# John Frame and "mode" in the Regulative Principle of Worship



## Dan.... (Jul 16, 2006)

*John Frame and \"mode\" in the Regulative Principle of Worship*

http://www.reformed.org/misc/index.html?mainframe=/misc/frame_regulative_principle.html

I read the linked article by John Frame, in which he says the following:



> 3) The third qualification also raises some issues. For example, some with covenanter views find it important to argue (or at least to maintain) that song is not a mere circumstance, but an element of worship.5 If song is an element, then it falls under RP1, and we must find commands to tell us what words we may sing in worship. *But is it possible that song is neither an element nor a circumstance, but a way ("mode") of doing other things?* I, at least, think that is likely. Song has no unique and independent functions in biblical worship; rather, *it is a way of praying, a way of teaching, a way of praising, *and so on. The "elements" are praying, teaching, praising, not song as such. And therefore when we want to know what we may sing, we ask not "what does God command us to sing?" but rather "what does God command us to do in prayer, praise, teaching, etc.?" Doubtless covenanters will disagree with this argument. But showing how it is wrong, if it is wrong, will require some level of theological sophistication. Certainly it is not obviously wrong.



How does the traditional Regulative Principle proponents answer Frame concerning this 3rd category, along with "element" and "circumstance" called "mode"; and what is the response of making song a "mode" of performing the "elements" of "praying, teaching, praising"?

It seems to me, that couple of things must follow from this:

1. If singing is only a "mode" by which we may perform the other elements of worship, then singing becomes unnecessary to corporate worship. It would be acceptable for the elders of a congregation to decide that it is okay to not sing.

2. If singing is only a "mode" for performing the elements of worship, then it is acceptable for a pastor to sing his sermon.


I know that later in his article, Frame argues for the Regulative Principle to apply to all of life as well as to worship; but in this thread, let's keep it to one topic at a time; namely "mode" of worship. 


Frame says, "_Doubtless covenanters will disagree with this argument. But showing how it is wrong, if it is wrong, will require some level of theological sophistication. Certainly it is not obviously wrong._"

What say ye? Is he right? Wrong? Why or why not?

[Edited on 7-17-2006 by Dan....]


----------



## MW (Jul 16, 2006)

Dan and Joshua,

You are hitting on the point as to why John Frame has introduced his novel concept of "mode" into the discussion. It is so that he can present "elements" of worship as "modes," and thus get around the RPW.

But let's look through the stained glass, and see what we can see.

The "elements" of worship are the HOW of worship. They are modes. God says to worship Him. We ask, How? and the answer is, pray, praise, sing, hear. Why does John Frame stop at "praising" and "praying" since "praising" and "praying" are modes of worshipping God. By his novel invention he rids the Presbyterian world of "elements" altogether, and thus annihilates the RPW. According to his formulation, the only element of worship is worship itself, and all other actions are modes of performing it.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 16, 2006)

For what it's worth, John has argued that drama can replace the sermon.

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 16, 2006)

I think Rev Winzer is correct. 

Where do we confess "modes" of worship? I cannot find this category in my copy of the Westminster Standards.

As Rev Winzer says, we have elements (that without which there is no worship, that which is of the essence of worship; that which is mandated by God, namely Word, Sacrament, and Prayer). These are fixed things prescribed by God from which God proscribes any mutation.

We also confess circumstances, e.g., times, places etc. These things are mutable according to circumstance. These things, by definition are not elemental or essential to worship. These are "accidental" to worship.

Frame calls for theological sophistication to refute his argument. I wonder what consitutes such? Who has such? Who gets to say what is such? I guess John is the ultimate arbiter of sophistication. 

At the moment, denying that "mode" is a valid category or at least not an obvious category in the Reformed confession of Scripture is the most sophisticated answer I can muster.

Clearly John has "had it" with the RPW. I don't see why he doesn't simply abandon it as a mistake and move on.

rsc




> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> Dan and Joshua,
> 
> You are hitting on the point as to why John Frame has introduced his novel concept of "mode" into the discussion. It is so that he can present "elements" of worship as "modes," and thus get around the RPW.
> ...


----------



## Dan.... (Jul 16, 2006)

Specific to Joshua, in the above referenced article Frame says the following:



> Does the approach of this paper encourage or discourage any specific practices in worship, such as exclusive use of Psalms, use of instruments, *use of drama*? My approach does not in itself settle any of those questions. I think my "three qualifications" make the arguments for exclusive psalmody and against musical instruments much less obvious than they appear to some people. As for drama, the question is clearly not "is there a specific biblical command to have drama in worship?" Rather, the question is, "is drama a legitimate application of the biblical commands to preach the word?" *Is drama a "mode" of preaching or an alternative to it? In my own mind, the former is the case*, since the language for preaching in the NT does not seem to me to presuppose a contrast with drama.


----------



## MW (Jul 16, 2006)

I agree with Prof. Clark. He is better off abandoning the terminology altogether. But the man generally has an ability to make my head spin in the way he redefines things. I still can't get my head around theology-as-application and multi-perspectivalism, and its been some ten years.


----------



## Dan.... (Jul 16, 2006)

Good answer Pastor Winzer. I think you've hit the nail on the coffin of the supposed distinction. If one can refer to a certain element as a "mode" and separate it in definition from the other elements, then one can add additional "modes" while denying that he is adding elements.

Said another way: there are a set number of elements, which cannot be added to. Singing is not an element; it is a "mode". If we add more possible "modes" (as there is no limit to the number of modes we can allow) then we can say that we are not actually adding elements (although in reality, it is adding elements). Therefore, drama is okay because it is a "mode".

Another thing: Can we say that two or more elements cannot be performed at the same time? Frame says that singing is a mode of praying, teaching, etc..., rather than a distinct element.

We can certainly sing a prayer (and I'm sure that the covenanters among at least agree that singing Psalm 51 is singing a prayer). Is that not a combination of two elements? So also, when the Lord's Supper is administered, the gospel is being preached, and typically, the words of the apostle in First Corinthians are being read. 

It seems to me that there is no reason for Frame to say that the Lord's Supper is an element of worship. Rather, the logical conclusion of what he is saying would be that the Lord's Supper is a "mode" of preacing the gospel. 

Another "mode" of preaching or teaching the gospel could be the lighting of candles in a Christmas Eve candlelight service. Thereby we can demonstrate that Jesus Christ is the Light of the World and that we are to share that light with others.

So if a candlelight service is a "mode" of teaching/preaching, then where do we stop? Pretty soon we will be back with Rome with all the added rituals that they perform, but saying that these are but "modes."

[Edited on 7-17-2006 by Dan....]


----------



## MW (Jul 16, 2006)

Excellent point, Dan. I don't believe you can perform two or more elements at the same time, which is why we have an order of service.

Also, going back to Prof. Frame's formulation, one could introduce "modes" into worship, which effectively requires the worshipper to not be fulfilling any of the prescribed elements. Like your example of lighting a candle under the pretence of symbolic preaching. By choosing man's way God's command is left undone. A case of human invention leading to sins of omission. The RPW serves to guard against this.

Does anyone know if T. David Gordon's reply to Prof. Frame is posted anywhere online?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> Specific to Joshua, in the above referenced article Frame says the following:
> 
> 
> ...



Well, I guess the Power Team can't be ruled out either.


----------



## MW (Jul 16, 2006)

Please excuse my ignorance, but what is the Power Team?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> Excellent point, Dan. I don't believe you can perform two or more elements at the same time, which is why we have an order of service.
> 
> Also, going back to Prof. Frame's formulation, one could introduce "modes" into worship, which effectively requires the worshipper to not be fulfilling any of the prescribed elements. Like your example of lighting a candle under the pretence of symbolic preaching. By choosing man's way God's command is left undone. A case of human invention leading to sins of omission. The RPW serves to guard against this.
> ...



I'm assuming that this is what you're looking for: 

Gordon, T. David. "Some Answers about the Regulative Principle," Westminster Theological Journal, 1993 (vol. 55), pp. 321-29.

I've never seen it online. 

For what it's worth I did find Nine Lines of Argument in Favor of the Regulative Principle of Worship


----------



## MW (Jul 16, 2006)

That's the article. It should be online.

I think I've seen the nine points before, perhaps at fpcr.


----------



## MW (Jul 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> ...




 What happened to "the flesh profiteth nothing."


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 17, 2006)

The following is the conclusion to the "Frame-Hart" debate on the RPW that took place on the Warfield list in 1998 and which can be found here.
I think it goes a long way toward revealing Frame's mindset: 



> Frame´s Answer to Webb
> 
> 
> 
> ...




A few of these points have some validity (like #3) but some are real howlers (like #2, 5, 6 and 10 for instance). In a few, like 5, he may have a point, but his solution is way off base, in my opinion. I detect a tendency on his part here to see evangelicalism and other traditions in the best possible light while seeing the Reformed tradition in some cases in the worst possible light. I know there are many people on this board and in Reformed churches who will vigorously disagree with Dr. Frame's assessment of discipleship of new members and teaching children in evangelical/fundamentalist churches vs. Reformed ones. 

It all seems to add up to selling our Reformed birthright for a mess of evanjellyfish potage.


----------



## Dan.... (Jul 17, 2006)

Pastor Winzer,



> I don't believe you can perform two or more elements at the same time, which is why we have an order of service.



Just to confirm: Do you not typically read 1 Cor 11:23-26 or Matt 26:26-28 during the administration of the Lord's Supper?


----------



## MW (Jul 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> Pastor Winzer,
> 
> 
> ...



Ah! you've got me there. And I quote Scripture in the sermon.

But does reading the words of institution qualify as Scripture reading in the ordinary sense of the term? Let me think on this one.


----------



## el calvinist (Jul 17, 2006)

Can such a man who holds to such ungodly beliefs actually be regenerate? Can the Holy Spirit war against himself when it comes to such crucial issues as the worship of God?


----------



## jaybird0827 (Jul 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> ...



Campus Crusade on steroids.


----------



## MW (Jul 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by jaybird0827_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by joshua_
> ...


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 17, 2006)

I am not aware that Dr. Gordon's "Answers" to Professor Frame's "Questions" is online, or, subsequently, if Frame's brief reply is either. To show more of the difficulty with Frame's whole approach to the subject, here is a quote cited in "Reframing Presbyterian Worship: A Critical Survey of the Worship Views ofJohn M. Frame and R. J. Gore, _The Confessional Presbyterian,_ 1.122. 


> 17.	Regarding Gordon´s criticism of his category here, Frame writes: "œAs for "˜mode´ (p. 326), I do not care much about it. Take everything I said about "˜mode´ and put it under "˜circumstances,´ if that makes it clearer. My new paper does not use the "˜mode´ category. It´s a question of how you cut the pie and, of course, whether you like it _Ã  la mode_." John M Frame, "œReply to T. David Gordon," _WTJ_ 56 (Spring 1994) 183.



I also think much of the difficulty with Frame's approach is that he wanted to innovate without doing the hard historical theology work, and there is just maybe a wee bit of disingenuousness when he denies he´s criticizing the Westminster Divines (when he clearly was finding fault with the WCF). I trust though that after all the responses he has received over the years that he no longer claims to hold to the regulative principle of the Westminster Standards (while redefining what they meant).


> Gordon says that this matter must be discussed "œonly within a history-of-doctrine framework" (p. 329). I disagree. I invite him and others to do historical studies, which doubtless will have their value. But mere historical studies do not tell us where the truth lies. For the Reformed scholar, the truth is to be found only through study of Scripture. That point is an application of the very regulative principle we are discussing. In fact, I think that recent theology in orthodox Reformed circles has been too "œhistorical" in its approach, to the point where the regulative principle has been lost sight of."¦
> 
> I will then set aside Gordon´s comments to the effect that the Divines themselves were not subject to my criticisms. I did not intend my paper to be a critique of the Divines. Evidently Gordon thinks that any reference to "œtraditional views" must be a reference to the Divines (p. 329). I do not use the phrase that way. In my vocabulary, the "œReformed tradition" is the whole history of Reformed thinking on the subject, from the sixteenth century to the present. I


 Ibid, 126.
How Frame thinks calling the WCF contradictory and postulating that the assembly didn´t think through the subject of application like "œhe" has done, is not criticism of the Divines, I haven't a clue. 


> Does 1.6, then, contradict 20.2? I think it does, because the writers of 20.2 did not, evidently, think through the concept of application as I have tried to set it forth above.


 Ibid, 123.
The last comment is rather amazing.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 17, 2006)

I think that Frame's reply to Gordon as well as perhaps some other pertinent material is available at http://www.thirdmill.org


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> I think that Frame's reply to Gordon as well as perhaps some other pertinent material is available at http://www.thirdmill.org


Sorry, but after a few attempts at searching I didn't find it. Any direct links?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> ...



"Some Replies to T. David Gordon" is tacked on to the end of this article: http://www.thirdmill.org/newfiles/joh_frame/Frame.Ethics2005.AFreshLookattheRegulativePrinciple.pdf or HTML here


----------

