What do you think?
Rate this book
Worship in Spirit and Truth
This fresh, practical study of worship throws needed light on questions about worship content, music, atmosphere, structure, freedom, clarity, recent trends, and much more. Study groups, church leaders, and all seeking to enrich their experience of worship will profit from this insightful look at the kind of worship that pleases God.
192 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 1996
About the author
John M. Frame
79 books197 followersFor his education, Frame received degrees from Princeton University (A.B.), Westminster Theological Seminary (B.D.), Yale University (A.M. and M.Phil., though he was working on a doctorate and admits his own failure to complete his dissertation), and Belhaven College (D.D.). He has served on the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary and was a founding faculty member of their California campus. He currently (as of 2022) teaches Apologetics and The History of Philosophy and Christian thought at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, FL.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
March 22, 2012
While I love Dr. Frame, I disagree with his take on the regulative principle. The main problem is his blurring of the lines between public and private worship. Below is a little I wrote on that main argument:
Responding to all of Frame’s argument for a general regulative principle would require more than the time allotted for this rebuttal so we will go right to the central issue of Frame’s case. On page 44 of his book, Frame writes, "This position on church power, however, led some theologians to distinguish sharply between worship services that are “formal” or “official” (i.e. sanctioned by the ruling body of the church), and other meetings at which worship takes place such as family devotions, hymn sings at homes, etc., which are not officially sanctioned…. But that distinction is clearly unscriptural…. I therefore reject the limitation of the regulative principle to official worship services."
He also a few pages earlier states, “The regulative principle for worship is no different from the principles by which God regulates all our life.” The central issue is whether or not Scripture distinguishes sharply between public and private worship. Is there a formal service that Scripture calls for and are there prescriptions for it? Frame argues that the distinction between public and private worship is not made in Scripture and therefore the RP applies in the same way to both. If it applies in the same way to both, then if I can do something worshipfully in “all of life” that is acceptable, I can do it in public worship.
However, if there is such a thing as a definable public worship that God commands us to observe and it is distinct from worship in “all of life,” then the RP does apply and it applies in a different way. In “all of life” God’s Word proscribes what may be done, leaving other practices open. We certainly cannot set up idols but we can do things God and our consciences allow that the consciences of others might not allow. In public worship, however, God’s Word, prescribes what may be done, leaving all other practices closed. This is how the RP applies differently in “all of life” and corporate worship. Publically a church can only require its members to do what God has required them to do. Or, to put it another way, a church cannot bind the consciences of its members by making them feel guilty either for doing something against their consciences or for not doing something the leadership says they should be doing. Only God can bind men’s consciences. Only God has the right to make man feel guilty. Instead, I posit that there is a public worship service that is different from “all of life.”
We must ask then, “Where does the NT call us to worship differently? Is there a distinction?” There are few explicit commands in the NT that tell us to gather together to worship (He. 10:25 being one) but that is not because the NT does not expect for there to be corporate worship. That is because the teaching of the NT apostles rests firmly on the OT view of public worship and the assumption that the NT saints gather together in a public, definable worship service. This is the Lord’s Day activity. Frame himself acknowledges this in his excellent work, Doctrine of the Christian Life, “The Sabbath commandment demands godly use of our entire calendar—six days to carry out our own work to God’s glory, and the seventh to worship and rest.” (Pg. 398, emphasis added) This assumption—that we worship corporately on the Lord’s Day—is so pervasive throughout the NT that it undergirds the entire set of NT commands concerning worship. Indeed, many of those commands are unintelligible if there is no such thing as a regulated, public worship service.
•All the epistles of Paul, with the exception of the Pastorals, are written to the corporate church at each city. One can easily infer from this that they were meant to be read at corporate gatherings—the corporate gatherings/events that are assumed in much of the content of the letters.
•Mt. 18:20 indicates that there is a different presence of Christ with believers when they gather together and the rest of “all of life.” Surely it is a special, distinct time of worship when Jesus is among us in a special way has He indicates here. If that is the case, then it is not the same as “worship in all of life” and must be treated differently.
•In Acts 20:17-38 Paul gives his charge to the Ephesian elders, in which he distinguishes between his public teaching of them and the teaching that went on in homes. There was a public time where the Ephesian church gathered and was taught by Paul.
•Paul, in 1 Co. 11:23-34 where he gives regulations for the Lord’s Supper, implies a specific service where the corporate body comes together to worship through the Lord’s Supper. This is not the early Church so-called “agape meal” for Paul tells them in vs. 34 that they are not to come physically hungry. This implies a specific service where worship is taking place and there is a proper and distinct way to observe the Lord’s Supper. Such worship must be orderly and considerate of the body of Christ.
•Paul’s words concerning prophecy and tongues in 1 Co. 14:1-40, particularly vs. 23-2, make no sense if there is not a definable, public worship service that is different from worship in “all of life.”
o In it Paul assumes they are meeting publically (cf. vv. 26, 28, 34-35), which is an implicit command to meet publically.
o He regulates tongues and prophecy for public worship because public worship is supposed to edify the body whereas private worship edifies the individual. It is difficult to see how Frame can mention this passage in a several places in his book and miss the principles that distinguish public from private use of worshipful gifts.
o He also commands that women should be silent in “the churches” (i.e. corporate gathering places) and ask their husbands at home if they have a question. No matter the interpretation of women’s roles in the Church, this clearly distinguishes public from private worship and shows that some things which are permissible at home are not permissible in public worship.
o Vs. 40 commands that all things should be done decently and in order. Frame mentions this verse once but he does not address how it distinguishes public and private worship. Does this mean my private devotions and worship life must follow an orderly fashion or else I am sinning? Does this mean that if my home is messy, I am not worshiping properly? Or, does this show us the separation between public and private worship? This command makes no sense unless “all things” refers to all things in public worship, as opposed to private.
•In 1 Ti. 2 Paul gives Timothy principles for worship that depend on there being a public worship service that is different from private life.
o Prayer is to be offered but without anger or quarrelling (vs. 8). Why? Because public prayers in a worship service are to edify the body (Paul’s general rule) and are not to be disruptive to public worship or personal expressions of anger. Yet, does this mean we can never express the feelings of anger we might have to our heavenly Father who already knows them? Certainly not.
o Paul regulates what woman can wear here. Now, the specific things mentioned are the cultural application of a principle, but what is that principle? That woman should dress in a godly, non-disruptive way in public worship. Well, let me ask a provocative question. Is it godly for a wife to wear lingerie before her husband? I think most would answer, yes, because sex is godly in the context of marriage. Could she wear that in church? Of course not! Because it would be disruptive in public worship but it is perfectly acceptable in the private worship of the marriage bed.
o Women are not allowed to exercise authority over a man. Does this mean that a female boss in the business world is a violation of how worship is to proceed in “all of life.” Or, does this mean that there is a different order for God’s people in local body? Again, public worship is different from “all of life.”
o Paul clearly distinguishes between public and private worship in this text because he is giving Timothy guides for the church when they gather to worship God publically.
•In 1 Ti. 4:6-13 Paul gives Timothy more commands about what it means to be a minister in the Church. What does he command in vs. 13? The public reading of Scripture, exhortation, and teaching. Does this mean there is to be no reading of Scripture, exhortation, or teaching privately? I doubt Paul would say that, but when the Church gathers publically they must be devoted the reading the Scriptures, exhortation, and teaching. Again, he makes a distinction between what is necessary in public worship and what is permitted, but not required, in private.
•I could go on. Many other passages like Ro. 14; 1 Co. 7-10; 16:2; 2 Ti. 4; Tt. 2; He. 4:9; and Re. 1:10 all depend on a distinction between corporate worship and worship in “all of life.” If that distinction does not exist, then these passages and the rest already mentioned are unintelligible.
In addition to the Scriptural arguments above that show a distinction between public and private worship, one can simply make a logical argument. There are things one can easily say are worship in “all of life” but would not at all be acceptable in a public worship service, thus showing the distinction. Clowney gives a very important example: sex. In the context of marriage it is a God-honoring act of “worship in all of life,” but it is categorically unacceptable in the worship service. I, personally, find a good time for prayer to be when I practice martial arts katas because it is time when my mind is focused and I find it worshipful. Does that mean I can do that in worship service and expect them to watch because I find it worshipful and edifying? I know people who find their jogging a precious time of worship in their daily activities. Should we let them bring in a treadmill and run before the congregation? Another more contentious example: lyrical dance holds a special place in the hearts of those who understand it and participate in it, and it is a way they can express emotion and worship before God. If it is done in a worship service, however, how does it edify the body? Most people there will not understand at all how it is worship and it may in fact wound the conscience of a believer who does not believe dancing is proper. Frame argues that dancing is permissible simply on the grounds that it can be worshipful and it is not forbidden. How does it edify the body? What about the consciences of people in the audience who feel guilty because they do not understand what is going on but think they should? We do not have the right to bind them that way.
There is also the flipside of the coin: there are things which are acceptable in corporate worship and not in private, i.e. the sacraments. They are not to be done unless administered by God’s called, ordained men and then only in the context of public worship. Thus, by giving examples of things acceptable privately but not publically and vise-versa, one can logically show that there is a strong distinction between public and private worship.
Since there is a definable worship service that is distinct from the believer’s worship in the rest of life, then, as the Westminster divines taught, the RP must apply differently there than in the rest of life. To be sure, man cannot make sacrifices in his private life because God has forbade them since Jesus is the final and ultimate sacrifice, but that is not tantamount to saying the RP applies to “all of life” in the same way it does to public worship. It does apply to all of life but by what is proscribes, and it applies to corporate worship by what it prescribes. There may be many ways of worshiping God privately that are not acceptable publically because they may bind the conscience of man. The RP tells us that because of the distinction between public and private worship, in public worship only God can say, “You must do this” and therefore bind our consciences. Since that is the case, public worship must follow prescription only. This is the only way to make it a freeing time of worship for all men and not a time of tyranny under the whims of a worship leader or pastor.
What, then, are the prescribed elements of corporate worship? First, it is worth pointing out that Frame does not do justice to the continuing continuity of Old Testament worship. In chapter three Frame states, “From a NT perspective, we can see all the various elements of OT worship pointing to Jesus.” He then cites many examples of aspects of the ceremonial law that Jesus did fulfill and concludes, “Essentially, what is left is worship in the broad sense: a life of obedience to God’s Word, a sacrifice of ourselves to His purposes.” While we do not deny that the ceremonial law is fulfilled in Christ that does not reflect the whole of OT worship. There are many trans-covenantal aspects of worship, reflected in passages like Joshua 24, which continued into the synagogue period and the NT—prayer, praise, reading of the Scriptures, teaching on the Scriptures, and sacramental meals. These map very clearly to the NT elements of worship—preaching, reading Scripture, praying, singing, and the sacraments.
Are these elements commanded in the NT or are they just descriptive, as Frame holds. In 2 Ti. 4:2, where Paul is giving his final instructions to Timothy for leading of the church, Paul tells him to preach the Word “in season and out.” Of course, this is just a repeat of the command he gave Timothy in 1 Ti. 4:6-13 where he tells him to devote (imperative) himself to public teaching and exhortation, i.e. preaching. This is, of course, crucial to the converting of the lost as Paul tells us in Ro. 10:14, 17. In Acts 2 what was one of things the church was devoted to? The apostles teaching, which is a description of what carried through the NT and is commanded here to Timothy. What about the reading of Scripture? Again, in 1 Ti. 4:13 Paul commands Timothy to be devoted to the public reading of Scripture. Early on in 1 Ti. 2 Paul says that protos, first, chiefly he wants prayer to be a part of public worship, all kinds of prayers for all kinds of people. Again, this is one of the things Acts 2 tells us the early Church was devoted to. Much like preaching, that is a description of what carried through the NT and Paul commands Timothy to continue in the church at Ephesus. What about singing? In Eph. 5:18-19 and Col. 3:16 command the saints to sing, which matches nicely with the descriptions of singing in corporate worship in Mt. 26:30 and Re. 5:9. Of course, as Jesus told us to repeat the Lord’s Supper and baptize in the names of the members of the Trinity, the sacraments are an element of worship, shown in Mt. 28:19; Lk. 22:14-20; Ac. 2:38-39; 1 Co. 11:23-26; Col. 2:11-12.
To be sure, there is plenty of description in the NT, but as most of the NT writings often assumed the corporate gathering of God’s people for worship so they often assumed the elements of worship that were taught to them by the apostles. Such things could certainly be deduced as elements of public worship of God because they are derived by good and necessary consequence. However, we do not even need to do that because the elements are commanded in various places in the NT. It is not enough for Dr. Frame to say that the NT merely describes the elements worship. He must content with these passages in their contexts and show they are not what they appear to be, i.e. commands.
Responding to all of Frame’s argument for a general regulative principle would require more than the time allotted for this rebuttal so we will go right to the central issue of Frame’s case. On page 44 of his book, Frame writes, "This position on church power, however, led some theologians to distinguish sharply between worship services that are “formal” or “official” (i.e. sanctioned by the ruling body of the church), and other meetings at which worship takes place such as family devotions, hymn sings at homes, etc., which are not officially sanctioned…. But that distinction is clearly unscriptural…. I therefore reject the limitation of the regulative principle to official worship services."
He also a few pages earlier states, “The regulative principle for worship is no different from the principles by which God regulates all our life.” The central issue is whether or not Scripture distinguishes sharply between public and private worship. Is there a formal service that Scripture calls for and are there prescriptions for it? Frame argues that the distinction between public and private worship is not made in Scripture and therefore the RP applies in the same way to both. If it applies in the same way to both, then if I can do something worshipfully in “all of life” that is acceptable, I can do it in public worship.
However, if there is such a thing as a definable public worship that God commands us to observe and it is distinct from worship in “all of life,” then the RP does apply and it applies in a different way. In “all of life” God’s Word proscribes what may be done, leaving other practices open. We certainly cannot set up idols but we can do things God and our consciences allow that the consciences of others might not allow. In public worship, however, God’s Word, prescribes what may be done, leaving all other practices closed. This is how the RP applies differently in “all of life” and corporate worship. Publically a church can only require its members to do what God has required them to do. Or, to put it another way, a church cannot bind the consciences of its members by making them feel guilty either for doing something against their consciences or for not doing something the leadership says they should be doing. Only God can bind men’s consciences. Only God has the right to make man feel guilty. Instead, I posit that there is a public worship service that is different from “all of life.”
We must ask then, “Where does the NT call us to worship differently? Is there a distinction?” There are few explicit commands in the NT that tell us to gather together to worship (He. 10:25 being one) but that is not because the NT does not expect for there to be corporate worship. That is because the teaching of the NT apostles rests firmly on the OT view of public worship and the assumption that the NT saints gather together in a public, definable worship service. This is the Lord’s Day activity. Frame himself acknowledges this in his excellent work, Doctrine of the Christian Life, “The Sabbath commandment demands godly use of our entire calendar—six days to carry out our own work to God’s glory, and the seventh to worship and rest.” (Pg. 398, emphasis added) This assumption—that we worship corporately on the Lord’s Day—is so pervasive throughout the NT that it undergirds the entire set of NT commands concerning worship. Indeed, many of those commands are unintelligible if there is no such thing as a regulated, public worship service.
•All the epistles of Paul, with the exception of the Pastorals, are written to the corporate church at each city. One can easily infer from this that they were meant to be read at corporate gatherings—the corporate gatherings/events that are assumed in much of the content of the letters.
•Mt. 18:20 indicates that there is a different presence of Christ with believers when they gather together and the rest of “all of life.” Surely it is a special, distinct time of worship when Jesus is among us in a special way has He indicates here. If that is the case, then it is not the same as “worship in all of life” and must be treated differently.
•In Acts 20:17-38 Paul gives his charge to the Ephesian elders, in which he distinguishes between his public teaching of them and the teaching that went on in homes. There was a public time where the Ephesian church gathered and was taught by Paul.
•Paul, in 1 Co. 11:23-34 where he gives regulations for the Lord’s Supper, implies a specific service where the corporate body comes together to worship through the Lord’s Supper. This is not the early Church so-called “agape meal” for Paul tells them in vs. 34 that they are not to come physically hungry. This implies a specific service where worship is taking place and there is a proper and distinct way to observe the Lord’s Supper. Such worship must be orderly and considerate of the body of Christ.
•Paul’s words concerning prophecy and tongues in 1 Co. 14:1-40, particularly vs. 23-2, make no sense if there is not a definable, public worship service that is different from worship in “all of life.”
o In it Paul assumes they are meeting publically (cf. vv. 26, 28, 34-35), which is an implicit command to meet publically.
o He regulates tongues and prophecy for public worship because public worship is supposed to edify the body whereas private worship edifies the individual. It is difficult to see how Frame can mention this passage in a several places in his book and miss the principles that distinguish public from private use of worshipful gifts.
o He also commands that women should be silent in “the churches” (i.e. corporate gathering places) and ask their husbands at home if they have a question. No matter the interpretation of women’s roles in the Church, this clearly distinguishes public from private worship and shows that some things which are permissible at home are not permissible in public worship.
o Vs. 40 commands that all things should be done decently and in order. Frame mentions this verse once but he does not address how it distinguishes public and private worship. Does this mean my private devotions and worship life must follow an orderly fashion or else I am sinning? Does this mean that if my home is messy, I am not worshiping properly? Or, does this show us the separation between public and private worship? This command makes no sense unless “all things” refers to all things in public worship, as opposed to private.
•In 1 Ti. 2 Paul gives Timothy principles for worship that depend on there being a public worship service that is different from private life.
o Prayer is to be offered but without anger or quarrelling (vs. 8). Why? Because public prayers in a worship service are to edify the body (Paul’s general rule) and are not to be disruptive to public worship or personal expressions of anger. Yet, does this mean we can never express the feelings of anger we might have to our heavenly Father who already knows them? Certainly not.
o Paul regulates what woman can wear here. Now, the specific things mentioned are the cultural application of a principle, but what is that principle? That woman should dress in a godly, non-disruptive way in public worship. Well, let me ask a provocative question. Is it godly for a wife to wear lingerie before her husband? I think most would answer, yes, because sex is godly in the context of marriage. Could she wear that in church? Of course not! Because it would be disruptive in public worship but it is perfectly acceptable in the private worship of the marriage bed.
o Women are not allowed to exercise authority over a man. Does this mean that a female boss in the business world is a violation of how worship is to proceed in “all of life.” Or, does this mean that there is a different order for God’s people in local body? Again, public worship is different from “all of life.”
o Paul clearly distinguishes between public and private worship in this text because he is giving Timothy guides for the church when they gather to worship God publically.
•In 1 Ti. 4:6-13 Paul gives Timothy more commands about what it means to be a minister in the Church. What does he command in vs. 13? The public reading of Scripture, exhortation, and teaching. Does this mean there is to be no reading of Scripture, exhortation, or teaching privately? I doubt Paul would say that, but when the Church gathers publically they must be devoted the reading the Scriptures, exhortation, and teaching. Again, he makes a distinction between what is necessary in public worship and what is permitted, but not required, in private.
•I could go on. Many other passages like Ro. 14; 1 Co. 7-10; 16:2; 2 Ti. 4; Tt. 2; He. 4:9; and Re. 1:10 all depend on a distinction between corporate worship and worship in “all of life.” If that distinction does not exist, then these passages and the rest already mentioned are unintelligible.
In addition to the Scriptural arguments above that show a distinction between public and private worship, one can simply make a logical argument. There are things one can easily say are worship in “all of life” but would not at all be acceptable in a public worship service, thus showing the distinction. Clowney gives a very important example: sex. In the context of marriage it is a God-honoring act of “worship in all of life,” but it is categorically unacceptable in the worship service. I, personally, find a good time for prayer to be when I practice martial arts katas because it is time when my mind is focused and I find it worshipful. Does that mean I can do that in worship service and expect them to watch because I find it worshipful and edifying? I know people who find their jogging a precious time of worship in their daily activities. Should we let them bring in a treadmill and run before the congregation? Another more contentious example: lyrical dance holds a special place in the hearts of those who understand it and participate in it, and it is a way they can express emotion and worship before God. If it is done in a worship service, however, how does it edify the body? Most people there will not understand at all how it is worship and it may in fact wound the conscience of a believer who does not believe dancing is proper. Frame argues that dancing is permissible simply on the grounds that it can be worshipful and it is not forbidden. How does it edify the body? What about the consciences of people in the audience who feel guilty because they do not understand what is going on but think they should? We do not have the right to bind them that way.
There is also the flipside of the coin: there are things which are acceptable in corporate worship and not in private, i.e. the sacraments. They are not to be done unless administered by God’s called, ordained men and then only in the context of public worship. Thus, by giving examples of things acceptable privately but not publically and vise-versa, one can logically show that there is a strong distinction between public and private worship.
Since there is a definable worship service that is distinct from the believer’s worship in the rest of life, then, as the Westminster divines taught, the RP must apply differently there than in the rest of life. To be sure, man cannot make sacrifices in his private life because God has forbade them since Jesus is the final and ultimate sacrifice, but that is not tantamount to saying the RP applies to “all of life” in the same way it does to public worship. It does apply to all of life but by what is proscribes, and it applies to corporate worship by what it prescribes. There may be many ways of worshiping God privately that are not acceptable publically because they may bind the conscience of man. The RP tells us that because of the distinction between public and private worship, in public worship only God can say, “You must do this” and therefore bind our consciences. Since that is the case, public worship must follow prescription only. This is the only way to make it a freeing time of worship for all men and not a time of tyranny under the whims of a worship leader or pastor.
What, then, are the prescribed elements of corporate worship? First, it is worth pointing out that Frame does not do justice to the continuing continuity of Old Testament worship. In chapter three Frame states, “From a NT perspective, we can see all the various elements of OT worship pointing to Jesus.” He then cites many examples of aspects of the ceremonial law that Jesus did fulfill and concludes, “Essentially, what is left is worship in the broad sense: a life of obedience to God’s Word, a sacrifice of ourselves to His purposes.” While we do not deny that the ceremonial law is fulfilled in Christ that does not reflect the whole of OT worship. There are many trans-covenantal aspects of worship, reflected in passages like Joshua 24, which continued into the synagogue period and the NT—prayer, praise, reading of the Scriptures, teaching on the Scriptures, and sacramental meals. These map very clearly to the NT elements of worship—preaching, reading Scripture, praying, singing, and the sacraments.
Are these elements commanded in the NT or are they just descriptive, as Frame holds. In 2 Ti. 4:2, where Paul is giving his final instructions to Timothy for leading of the church, Paul tells him to preach the Word “in season and out.” Of course, this is just a repeat of the command he gave Timothy in 1 Ti. 4:6-13 where he tells him to devote (imperative) himself to public teaching and exhortation, i.e. preaching. This is, of course, crucial to the converting of the lost as Paul tells us in Ro. 10:14, 17. In Acts 2 what was one of things the church was devoted to? The apostles teaching, which is a description of what carried through the NT and is commanded here to Timothy. What about the reading of Scripture? Again, in 1 Ti. 4:13 Paul commands Timothy to be devoted to the public reading of Scripture. Early on in 1 Ti. 2 Paul says that protos, first, chiefly he wants prayer to be a part of public worship, all kinds of prayers for all kinds of people. Again, this is one of the things Acts 2 tells us the early Church was devoted to. Much like preaching, that is a description of what carried through the NT and Paul commands Timothy to continue in the church at Ephesus. What about singing? In Eph. 5:18-19 and Col. 3:16 command the saints to sing, which matches nicely with the descriptions of singing in corporate worship in Mt. 26:30 and Re. 5:9. Of course, as Jesus told us to repeat the Lord’s Supper and baptize in the names of the members of the Trinity, the sacraments are an element of worship, shown in Mt. 28:19; Lk. 22:14-20; Ac. 2:38-39; 1 Co. 11:23-26; Col. 2:11-12.
To be sure, there is plenty of description in the NT, but as most of the NT writings often assumed the corporate gathering of God’s people for worship so they often assumed the elements of worship that were taught to them by the apostles. Such things could certainly be deduced as elements of public worship of God because they are derived by good and necessary consequence. However, we do not even need to do that because the elements are commanded in various places in the NT. It is not enough for Dr. Frame to say that the NT merely describes the elements worship. He must content with these passages in their contexts and show they are not what they appear to be, i.e. commands.
December 4, 2014
The first 40 pages or so is a basic review of Covenantal history. This is familiar topic to most reformed readers, and while quite good, is probably not why people are reading this text. He then analyzes the RPW. He agrees with the claim that worship must be regulated by the Bible, but is concerned that RPW advocates have painted themselves in the corner. Per the RPW, Frame asks
What are these “circumstances” (WCF 21.1)? The Confession doesn’t say, except to note “light of nature.” I’m open to general revelation, and I would agree with the WCF on this point, but general revelation by its very definition resists specificity.
Saying “circumstances” are secular elements (also common to ordinary life--time, place) isn’t quite accurate. Frame notes, “There seem to be some matters in worship which are ‘not common to human actions and societies,” concerning which we must use our judgment (Frame 41; e.g., what precise words to use in our prayers). Prayer is not “common to society,” yet aside from repeating the psalms as prayers (and one could do far worse), it appears that we will have to use our own judgment. Frame scores points here.
Frame suggests we use “application” instead of “circumstance” (41). This avoids the Aristotelianism of earlier language. Can one use the language without adopting the concepts? Probably, but it’s hard and eventually something must change. I understand the Aristotelian distinction between substance and accidents, but when applied to worship we really don’t see the Bible using that approach.
Regarding Nadab and Abihu, Frame is correct to point out that this verse does not teach “What is not commanded is forbidden,” but “what is explicitly forbidden is forbidden.” Nadab and Abihu did not use the right kind of fire. They were doing a forbidden act.
Elements
I agree that the Bible regulates our worship. This statement is quite different from the typical RPW claim (see below). We have the premise:
We may only perform what Scripture commands.
We must add another premise:
In the end God only commands broad generalities (52).
Frame develops (2): Where does Scripture bifurcate worship into elements and circumstances? Scripture (a) nowhere divides worship into independent elements and (b) then brings them together. Which activity is elemental in character and which is simply an application of carrying out certain elements (53).
For example, per the above view, the Scripture prescribes singing psalms, whose content is identified. Scripture also prescribes public prayer and preaching, whose content is not really specified beyond “being biblical,” etc.
The things we do in worship are not always easily separated into elements and circumstances. Singing and teaching are not always distinct. When we sing a hymn, we teach other people (Col. 3:16).
In pp. 56-60 Frame gives his own list of a worship service, which is basically what you will find in any Reformed, non-covenanter service.
Instruments
The no-instruments Presbyterians say that instruments were tied to the temple worship and were abolished in the death of Christ. Frame responds:
Instruments were not always tied to Temple worship (see Miriam and David in the Tabernacle). Later, they were, and one could argue for progressive revelation, but the point is that they did not always have a Temple-only function (nor did God say that).
Further, we do actions today that were part of Temple worship: we pray in worship; we take oaths in worship; and we teach God’s word, yet none of this was abolished in the death of Christ.
We don’t really see Music in the OT as being set forth to typify the work of Christ.
True, we don’t see music in the synagogues, but we don’t know why so we can’t give a firm reason why not.
How can one claim to be no-instruments yet still rely on a pitch pipe?
What about the body?
I can agree with Frame that dancing, clapping, etc is biblical. But there are also other biblical premises: don’t distract others. Let it be done decently and in good order (the OPC theme verse). It’s hard to imagine how one can have “spontaneous dancing and clapping” and not distract others in worship.
Criticisms
Frame doesn’t seem give weight to a particular sequential format of worship. To be fair, Scripture is not explicit on this point, but if there are biblical patterns of God’s redemption, should not our worship incorporate that? Personally, I am undecided on this point, but it is probably not accidental that many Reformed churches have a generally similar sequential order.
On another point, I understand his concerns about needing to express God’s truth in contemporary language, but it’s really hard to separate the medium from the message on this point. Frame acknowledges the point concerning “thrash metal” music in the service (141). Some forms of entertainment are so thoroughly identified with the most degenerate elements of culture that it is not wise to import them.
And Frame is very aware that worship is “not to cater to unbelievers” (146). Being a Christian has a grammar and a way of living. Yes, it should be intelligible to othersbut the Christian life is also one of growth and maturity; sometimes it might be legitimate to express worship in a way that adequately corresponds to the richness of God’s redemption. On the other hand, I understand the Puritan desire for simplicity for the sake of not distracting from Christ.
What are these “circumstances” (WCF 21.1)? The Confession doesn’t say, except to note “light of nature.” I’m open to general revelation, and I would agree with the WCF on this point, but general revelation by its very definition resists specificity.
Saying “circumstances” are secular elements (also common to ordinary life--time, place) isn’t quite accurate. Frame notes, “There seem to be some matters in worship which are ‘not common to human actions and societies,” concerning which we must use our judgment (Frame 41; e.g., what precise words to use in our prayers). Prayer is not “common to society,” yet aside from repeating the psalms as prayers (and one could do far worse), it appears that we will have to use our own judgment. Frame scores points here.
Frame suggests we use “application” instead of “circumstance” (41). This avoids the Aristotelianism of earlier language. Can one use the language without adopting the concepts? Probably, but it’s hard and eventually something must change. I understand the Aristotelian distinction between substance and accidents, but when applied to worship we really don’t see the Bible using that approach.
Regarding Nadab and Abihu, Frame is correct to point out that this verse does not teach “What is not commanded is forbidden,” but “what is explicitly forbidden is forbidden.” Nadab and Abihu did not use the right kind of fire. They were doing a forbidden act.
Elements
I agree that the Bible regulates our worship. This statement is quite different from the typical RPW claim (see below). We have the premise:
We may only perform what Scripture commands.
We must add another premise:
In the end God only commands broad generalities (52).
Frame develops (2): Where does Scripture bifurcate worship into elements and circumstances? Scripture (a) nowhere divides worship into independent elements and (b) then brings them together. Which activity is elemental in character and which is simply an application of carrying out certain elements (53).
For example, per the above view, the Scripture prescribes singing psalms, whose content is identified. Scripture also prescribes public prayer and preaching, whose content is not really specified beyond “being biblical,” etc.
The things we do in worship are not always easily separated into elements and circumstances. Singing and teaching are not always distinct. When we sing a hymn, we teach other people (Col. 3:16).
In pp. 56-60 Frame gives his own list of a worship service, which is basically what you will find in any Reformed, non-covenanter service.
Instruments
The no-instruments Presbyterians say that instruments were tied to the temple worship and were abolished in the death of Christ. Frame responds:
Instruments were not always tied to Temple worship (see Miriam and David in the Tabernacle). Later, they were, and one could argue for progressive revelation, but the point is that they did not always have a Temple-only function (nor did God say that).
Further, we do actions today that were part of Temple worship: we pray in worship; we take oaths in worship; and we teach God’s word, yet none of this was abolished in the death of Christ.
We don’t really see Music in the OT as being set forth to typify the work of Christ.
True, we don’t see music in the synagogues, but we don’t know why so we can’t give a firm reason why not.
How can one claim to be no-instruments yet still rely on a pitch pipe?
What about the body?
I can agree with Frame that dancing, clapping, etc is biblical. But there are also other biblical premises: don’t distract others. Let it be done decently and in good order (the OPC theme verse). It’s hard to imagine how one can have “spontaneous dancing and clapping” and not distract others in worship.
Criticisms
Frame doesn’t seem give weight to a particular sequential format of worship. To be fair, Scripture is not explicit on this point, but if there are biblical patterns of God’s redemption, should not our worship incorporate that? Personally, I am undecided on this point, but it is probably not accidental that many Reformed churches have a generally similar sequential order.
On another point, I understand his concerns about needing to express God’s truth in contemporary language, but it’s really hard to separate the medium from the message on this point. Frame acknowledges the point concerning “thrash metal” music in the service (141). Some forms of entertainment are so thoroughly identified with the most degenerate elements of culture that it is not wise to import them.
And Frame is very aware that worship is “not to cater to unbelievers” (146). Being a Christian has a grammar and a way of living. Yes, it should be intelligible to othersbut the Christian life is also one of growth and maturity; sometimes it might be legitimate to express worship in a way that adequately corresponds to the richness of God’s redemption. On the other hand, I understand the Puritan desire for simplicity for the sake of not distracting from Christ.
February 15, 2014
Some fresh perspectives here
February 2, 2015
Absolutely fantastic. Every pastor should read this.
April 25, 2020
Frame is a Christian philosopher and theologian who is better known for his systematic theology, but in the late 90s, he also wrote this book about worship. I don’t know much about Presbyterian or covenant theology, but I learned about it pretty quickly because that’s the background he’s coming from. This book was largely aimed at correcting the rigid, traditional thinking of the Presbyterian denomination. Overall, I appreciated his emphasis on looking to what God’s Word actually says rather than legalistically imposing regulations that aren’t mandated by Scripture. However, I do disagree with some of his theology, and therefore with some of his conclusions and suggestions. Surprisingly, I think he was a bit misguided in some of his applications of Scripture, or he neglected to reference passages that were much clearer and/or provided better support. Frequently, he worded things in a way that I found unhelpful or even at times perplexing. His opinion on a matter would often be unclear until the end of the chapter, which leaves the reader sifting through all his philosophizing, trying to figure out what point he’s trying to make. I would not have gotten as much out of this had it not been part of the internship I was assisting with. For one thing, I wouldn’t have even made it to the latter chapters, which is where he made his best points by far. Additionally, we spent a lot of time critically examining what was said and how it was stated, and whether we agreed or how we would have approached it differently. There were ultimately some great takeaways, but a lot of the reading required discernment, and I wouldn’t recommend it to everyone.
December 31, 2019
Thoughtful, charitable and compelling reflections on the nature and purpose of worship. Frame is a balanced critic who understands the arguments from all the corners in this arena. The biggest impact for me was on the question of exclusive psalmody in the worship service. I’ve had an attraction to it, but Frame here demonstrates that it’s not a biblical requirement, and that the pattern of scripture is that new occasions require new songs - like the earthly ministry of Christ to name just the most obvious one.
This is a short book, not intended to be a definitive treatment of the subject. There are several places where I could wish him to explain or qualify an argument more completely, but what are you gonna do?
This is a short book, not intended to be a definitive treatment of the subject. There are several places where I could wish him to explain or qualify an argument more completely, but what are you gonna do?
October 4, 2021
Excelente livro! Frame faz um estudo detalhado, mas não exaustivo, dos princípios bíblicos para o culto cristão. Apresenta uma visão Reformada, portanto, baseada no "princípio regulador" para o culto da Confissão de Fé de Westminster, mas sem se conter no esperado tradicionalismo das igrejas que seguem tal confissão. Antes, celebra a liberdade trazida pelo princípio: a de, após buscar na Palavra a forma como Deus quer ser cultuado, poder aplicar esses princípios ao contexto cultural em que a igreja está inserida. Faz também uma análise sobre os "elementos do culto" da tradição puritana, sugerindo uma nova abordagem, a de atos para serem realizados no culto. A linguagem é teológica, mas de fácil acesso a leitores leigos. Em tempos em que pouco se reflete sobre a forma como cultuamos em comunidade, e questiona-se a necessidade de seguir cultuando dessa forma, é leitura obrigatória a todo o cristão.
January 19, 2022
With a gentle hand Frame outlines the importance of having a theology of worship. I say gentle because Frame is careful to give his convictions but also recognize the legitimacy of others'. This would be a useful tool to get a church thinking about why they worship like they do, even if you have different convictions than Frame.
August 10, 2022
As with all of John Frame's books, he is biblically sound, doctrinally pure, and easily read. This book on worship covers everything from types of musical styles to selections of appropriate music to enhance the worship service.
July 16, 2019
Only read pp 37 - 62 for an RTS course.
October 5, 2021
Bom. Bem equilibrado.
May 3, 2022
This was my first John Frame book. He lived up to his reputation for irenic and well thought out arguments. I found myself nodding throughout.
February 17, 2018
It’s ok. The first chapter on basic principles of worship was good, and some other good points, but a lot of head scratching.
January 22, 2008
If you are familiar with John Frame, you know that he is one of the best Christian theological writers around. With degrees from Princeton and Yale and thirty years of teaching at the seminary and graduate level (Westminister Sem. and Reformed Sem.), he is a very sharp guy and a deep thinker. But his talent comes in the way he is able to synthesize difficult concepts and place them in accessible and easily understood language.
This is a good book, though I disagree with alot of his perspective. He is coming from a Reformed perspective, with a commitment to the regulative principle of worship. But he has an openness which enables him to see beyond the social accidents of his tradition and go back to Scripture for correction and guidance. He is able to sort out what is inconsistent in his tradition with the main impulses that have driven it. He also is good at sorting out the modern equivalents to ancient Biblical directives.
This book discusses the proper elements of worship, various styles, and content. It is always fresh, accessible, challenging, and insightful, even when you disagree with the author. I highly recommend it.
If you are looking for other approaches somewhat at varience with Frame, you might try: Hughes O. Old (more liturgically rich; extremely good), or Robert Rayburn (a generation older and sometimes wiser). Even better Jeffrey Meyer The Lord's Service on covenant renewal. The CRC Worship Sourcebook is great.
This is a good book, though I disagree with alot of his perspective. He is coming from a Reformed perspective, with a commitment to the regulative principle of worship. But he has an openness which enables him to see beyond the social accidents of his tradition and go back to Scripture for correction and guidance. He is able to sort out what is inconsistent in his tradition with the main impulses that have driven it. He also is good at sorting out the modern equivalents to ancient Biblical directives.
This book discusses the proper elements of worship, various styles, and content. It is always fresh, accessible, challenging, and insightful, even when you disagree with the author. I highly recommend it.
If you are looking for other approaches somewhat at varience with Frame, you might try: Hughes O. Old (more liturgically rich; extremely good), or Robert Rayburn (a generation older and sometimes wiser). Even better Jeffrey Meyer The Lord's Service on covenant renewal. The CRC Worship Sourcebook is great.
November 11, 2014
A good introduction to a mainstream Reformed tradition of worship. Frame wrote this book based on notes for a SS class, so it is definitely at a subtechnical level. Nevertheless, he covers all the bases--all of life as worship, the elements of worship, worship wars, music, use of the Word, who can do what, etc.
His view of the regulative principle is a bit broader than I would like. Many believe the regulative principle states that each element of worship but find divine warrant in Scripture. Frame's position is hard to pin down, but it's something like this: Scripture tells us how to worship God, and we're free to apply that in appropriate ways. So he talks a lot about "application of the regulative principle," which is okay in as far as it goes; the whole question is, though, how far is that?? Despite his cloudiness on this point, he arrives at similar conclusions as others in our tradition. He makes good arguments against exclusive psalmody, and against the no-instruments-in-worship view.
I would definitely find other resources to go deeper into the topic, but this is a safe start.
His view of the regulative principle is a bit broader than I would like. Many believe the regulative principle states that each element of worship but find divine warrant in Scripture. Frame's position is hard to pin down, but it's something like this: Scripture tells us how to worship God, and we're free to apply that in appropriate ways. So he talks a lot about "application of the regulative principle," which is okay in as far as it goes; the whole question is, though, how far is that?? Despite his cloudiness on this point, he arrives at similar conclusions as others in our tradition. He makes good arguments against exclusive psalmody, and against the no-instruments-in-worship view.
I would definitely find other resources to go deeper into the topic, but this is a safe start.
December 5, 2016
This is such a refreshing, biblical, and concise book. Dr. Frame says a lot that the "truly" reformed camp will disagree with, but I believe they are things that have need for being said. This is what I love most about John Frame, he is profoundly biblical and willing to humbly disagree with those in his own camp when he senses the need. I have not done too much study on the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW), but it seems that he slightly redefines the principle and argues that it applies to all of life. Since all of life, especially in the NT view, is considered worship "broadly" speaking, and because all of life is to governed by God's word, the RPW should be applied to all of life. The rest of the book is Frame fleshing out this idea by examining corporate worship in both Testaments and showing how the RPW, as defined by Frame, fleshes out in the life of the church's corporate gatherings. Dr. Frame hits on most controversial topics that come up in the discussion of worship, such as music, "elements", themes, drama, preaching etc. It is a concise work and easy to read, but I do hope that he will consider putting something more substantial out in the future.
September 8, 2008
This is an excellent book on worship by a brilliant man. Frame is faithful to Scripture while remaining culturally balanced and insightful.
Frame begins, as most books on worship do, by defining what worship is, and expounding some typical Biblical passages from both the Old Testament and the New. He then moves on to the Regulative Principle which governs the rest of the book.
It is his position on the Regulative Principle that makes this book well worth the read. Frame goes against many in modern-day Reformed circles by saying, "the regulative principle is a charter of freedom, not a burdensome bondage. [It] sets us free from human traditions, to worship God his way" (p. 45). The R.P. gives us great freedom to apply the "rules or worship" to different and diverse cultural & sub-cultural contexts.
Indeed, this is a very well thought out book. It is definitely the best I've read on the regulative principle. It is not at all as rigid as many books on the subject tend to be; but it is, instead, freeing!
Frame begins, as most books on worship do, by defining what worship is, and expounding some typical Biblical passages from both the Old Testament and the New. He then moves on to the Regulative Principle which governs the rest of the book.
It is his position on the Regulative Principle that makes this book well worth the read. Frame goes against many in modern-day Reformed circles by saying, "the regulative principle is a charter of freedom, not a burdensome bondage. [It] sets us free from human traditions, to worship God his way" (p. 45). The R.P. gives us great freedom to apply the "rules or worship" to different and diverse cultural & sub-cultural contexts.
Indeed, this is a very well thought out book. It is definitely the best I've read on the regulative principle. It is not at all as rigid as many books on the subject tend to be; but it is, instead, freeing!
January 12, 2015
John Frame is always an engaging read. Well written this book gives great reflections on the form of worship. Although I would disagree with some of his conclusions his reflections from which he draws them are thought provoking. I really enjoyed this book and think that it's a must read since its such a short read.
January 31, 2008
A great balance of biblical truth and cultural understanding.
March 7, 2009
Quite good.
June 5, 2010
Simple. Useful. But sometimes inadequate. Read this book, but read others, too.
December 22, 2011
This was my first exposure to the notion that God might have opinions about how he is worshipped. It was... mindblowing to me, no joke.
August 8, 2012
Much helpful reflection along biblical, historical, and practical lines.
October 27, 2017
Good thoughts, his approach to the regulative principle is sensible & helpful.
March 10, 2016
3.5 stars
December 31, 2015
Really quite helpful. From a Reformed tradition, but for any Christian who wants to understand the content of God pleasing Christian worship.
Want to read
October 25, 2016Bob Kauflin: "Both of Frame's books are biblical, practical, and easy to read. While written from a Presbyterian perspective, any church will benefit from his insights."
Read
February 18, 2008This book was a refreshing look at worship from "within" a traditional church worship framework.
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews