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

[Dan....]

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]

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]

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

rsc

 

[R. Scott Clark]

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.

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.

 

[Dan....]

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]

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....]

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]

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]

Originally posted by Dan....
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.

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

 

[MW]

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

 

[Pilgrim]

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.

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

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]

That's the article. It should be online.

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

 

[MW]

Originally posted by joshua

Originally posted by armourbearer
Please excuse my ignorance, but what is the Power Team?

Learn more (or probably less) here.

What happened to "the flesh profiteth nothing."

 

[Pilgrim]

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





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? [CP: question from Andy Webb, Warfield list owner.]



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.

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....]

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]

Originally posted by Dan....
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?

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]

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]

Originally posted by joshua

Originally posted by armourbearer
Please excuse my ignorance, but what is the Power Team?

Learn more (or probably less) here.

Campus Crusade on steroids.

 

[MW]

Originally posted by jaybird0827

Originally posted by joshua

Originally posted by armourbearer
Please excuse my ignorance, but what is the Power Team?

Learn more (or probably less) here.

Campus Crusade on steroids.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

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 à 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]

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

 

[NaphtaliPress]

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]

Originally posted by NaphtaliPress

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?

"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