "perspective."
But as I say above, historical theology is never done perfectly, so we need
to check the work of the historical theologian by a direct study of the
Scriptures.
Or are you asking why I object to basing dogmatics on the
historical doctrines-- such as, presumably, the Trinity, the two natures of
Christ, etc.? In fact I have no objection whatever to basing dogmatics on
these, and I can't imagine why you would think I do object.
Or are you asking why I object to basing doctrines on tradition
alone (i.e. confessions and theologies), without testing them by the Bible?
I do object to that, because doing so is Roman Catholic, not Protestant.
This approach to doctrine violates sola Scriptura.
2. My second question is similar but perhaps more personal. It
seems to me that Dr. Hart (et al) are using the common grace means of
historical methodology to analyze movements within the church, with Scripture as
their norm.
I really don't understand what you mean by "common grace means of
historical methodology."
You seem to find this wholly inappropriate. At the same
time, it seems to me that you are using the common grace means of
philosophy (which you derive within the historical tradition of Van Til) to
analyze doctrines of the church. Is this a fair analogy for one to make? If
you deny it, what is it that allows your theological method to be more valid than theirs?
Oh. Well, evidently what you are saying is that Hart et al use
extra-biblical information from history, and Frame uses extra-biblical
information from philosophy, so why prefer the one to the other? Both
justify the use of extra-biblical information by the principle of common
grace.
My complaint against the historians is not that they make use of
historical facts to apply biblical principles to situations. That is a
perfectly good thing to do. Nor do I object to their using extra-biblical
knowledge of logic, hermeneutics, etc. to understand Scripture. My
complaint is that they sometimes attach themselves uncritically to certain
theological and ecclesiastical movements without biblical warrant, and they
sometimes set themselves against other movements in toto, again without
biblical warrant.
So if you want to draw a parallel between them and me, you would
have to show that I have attached myself uncritically to some non-Christian
philosophical movement, or that I use some such movement as my paradigm of
evil. I don't think you'll be able to show that.
If sola Scriptura were our rule, we would never be totally
uncritical, or totally critical, of anybody in the church.
10. From Steven Johnson to Frame and Hart
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 22:12:04 -0500
A lot of people, myself included, are extremely distracted by poor artistry in church music. Style is not the issue. In the hands of the artistically gifted (e.g. Frame himself), almost any style, whether P&W, traditional hymns, blues, baroque, whatever, can be made to serve the worship purpose well instead of becoming an annoying distraction. But artful use of these styles is the exception. Distraction of the artistically sensitive is the rule. I know culturally cutting edge artists who would rather die than set foot in a church. It almost makes me wonder if it would be better to have utterly minimal artistic expression rather than feature an artistic emphasis that is loud, prominent, and bad. The "top 40" demographics that most of these church planting strategies are aiming at don't mind, but cultural leaders do, and they are conspicuously absent from our churches. (Remember, Las Vegas is more popular than Greenwich Village, but the latter is more influential. Bob Dylan led society more than Burt Bacharach.) I should think that if the music is kept both accessible and artful, we will alienate neither group, and then the leading artists of society would no longer be repulsed from our churches, and in due course would enter in and remedy the evangelical talent drain that decades of anti-cultural attitudes and repulsive subcultural music forms have produced.
So I'm pondering over two answers to the question, "How can we make the
music serve the worship purpose and distract as few persons as possible from that purpose?" The two answers are:
1) Minimize musical artistic expression so that it ceases to be an issue. (But, then again, is this really possible?)
2) Do the worship music as artfully as possible, allowing the most talented persons available to lead artistically, minimizing "taste wars" by doing the best of various styles well, with a view to focusing attention on Christ rather than on the music itself or the performance of it.
What do you think? Which option is best? Or would you suggest an
alternative to these two?
Frame’s Answer to Steven Johnson
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 00:45:40 -0500
Dear Steve,
Thanks for your kind words about my "artistic gifts." Certainly
poor artistry in the church is a turn-off for many-- and not only for
professional artists. In one sense (are you listening, Darryl?) I think
that cultural artistic standards have gotten higher in our century, because
of the growing availability of CDs, concerts on TV, radio, etc. People know
what professional musicianship sounds like, and they expect that
everywhere, including church.
That is a Scriptural concern. The temple singers and players in
Israel were supposed to be "skillful" (Psm. 33:3, 1 Chr. 15:22, etc.). On
the other hand, congregational singing is for all believers, even for those
who have tin ears. We certainly can't forbid people to sing praises to God
because they are poor singers. At that point, at least, questions of
musical quality have to take second place.
And of course there is the question of how people learn to become
skillful. Certainly an instrumentalist should be pretty proficient before
he/she is asked to play for worship. But even if the musician is a good
player, he may be nervous in his first times of playing for a congregation.
And there is no way to learn the nuances of hymn accompaniment (in any
style) except actually doing it. So, just as we allow seminary students to
practice their preaching before real congregations, so we must allow young
musicians to practice their accompanying skills with real congregations.
Now I think that as a rule churches ought to use only "skillful"
artists in worship. But skill is a matter of degree, and there will be some
times when, either from necessity or as part of a training program, we need
to use talents that are less than first rate.
I like Steve's suggestion that when less skillful people are before
the congregation they should keep the volume down somewhat. I would not
favor singing less, but I would counsel beginning accompanists to be as
self-effacing as the music permits them to be. (That may be a good rule for
the more experienced as well!)
But no matter how wisely we deal with this issue, many churches
will have to face the fact that even their most skillful artists are not
comparable with the professionals on the CDs and TV. Then what? Or what do
we say to a "cutting edge artist" who visits our church and announces he
will never be back because of the quality of the music?
First, I'd probably suggest to him that he try a larger church, one
that has a more professional music ministry. Even though I am somewhat
musical myself, I don't think I would ever refuse to attend a church for
that sort of reason. But if he really feels that strongly about it, then he
should go somewhere where that doesn't become an issue, or where it cannot
become an excuse.
But what if he says, "I won't step inside the door of ANY church
until you Christians get better music?" I'd say to him, in as nice a way as
possible, that his values are all screwed up. Musical skill is of some
importance, but it is far secondary to the fellowship of the body of
Christ, including the preaching of the Word and the Sacraments. If he
cannot bear the pain of some substandard music for the inestimable riches
of Jesus Christ (and you can't have Jesus without His Church), then he is
no disciple of Jesus. If he is so very sensitive aesthetically, he should
compare the choirs of Heaven with the screams of Hell.
So I think we should do the best we can to find skillful music
leaders, and to make the less skillful ones less obtrusive. But when push
comes to shove, the gospel has to take precedence over our aesthetic
ideals.
Blessings,
JF
Hart’s Answer to Steven Johnson
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 22:24:40 -0500
My quick response is I prefer option 1. We should have music that is
simple, that does not draw attention to itself. This fits with the
simplicity emphasized historically by Reformed worship, that is, worship
that does not distract worshipers from the word of God. Option 2 would not
only leave churches without gifted musicians out, but music performed well
does draw attention to the performer, the composer, not to God, for whom we
are singing in worship. Which may explain why so many churches have begun
to add applause as an element of worship.
Now, of course, people who are not used to simple music will be distracted
by it (as will people not used to Reformed teaching and preaching). But so
too will people not used to congregational singing, which is most of
American culture. The only time that most Americans now sing together
(that is, not in cars or showers when they sing along with the radio or CD
player, or when they are at a rock concert singing along with Bono [folks
don't sing along with Luciano Pavorati at the Met]) is at a sporting event
when they sing the Canadian National Anthem and/or the Star Spangled
Banner. This is another reason why using contemporary music does not
necessarily make worship intelligible, since rarely do Americans gather to
sing together. (The situation is different in Wales, I have heard.)
I am leery (as you might predict by now), however, about worrying too much
about how our worship affects the people gathered for worship. God is the
audience for worship and we should determine first whether it is pleasing
to him, based on what we know from the Bible, Christian prudence and
circumstances common to human actions and societies. And as long as we can
with good conscience use music that is pleasing to God, then we do not need
to change to accommodate outsiders, or new believers. What we must do with
those who do not understand our music, and all parts of our worship for
that matter, is instruct them what we are doing in congregational song (and
in worship) and the biblical rationale for what our church sings (and the
way it worships).
11. From Brian Nolder to Hart
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 22:35:11 -0500
Are there any instances of post-WWII hymnody that you consider worthy of
RPW?
11A. From Brian Nolder to Frame
Doesn't the fact that much CWM was originally written for the solo voice
make it difficult for congregational singing, viz., the syncopation/phrasing of modern pop is often impossible for non-professional singers to execute with precision?
Frame’s Answer to Brian Nolder
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 23:37:31 -0500
Well, most CCM is written for solo voice or for singing "groups."
But most CWM-- songs written mainly for worship-- are written for
congregations. There are, of course, some syncopations, but almost none of
the ornamentation you find in pop recordings. I think that contemporary
congregations generally have an "ear" for the syncopations. It doesn't
bother them, because that's the way popular music is typically written
today. They don't, of course, get it absolutely precisely. But in this type
of music, precision isn't a big deal.
Seriously, I just have never found this to be a problem in our
congregation. They sing out, they sing accurately for the most part--
certainly as accurately as they sing traditional hymns.
But to be honest, as an accompanist learning new songs, I often
have a terrible time figuring out the syncopated note values!
Hart’s Answer to Brian Nolder
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 22:23:13 -0500
(Hi Brian)
Since Ralph Vaughn Williams lived until 1958 there is always a chance for
good hymnody after World War II (by hymnody I mean the tunes by which hymns
are sung, though a hymn, by definition consists of text and tune). Vaughn
Williams arrangements of the simple folk tunes, Kingsfold and Forest
Green, for example, are among the loveliest tunes I know. They are also
simple, dignified, and singable.
But our sojourn in the CRC also exposed me to other good composers writing
hymn tunes after World War II. Fred Pratt Green is one name I remember.
And the CRC's own Emily Brink and Dale Grotenhuis have written good music
appropriate for congregational singing. The PCA's Leonard Payton is
another example of good music being written in the latter half of the
twentieth century. So while I have high regard for the Genevan Psalter and
its music, I am not stuck in the 16th century. (By the way, the Episcopal
Church also has lots of good melodies of recent vintage in its 1982 hymnal.)
The problem comes, however, when we compare the music written for hymns
against the music used in P&W services. The former is designed for
congregational singing and is generally dignified, though there are
occasions when tune does not fit text. P&W music, however, has often come
out of a performance environment and been imported directly from the stage
or CD to the congregation. (The magazine, Worship Leader, is a crass
example of this.) What is more, many of the post-WWII hymns were
commissioned by churches for inclusion in their hymnals. In contrast, the
P&W songs being offered in various songbooks started on CD or on the radio,
thereby creating a market, which music executives in Nashville and LA
appealed to in the creation of songbooks for churches. In other words,
much of the P&W genre did not come out of structures accountable to the
church. Instead, it came out of market mechanisms. So not only is the
music different, but, to use a Marxist phrase, so are the means of
production. It may be a genetic fallacy to say that all music produced by
the free market of the music industry is always suspect. But it is naive
to think that the origins (both economic and theological) of the music we
sing are neutral.
12. From Seth Earl to Hart
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 22:53:31 -0500
In numerous posts you refer to the ccm songs as having a rock aura (for lack
of a better word right now) in its composition. We have praise and worship
music in our church, none of whose tunes I would put on the Billboard Top
Twenty. :) I was wondering if you could cite some examples of CCM songs
used in worship that you would disagree with?
Seth
Hart’s Answer to Seth Earl
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 22:21:27 -0500
I talked of the Rock origins of P&W in part because that is where Prof.
Frame said much of it comes from. Another giveaway is the instrumentation
congregations use -- drums, and electric guitars. But obviously, not all
of the music that I deem inappropriate for corporate worship is soft rock.
Some is schmaltzy like Barry Manilow. Neither rock or schmaltz, I would
argue, are fitting a God who is a consuming fire.
But since you asked for examples I will give a few examples. The first,
(and Prof. Frame won't be surprised) is “Shine Jesus Shine” (I am never sure
where the commas go). The song is hard to sing with its syncopation and
range. Also the song doesn't make sense. What does "Blaze Spirit Blaze"
mean? And what is the river that is flowing? Think of the flood and the
Exodus and you might want to rephrase some of the verse. What is more, how
is that intelligible if people don't know what the words mean? And what
about authorial intent (something we believe important for understanding
the Bible)? What does the charismatic Graham Kendrick mean by his words?
“Majesty” is another. I don't like the tune, period. But what about the
line, "worship his majesty." Since when do we worship God's attributes
instead of God himself?
“As the Deer Pants for Water” is objectionable because it uses the first
verse of Psalm 42 and never looks back.
“I Will Sing of the Mercies of the Lord” never sings of his mercies but only
of my singing them. It is like the old hymn, “Tell Me the Old, Old Story.” It
never tells the story. After singing it you want to shout TELL ME, WOULD YOU?
So those are some of the songs I can think of off the top of my head. But
the point isn't what I like as much as what is appropriate for God's
worship and what is the best we can sing to God. These songs, I would
argue again are nowhere near as good as the Psalms or metrical versions
thereof.
13. From Nick Eitzen to Hart
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 22:56:40 -0500
Dr. Hart,
In the second chapter of Colossians, Paul instructs the church that not to
be taken captive by the teachings of men rather than to Christ. (v. 8) He
goes on to say later that no man is to be their judge in regards to
festivals and Sabbaths. (v. 16) Obviously these passages are not meant to
say that there are no commandments that the church is to follow, but rather
that the Church is to make sure that it is submitting itself to Christ alone
as the head of the Church, rather than submitting itself first to the ideas
and traditions that were not instituted by the Head, but rather by man.
Throughout your responses and questions you have appealed to many human
authorities and traditions, but rarely if ever have appealed to the
Scriptures to prove that in worship we should submit to exclusive psalmody.
Since you have often presented the case that it is offensive to Christ that
hymns and chorus music are used in the context of worship, can you show from
the Scriptures, and in so doing from Christ, that this is a problem?
Soli Deo Gloria,
Nick Eitzen
Hart’s Answer to Nick Eitzen
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 22:20:11 -0500
I need to make sure I have not been misunderstood. I did not say that we
may only sing psalms. I did say that prudence would suggest that the best
way of singing praise to God is to use the words he has inspired, which
would include psalms, prayers and hymns from all of the canon.
But as one member of the "audience" has informed me, the argument for
psalms is pretty simple and compelling on the basis of the RPW. The OT
priests sang psalms, Jesus and apostle sang psalms, and the NT tells us to
sing psalms (Eph 5:18,19; Col 3:16; James 5:13). Some translate these
words as referring to hymns, but what evidence do we have that the church
was composing hymns that would have been held up to the status of the
psalms which were considered part of the canon, that is, inspired by God.
On the flip side, the case against psalmody can't simply be that the
exegetical case for psalms only does not convince. Hymn singers also need
to show, on the basis of the RPW, where the Bible commands the singing and
writing of hymns.
But I confess, as Prof. Frame has pointed out, to being merely a church
historian. I haven't studied Greek for 17 years. So I need to rely on the
wisdom of my fathers and brothers in the faith. (TRADITION ALERT!!!) I do
believe the arguments of Calvin and Zwingli for psalms are far more complex
than commonly given credit. And the case for hymns never seems to imply
the logical conclusion that the church had better commission some hymns
quickly before God finds her delinquent. What is more, the wise course
seems to be to sing what is best. The inspired words of God fit that
criterion.
By the way, Herman Hanko has a very good article on behalf of exclusive
psalmody in the Jan. 15, 1998 issue of the Standard Bearer.
14. From John Fesko to Frame
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 22:30:27 -0500
Do you think that contemporary praise music can adequately
carry the weight of the lyrics and communicate doctrinal
truth? For example, an exaggerated one, if you sing
'Amazing Grace' to the tune of Gilligan's Island the lyrics
lose their weight--it's like dropping a high-performance
racing engine into a Pinto--it might move, but "it don't
go." I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter.
Thanks.
----------------------
John V. Fesko
j.v.fesko@abdn.ac.uk
Frame’s Answer to Fesko
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 01:05:03 -0500
Actually, the Gilligan tune wouldn't be bad at all if it hadn't
first been used by Gilligan! The problem, I think, is not the tune, but the
associations. Of course that is Hart's point, but he tries to make it
globally. I think it has to be considered song by song. By the way, the
Gilligan tune is by genre a sea chanty (i.e. an imitation of one), not
rock, so it isn't a very good illustration for Hart's purposes.
On the broader question: As I point out in the CWM book, praise
music has been somewhat limited in its doctrinal coverage: it has been hard
to find CWM songs that fit certain biblical topics. That situation has
changed somewhat. It used to be said that there were no contemporary songs
about the "dark side" of the Christian life, the spiritual warfare,
temptation, repentance, etc. But a whole sub-genre of these has sprung up
in the last ten years. So now, I think there are pretty good CWM songs on
divine attributes, God's mighty acts, Jesus's deity, the names of Jesus and
of God the Father, the incarnation, the atonement, the resurrection,
conversion, repentance, faith, holiness, sanctification, Christian warfare,
the sacraments, etc., etc. There aren't many good ones on justification or
the authority of Scripture, and there are surprisingly few on the Return of
Christ, though there are a few. But on the subject of love within the body
of Christ, for example, there is a far better selection in CWM than in the
traditional hymnody, in my opinion. Same for the theme of the Christian
life as servanthood.
So CWM is getting more complex, more ambitious. There are CWM
settings of the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, the Gloria Patri, etc.,
I advocate "blended" worship, in which we use both traditional
hymns-Psalms and modern praise music. This has been the trend recently
among churches that have contemporary worship. Maranatha has been
publishing combination praise song-hymnbooks for ten years now, and the
latest big praise book (1997) includes 50 hymns. At our church, the songs
follow the topic of the sermon, so I choose songs in both genres to
reinforce the emphasis of the text. I have not found it difficult to find
songs in a range of styles that complement the preaching and underscore its
message.
Can the CWM songs bear the weight of the heavier doctrines? I think
so. Kendrik's "Meekness and Majesty" is a fine treatment of the
incarnation, as "Amazing Love" is of the atonement. Brent Chambers' "Be
Exalted, O God," is a wonderful treatment of Psalm 108:3-5. The anonymous
Maranatha version of "Create in Me a Clean Heart" (1997 big book, 100) is
certainly as good a treatment of that text (and therefore the subject of
repentance) as anything in the tradition. Kelly Willard's "Make Me a
Servant" is an excellent treatment of an important biblical theme that is
hardly ever treated in traditional hymnody.
I could give other examples, and doubtless others can give
counter-examples. But I think we should be free to use both genres (and
others), taking the best examples of each. As I keep saying, evaluate the
songs individually, not as a class. If a CWM song can't "bear the weight,"
then don't use it. But I think that many of them can, and they have the
added advantage of being contemporary, i.e. contextualized to present-day
congregations. I would, therefore, not want to be without them.
John Frame
15. From Matthew A. Morgan to Frame and Hart
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 22:32:44 -0500
General Questions to both professors...
First, for Dr. Hart -- Would you say that your position is the in the
majority within the OPC? If not, why do you remain within the OPC, since
it sounds like a major issue for you? Why not move to the RPCNA or the
PRC (John Murray's ole denomination). {Note: this is not meant to be
disrespectful to these denominations. I personally happen to agree with
many aspects about them, but perhaps not ALL aspects!}
Second, for Frame -- Much has been made regarding the "neutrality of
forms/style" (or lack thereof, depending on who's talking) in many
recent works by Reformed writers. To what extent to you agree or
disagree with their assessment? {Perhaps you cover it in CW -- maybe I'm
just not seeing it!}
For instance, many writers like Michael Horton have used texts like the
episode of the Golden Calf to argue that what is at stake is NOT the
first commandment but the second! And from that, he concludes that
"forms" of worship are not neutral? Can you pinpoint where the
disagreement is between you and he? Or to put it another way, what
application do you think Golden Calf has on our worship today?
Lastly, for both Frame and Hart -- Let's suppose that there is a PCA/OPC
church of around 200 people that is pretty well split down the middle
with regards to "contemporary vs traditional" forms of worship. How
would you go about trying to bring unity to the body in this situation?
Do we go to one contemporary service and one traditional service? Do we
go to the session and make a hard and fast choice here, thus leaving one
of the groups "out to dry" (so to speak)? Should we try and blend both
traditional and contemporary into one service? Or should we from the
outset agree to part and go our seperate ways?
Regards,
Matthew Ashley Morgan – WTSCA
Frame’s Answer to Matthew Morgan
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 01:02:18 -0500
Second, for Frame -- Much has been made regarding the "neutrality of
forms/style" (or lack there of, depending on who's talking) in many
recent works by Reformed writers. To what extent to you agree or
disagree with their assessment? {Perhaps you cover it in CW -- maybe I'm
just not seeing it!}
Well, of course, for us Van Tillians no human act is neutral.
Certainly those acts by which forms are chosen are not neutral. Whatever we
do should be done to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31). But I don't think
this implies that we should write off the whole CWM movement. Consider:
1. CWM (Contemporary Worship Music, I should remind everybody) is
not just one genre, but several. There are tunes influenced by rock, but
also influences of Jewish music, black gospel, white gospel, some Latino,
traditional protestant hymnody, etc. That diversity suggests we should not
treat the whole movement as a lump.
2. As I've argued earlier, rock does not taint all the songs that
are (perhaps very faintly in some instances) influenced by it. To claim
that it does is genetic fallacy. So it may be that choosing music within
this genre may sometimes be a godly thing to do. Not neutral, but godly.
3. So again, the question of form must be asked of individual
songs, not of genres as such. Each song has its own form. That form may be
influenced by various things, which may in turn be good or bad. But the
question of influence is less important than the question of whether the
actual tune is suitable. If the tune is appropriate to the text and
appropriate for worship, that is sufficient ground for using it. Of course
if its associations with rock (or Gilligan's Island, as Mr. Fesko notes)
are too close, that may influence our decision to find it inappropriate. So
forms are not neutral; but individual forms are more important that genre
forms.
For instance, many writers like Michael Horton have used texts
like the episode of the Golden Calf to argue that what is at stake is NOT the
first commandment but the second! And from that, he concludes that
"forms" of worship are not neutral? Can you pinpoint where the
disagreement is between you and he? Or to put it another way, what
application do you think Golden Calf has on our worship today?
As you can see, I agree with Horton that the forms are not neutral.
If the form of our worship cannot be justified from God's revelation, then
we should scuttle it. That says nothing about whether we should focus on
forms in the abstract or in the concrete. I still say that concrete is
best.
The calf-worship doesn't say much to the question of musical style,
in my view. God specifically commanded Israel not to bow down to graven
images. Obviously, then, the "genre" of idolatry is inappropriate to
worship, as well as all particular instances of that genre. But God has not
given similar commands concerning music. In music, we have to look at the
biblical purposes of worship and try to find tunes that are suitable to
that purpose. The form-questions are important, but there is room for
disagreement among believers about them. And if a worship leader makes a
slight error in judgment in this area, I would hardly equate that with
calf-worship.
But of course the golden calf passage is always relevant to
worship. It tells us to worship only as God has ordained, sola Scriptura.
It tells us to absolutize neither tradition, nor the trends of our time,
nor our own bright ideas. We must keep going back to God's Word, praying
for assurance that what we are doing is really pleasing to God.
Lastly, for both Frame and Hart -- Let's suppose that there is a
PCA/OPC church of around 200 people that is pretty well split down the middle
with regards to "contemporary vs traditional" forms of worship. How
would you go about trying to bring unity to the body in this situation?
Do we go to one contemporary service and one traditional service? Do we
go to the session and make a hard and fast choice here, thus leaving one
of the groups "out to dry" (so to speak)? Should we try and blend both
traditional and contemporary into one service? Or should we from the
outset agree to part and go our seperate ways?
I think blending is the ideal solution, though that would require a
lot of teaching and counseling of members who feel strongly on one side or
the other. A 200- member church should not go to two services as a general
rule, and even larger churches are better off if each group can learn the
other's music. We all need to learn to bend to one another in this area,
rather than insisting on our own way. A church should not be divided by
aesthetic tastes.
If people just will not be persuaded of this, then some other
solution may be necessary, maybe two services, maybe a daughter
congregation... But opponents of blending should be told in no uncertain
terms that such solutions are accommodations to their spiritual immaturity. We hear
a lot about the supposed immaturity of people who like praise songs, but we
need to hear more about the immaturity of those on both sides of the fence
who absolutize their own preferences even to the point of driving other
believers away from the Body. Such people will have a lot to answer for, in
my opinion.
Certainly the Session should not decree that only one style be
used. They don't have scriptural justification for that, and if they are
wise, they will see the usefulness of both types of music.
John Frame
Hart’s Answer to Matthew Morgan
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 11:16:45 -0500
I sense from the question that Mr. Morgan thinks I would be more at home in
the RPCNA or the PRC because my views may be far from the mainstream of the
OPC. First, I have to say that I know of no PRC or RPCNA churches in my
area and I am a localist, so I try to shop and worship locally. What is
more, the only reason why I might be more at home in those communions is
because they only sing psalms. But throughout the debate I have not said
that we must only sing psalms. I do revere them and continue to profit
from singing the psalms. But singing other prayers from the Bible is ok too.
As to the constituency of the OPC and whether it is a fitting place for me
I have had to debate this on several occasions after the publication of
John Muether's and my history of the denomination, Fighting the Good Fight
(1995). In commenting on the composition of the OPC in the light of that
book, Clair Davis, one of Prof. Frame's favoriite church historians,
thought that the OPC was 60% Old School Presbyterian and 40% New School,
compared to the PCA which he thought was 20% Old School and 80% New School.
If he is right then the OPC has its work cut out for it, in the estimation
of this Old School Presbyterian. Even after the exodus of many New Life
churches from the OPC (bondage) to the PCA (freedom), the OPC still has a
fair number of churches that fit the New Life/New School mode. So my views
are by no means those of the OPC at large, though I like to think that a
majority in the church, no matter how slim, agrees with much of what I have
written here. Plus a church doesn't have to be perfect for us to stay in it.
But in the end, numbers don't matter. Truth does. I can still in good
conscience affirm the truths I professed in my ordination vows in the OPC,
I don't need to cross my fingers.
Hart’s Answer to Morgan: Addendum
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 22:11:23 -0500
Oops. Once I saw the question to Prof. Frame I stopped reading. So I
apologize for not responding to the question about the Presbyterian Church
with New Life and Old Life constituencies. I would argue that the matter
needs to be seen from the perspective of how worship binds consciences. In
the case of New Life worship, since it does not in my judgment follow the
RPW, it illegitimately binds the consciences of Old Life worshipers. But
Old Life worship, because it does follow the RPW also binds the consciences
of New Life worshipers but does so legitimately because Christ, the word
incarnate, is Lord of conscience, and so consciences bound by the word are
really liberated by the yoke of the gospel.
For instance, I can see how singing Psalm 124 with the Louis Bourgeois
tune, Old 124th, would not be the preference of New Life worshipers and
that they may say their consciences are being bound to conform to something
against their conscience. But such binding of the conscience is legitimate
since the Bible commands us to sings psalms (and hymns?). In other words,
the New Life members have no real grounds for complaint. But if Old Life
members object to singing Majesty because it conflicts with their
understanding of biblical worship, session needs to make a biblical case to
show that such binding of the Old Life conscience is legitimate. If it
cannot, or if it uses arguments that have more to do with evangelism or
intelligibility than with worship, then they have put human wisdom above
the clear teaching of the word. So because Old Life worship, I believe, is
biblical, it is ok if it binds the consciences of people who object to it.
Such binding is legitimate.
But this is not the whole answer. As a conservative I believe that change
should be gradual, not radical, even if it means principles have to be
compromised for a time. So in the case of a split congregation I would
advocate changing the order of service gradually in the direction of Old
Life worship while also providing a wide range of instruction about worship
to teach New Life and Old Life members about the biblical basis of Old Life
worship. I think such a change would take at least a year.
Sorry again for missing the other part of the question.
16. From Lauence K. Wells to Hart
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 22:37:51 -0500
How would you compare the RPW to the Catholic concept of "lex orandi, lex
credendi"? Laurence K. Wells
Hart’s Answer to Wells
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 11:15:30 -0500
This question has me stumped. I am so provincial (SURPRISE!) that I don't
know the Catholic teaching alluded to in Mr. Wells question. And my rusty
Latin is not much help. The best I can do is that of "the law spoken
(taught) is the law believed (trusted)." If that is anywhere near the idea
I can see a certain affinity with the RPW. What the Bible teaches we must
do. And what the Bible commands we must trust will be pleasing to God. The
trust part is important because often it seems to me that innovations in
worship come from not trusting God's word. He says that he will bless the
reading and preaching of the word and will bring his people to him through
the ordinary means of the word, sacraments and prayer. And we have a
difficult time believing this. Wouldn't it be better for us to devise
something a little more attractive to the unchurched? But God will bless
the means of grace and has given the church the task of using those means.
So what the Bible speaks we must trust.
But I am probably way off (the Catholic Encyclopedias were of no help!).
Forgive my Reformed provincialism, please, and explain your question
further if you want.
17. From Joel J. Mathew to Hart
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 22:41:14 -0500
Dear Dr. Hart:
Pentecostals often cite King David's little jig celebrating the
return of the ark of the covenant as "proof" that dancing can be used as
a legitmate expression of worship. And they would further chide us
conservative Reformed folk for being more like David's indignant wife,
who, it appears, was punished for her condescending manner.
So my question is threefold: 1) Was David's dance a
praiseworthy act? 2)Does it make the act normative for all? and
3) Was there something sinister in what David did, calling attention to
himself, maybe making what he did analogous to the Israelites dancing
around the golden calf?
Thank you.
Joel
Hart’s Answer to Joel Mathew
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 22:17:12 -0500
Was David's dance sinister or praiseworthy? On the basis of a Puritan
reading of the RPW it is too close to call either way for the reason that
this was not a worship setting. The RPW regulates corporate worship, not
all of life, contrary to Prof. Frame's effort to extend it to all of life.
For me, and I think for others who stand in the tradition of the Puritan
RPW, David's dancing is akin to eating meat offered to idols that Paul
mentions in 1 Cor 8. For some it is praiseworthy, for others it is
sinister. But the point is that the church does not have the power to say.
My answer so far also points in the direction of how I would answer the
middle of Mr. Mathew's three questions, whether David's dance is normative.
Because it is not a worship setting and because God does not condemn
David's act I would say it is not normative for corporate worship. It is
not simply a question of what we may do. If that were so then David might
be a model. But we must have a clear biblical warrant for what we do in
worship. Which means that David may be normative for dance outside of
worship, but he may not as well. After all we would not make David the
norm for our understanding of marriage. Here I have in mind not his
adulterous affair but the number of wives he had. The point being that
when we interpret the Old Testament for Christian worship we need to keep
in mind the kind of differences mentioned in the WCF, ch. 7 on changes in
the administration of the covenant of grace from the OT to the NT. If the
OT says play a harp, we also need to remember that the OT commands
sacrifice the pascal lamb. So importing the liturgy of the OT into the NT
can be dicey.
While I am at it this may be a place to respond to a point Prof. Frame made
about synagogue worship in the OT. The synagogue is not a violation of the
RPW because the RPW only applied to Temple worship. Which means that
believers may gather in all sorts of ways for edification and growth in
grace outside of worship called by the session. But when they meet for
corporate worship, that is, the kind of worship for which the church may
discipline, then the RPW applies.
Hope this comes close to obsfuscating the questions if I haven't answered
them.
18. From Charles Kilmer to Hart
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 01:12:37 -0500
This is a question for professor Hart:
You said at the end of your closing remarks.
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.
Isn't it Jesus who stands at the apex of God's good creation so that we in
Christ may have an unbroken intimacy with the Lord. Isn't Christ at the apex
of God's creation so as to break the very intimacy with the Lord that the devil displayed in the book of Job?
The fitting way to approach God is in humility and godly fear.
You used the words "godly fear" in your closing remarks. Ideally people
would understand godly fear and approach the sanctuary with the proper
humility. However, people often do not. "There is no fear of God in their eyes." For that, is it the job of the pastors to provoke or inspire godly fear in the congregation? And if so --what are appropriate ways for pastors to provoke godly fear in the congregation? And what are ways that pastors slip up and provoke ungodly fear?
Please be specific.
Charlie Kilmer
Hart’s Answer to Kilmer
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 22:14:09 -0500
First, I would have to disagree that Christ is at the apex of God's good
creation. Christ is Lord of creation. He is not created or made, but
eternally begotten. Yes, Christ became man but that does not change his
divine status.
Second, Christ did open a way for us to enter into the holy of holies and
enjoy the fellowship with God only enjoyed in the OT by the high priest.
But that doesn't mean that we do so without a sense of the gulf that
separates us from God, whether as his creatures or saved sinners. As we
enter the holy of holies we would naturally be afraid but need not be so
because we trust Christ has made us acceptable to go before God. But that
trust in Christ breeds humility, thanksgiving, awe and reverence. And fear
is not inappropriate as long as it is godly fear, that is fear that
recognizes what would happen to us were it not for the work of Christ. If
Proverbs says fear is the beginning of wisdom I don't see how our redeemed
standing before God changes the necessity of fear in worship as long as it
is godly fear.
Third, the way pastors prevent godly fear is by informality like saying
"Good Morning" almost like Dr. Nick on the Simpsons says "hello everybody,
I'm Dr. Nick." They also do it by giving the announcements during the
service, thus suggesting that worship is like high school homeroom. They
may also prevent godly fear by telling jokes or breeding levity in any way.
There are not a whole lot of laughs in the Bible, despite Prof. Frame's
rendering of biblical humor (WST, 83), except when God laughs at the
foolishness of the world. Godly fear is also jeopardized by music that is
irreverent, here I have in mind much of the P&W genre. I know that Prof.
Frame does not like my painting with such a broad brush, but I have not
been persuaded by his defense. And my own study of the P&W "hymnals" only
confirms my conviction. Other ways we can discourage godly fear is by
presentations by missionaries -- this is not a time for reports -- this is
a time for a holy dialog between God and his covenant people. These are a
few specific examples, I think.
19. From M. Bradley to Frame
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 17:39:55 -0500
Prof. Frame,
For the sake of being "relevant" have we caved into the old liberal heresy
that "the world sets the agenda and the church follows" and for the sake of
being "intelligible" are we really just catering to the sloth of the average
American by making everything so easy and simple?
Frame’s Answer to M. Bradley
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 23:25:17 -0500
Mmmm... Who's "we?"
Seriously, I plead not guilty, as you might expect me to.
Intelligibility is not just a dodge to make things easy and cater to sloth.
Nor does it have anything to do with liberalism. It is a biblical
principle, which I have expounded at great length in two books and in this
debate. If you still don't see that, I really don't know what more I can
say.
Again, I don't say that everything in worship must be intelligible
to everybody. There ought to be challenge, opportunities to stretch the
mind and spirit. But can you honestly sit there and tell me that we should
never make provision for Jesus' little lambs? the four-year old children,
the street people, the new believers, those for whom English is a second
language, etc., etc.? Should we give NO thought to communicating with
unbelieving visitors? Is there no place in all of this for the compassion
of Jesus, who rebuked the respectable-traditional Pharisees and focused on
the tax collectors and sinners? Jesus was not above telling stories, asking
penetrating questions, expressing loving concern. Come on and grow up! The
church is not an academy for gifted intellectuals, nor a chamber music
society for aesthetic sophisticates. It is a place for all ages and all
nations, rich and poor, to hear the good news and experience the welcoming
love of Jesus.
20. From Moderator Andrew J. Webb for Hart and Frame
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 18:17:08 -0500
Hi all,
First, I'd like to heartily thank both Professor Frame and Dr. Hart for
taking part in this debate, I hope it has been as enjoyable for you two as
it has been informative for us.
Next, I'm going to take the moderator’s perogative to grab the last
questions to both gentlemen:
Dr. Hart, you wrote in a recent post: "But our sojourn in the CRC also
exposed me to other good composers writing hymn tunes after World War II.
Fred Pratt Green is one name I remember. And the CRC's own Emily Brink and
Dale Grotenhuis have written good music appropriate for congregational
singing. The PCA's Leonard Payton is another example of good music being
written in the latter half of the twentieth century."
But the music Leonard Payton writes is primarily for choirs, and Payton has
a choir at his church in Texas. Wouldn't this style of music technically
violate the RPW?
Dr. Frame, you wrote "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?"
I'm wondering if you can cite a few examples of the important things
(specifically doctrinal things, seeing that you used the words "important"
and "gifts of the Spirit") that our brothers in non-Reformed traditions
like Pentecostalism or Wesleyan Methodism might have to teach us?
Thanks again!
Your Servant in Christ,
Andy Webb
Frame’s Answer to Webb
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 23:35:26 -0500
Dr. Frame, you wrote "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?"
I'm wondering if you can cite a few examples of the important things
(specifically doctrinal things, seeing that you used the words "important"
and "gifts of the Spirit") that our brothers in non-Reformed traditions
like Pentecostalism or Wesleyan Methodism might have to teach us?
As I said to Hart, I somewhat share his bias in favor of the
Reformed tradition. So I don't expect to learn a whole LOT of things from
non-Reformed people, but I do think it's important to keep open and to be
teachable.
By the way, I do not draw the equation implicit in your question
between "important" and "doctrinal." That is itself a kind of Reformed
prejudice that I think should be challenged. Beliefs are not more important
than actions from God's perspective. Nor should we see the "gifts of the
Spirit" as having primarily a doctrinal rather than a practical function.
The teaching office teaches actions as well as beliefs.
But I will mention some issues that involve both beliefs and
actions in varying mixes:
1. I do think that American conservative Reformed churches in
recent years have not been very strong in evangelism. There has been all
too little practice of it, and the theological reflection about it has been
mainly negative: "don't do what the Arminians do, especially Finney."
Jack Miller, PEF, and EE represent a few encouraging signs in this respect.
2. Reformed churches, in my experience, have done a very poor job
of discipling adults who are new converts or who come from non-Reformed
backgrounds. People like this typically have huge problems in their past,
and often they haven't a clue about how to study the Scriptures, raise
their kids, develop godly habits. Often the big evangelical churches are
better than we are at discipling, in my view.
3. I would also say that Reformed Christianity is rather narrow in
its appeal today. We seem only to be able to reach people of the white
middle-to-upper class, people with some college education. We have not
reached minorities, the poor, the uneducated. That should be a special
concern, because in Scripture the church is ethnically and socially
universal, and it has a special concern for the poor. Again, there are a
few exceptions to this general rule: CUTS in Philadelphia, books of George
Grant and others. But I still don't see us on the whole making much of an
impact. Groups like the Salvation Army and Victory Outreach have much
thinner messages than we, but they have done far more good in poor
communities. We can learn from them.
4. For all our Kuyperian talk about bringing the Word to bear on
all areas of human life, we have not addressed issues in our society very
often or very effectively. The strongest Christian movements influencing
public discussions in politics, ethics, etc. are Charismatic (Christian
Coalition), Fundamentalist (Falwell, Dobson, Bauer, et al), Roman Catholic,
Lutherans (Wurmbrand et al) and Anabaptist (Sider and others). These
leaders are sometimes dependent on Reformed scholarship, but the Reformed
haven't followed up on their insights. One bright spot: World Magazine. We
need to learn from Christians outside our tradition in the practical work
of communicating our ideas to the public.
5. Part of the problem in all these areas is that Reformed
Christianity has been too intellectual in its emphasis. Zwingli actually
eliminated music from the worship service and turned the service
exclusively into a teaching meeting. Other Reformers did not follow
Zwingli's lead in this connection, but they were all very scholarly people,
and they put a great emphasis on learning as a necessity for pastors. So
many Reformed people have taught the "primacy of the intellect," the notion
that God's truth always enters (and should enter) us by the intellect,
before it affects the will and the emotions. Van Til differed with Gordon
Clark on this, and I follow VT's lead. Not only does the intellect affect
the will, but the reverse is also true: the will often directs the
intellect, as when the unbeliever suppresses the truth. Among intellect,
emotions and will, none is higher than the others. All of these fell
together in Adam's transgression; all are redeemed together in Christ. That
is to say that our sin, salvation, decisions and knowledge pertain to the
whole person, not to isolated faculties.
So I think we need to put much more emphasis on will and emotion in
our preaching and worship. In these respects, we need to be much more like
Scripture itself. In my view, the charismatics err on the other side, but
we can learn from them. And we should be less shy about appealing to the
will. Scripture calls on people to make commitments, decisions if you will.
In Scripture, God pleads with sinners. We, however, tend to just state the
truth and wait to see how people respond. Here I think the Arminians are
actually closer to the truth than we are.
I think Reformed people greatly err when they criticize EE for
emphasizing decisions. That criticism is hyper-Calvinistic, rather than
Calvinistic. Man does have an important responsibility to respond to the
Gospel. Demanding that response is part of the gospel. Such human
responsibility is not at all antithetical to divine sovereignty. Man cannot
respond apart from grace, certainly. But scriptural preaching of the gospel
does not tell people to wait passively for God to do something. Rather, it
tells them to repent, believe, and be baptized.
Reformed intellectualism can be countered as we open ourselves to
listen to preachers like Billy Graham. Graham sometimes says Arminian
things and worse; he also says Calvinistic things, sometimes. But he has a
wonderful ability to speak with crystal clarity to people of all
backgrounds. And yes, I believe that he preaches the gospel. I would not
hesitate to take an inquirer to hear him. Graham might say some things I
would disagree with, but I think he will usually communicate more truth to
my unbelieving friend than would be communicated by the average Reformed
preacher. Why can't we teach ministerial students to preach like that?
Another remedy for hyper-intellectualism: coming to realize that at
bottom it is a form of pride. The hyper-intellectualist looks down his nose
at younger or less educated people and senses no obligation to minister to
them.
6. And as you might guess I fault traditional Reformed worship (as
practiced today) because it has an inadequate vocabulary (musical and
otherwise) for expressing joy and for edifying people of all sorts.
7. I think we do a fairly poor job at evaluating ministerial
candidates and preparing them for the ministry. Our seminaries give them a
good academic preparation: the intellectual area, again, is the Reformed
strength. But most of Paul's qualifications of elders are qualities of
character, and the responsibilities of pastors require interpresonal and
counseling skills of a high degree. We don't have very good ways of
evaluating men in the non-academic areas, assessing their strengths and
weaknesses, helping them to grow. I'm inclined to think (1) we should not
ordain any elders under thirty (maybe 35), (2) that everyone seeking
ordination undergo assessment, such as PCA missions agencies (MTW and MNA)
require of missionaries and church planters, (3) there should be a
multi-year internship before ordination and supervised ministry for those
newly ordained. Here we can learn from Episcopal churches, black churches,
Reformed Baptist ministerial academies, Latin American "street seminaries,"
etc.
8. I also think that the demand for doctrinal precision in
conservative Reformed circles has become rather unbalanced, so that the
matter of church unity gets short shrift. Earlier in this debate, when I
spoke of unity, Hart berated me for advocating "unity at the expense of
truth." Of course I wasn't advocating that. But that's what tends to happen
in our circles when the subject of unity comes up. Unity always gets
trumped by a concern for doctrinal purity, with the implication that we
shouldn't ever seek unity.
And often our concern for doctrinal purity is distorted. Think of
all the controversies among us in recent years that have divided
congregations and presbyteries and created parties within the church,
pitting us against one another: the incomprehensibility of God,
apologetics, the millennium, preterism, Christian liberty, counseling,
subscription, Psalmody, contemporary worship, redemptive-historical
preaching, theonomy, Shepherd's view of justification, six-day creation,
cessationism, common grace and now (God help us!) the alleged necessity of
subscribing to the Scottish national covenants. Only a few of these issues
involve differences over the confession, but in all these areas there have
been parties contending with one another, sometimes very ferociously,
sometimes dividing churches and presbyteries, with people even trying to
hinder ministries that hold the contrary view. We seem to have no
conscience about calling one another terrible names, if they are on the
other side from us of one of these ideological divides.
Some OPC people voted against union with the PCA because the two
groups had different home missions practices, or because the PCA operates a
denominational college.
I don't object to people presenting their views in these areas and
seeking to persuade others in the church. I do object, in most of the above
issues, to making them tests of orthodoxy, reviling those on the other
side, and denying encouragement to ministries on the other side. This
constant battling embitters fellowship and weakens ministry in all areas of
the church's life. In the immortal words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just
get along?" We need to remind ourselves that love (not only the traditional
three marks) is a mark of the church: John 13:35.
9. In our circles, pastors have almost no pastoral care. That can
lead to shipwreck in the ministry. The idea of presbytery as the pastor's
local church becomes quite meaningless when presbytery meetings consist
entirely of business, or, even worse, consist largely of partisan battles.
We can learn from Baptist, charismatics, and others with association-type
polities, where much time at ministers' meetings is spent in prayer and
edification, and where people do not look down their noses at touchy-feely
emotional support.
10. I think that dispensational fundamentalists do a better job at
teaching Scripture to their kids than Reformed churches do. In my view the
teaching of Scripture should take precedence over the teaching of
catechism.
I could say some more things, but I think I've given you a "few
examples ," probably too many. I do love Reformed theology, but I don't
believe that Reformed churches have always been the best churches. We need
to do a lot of growing, in many areas. That's why I think the idea of
making Reformed tradition normative (in addition to the confessions) is
entirely wrongheaded.
Thanks for the soap box! My thanks to Darryl Hart, Andy Webb, and
all the list participants. It's been an interesting exchange.
Blessings in Christ,
John Frame
Hart’s Answer to Andrew Webb
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 22:15:39 -0500
Yes, I think choirs do technically violate the principles of Reformed
worship, which is too bad since I have sung in church choirs and believe
there is a great repertoire of choral music for church choirs, especially
by the Brits. But that is the good thing about the RPW: if something is
illegitimate in worship on the Lord's Day I have six days to enjoy the
products of human wisdom.
I am not entirely familiar with all that Mr. Payton writes. Some of what I
have seen I thought was written for congregational singing. But in those
cases where churches already have choirs and in the spirit of gradual,
conservative reform, we do have creative ways of using choirs, such as
having them sing before the invocation to assist in preparation for
worship, or singing with the congregation a particularly difficult song, or
singing antiphonally with the congregation, and also we need to keep in
mind that concerts by church choirs on days other than the Lord's are
legitimate. It wouldn't be bad either for God's people to gather during
the week to sing choral music.
So while I agree with the assumption behind the question that choirs
specifically and special music violates the RPW, I do think ways exist for
using choirs that need not violate it.
Conclusion
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 22:51:14 -0500
Hi all,
This message is to inform everyone that since all of the questions from the
audience have been answered by Professors Frame and Hart the great RPW
debate has ended.
Once again, please allow me to thank both Professors for graciously
volunteering their valuable time to address this issue.
The text of the debate is going to be published in book form by the
Westminster Bookstore.
If you signed on to the WARFIELD LIST only for the duration of the debate,
and you do not wish to participate in further discussion or receive email
from a very active Reformed mailing list, then you may unsubscribe using
the following directions:
TO UNSUBSCRIBE:
Send an email message to BBWARFLD@EROLS.COM with the words
"unsubscribe Warfield List" (do not use quotation marks) in
the *Subject Line* of the message.
Thank you for joining us, we hope to see you again soon.
On the other hand, if you are interested in sticking around, I will be
sending out further administrative posts explaining the nature and purpose
of the Warfield List and outlining the future of our little (OK, maybe
"little" is a tad inaccurate) discussion group.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] As of 2003, Dr. Hart is Director of Honors Programs and Faculty Development at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute in Wilmington, Delaware.
[2] In 2003, however, Belhaven College conferred on Mr. Frame the Doctor of Divinity.
[3] In 2000 Frame left Westminster and now serves as Professor of Systematic Theology and Philosophy at Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, FL.
[4] Frame here refers to his article, “In Defense of Something Close to Biblicism,” WTJ 59 (1997), 269-318, with replies by David Wells and Richard Muller, and a further reply by Frame. The same article, without the responses, was published in Frame’s Contemporary Worship Music (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1997) as an Appendix, under the title “Sola Scriptura in Theological Method.” The latter version, with Frame’s reply to Wells and Muller, is posted at www.frame-poythress.org.
[5] Gore presented his argument more recently in his Covenantal Worship: Reconsidering the Puritan Regulative Principle (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2002), with a Foreword by John Frame.
[6] Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.
[7] Phillipsburg: P&R, 1997.
No comments:
Post a Comment