Ethics of Worship

by Melissa Krabbe

Since everything we do is in essence worship, it’s not surprising to find some discussion of that concept in a book on the ethical way to live a Christian life, but I hadn’t expected that ethics would lead to a discussion of worship services. John Frame, in his sizable book on Christian ethics,[1] notes that most people would have a similar expectation (411). In particular, I was surprised to discover that Frame thinks all worship should be contemporary.  I actually had some fun this week tossing that out to people!  This is from Frame’s discussion of the Regulative Principle, which is based on the second commandment about making images.  Frame paraphrases the commandment: “God forbids the making of images for the purpose of worshipping them” (464).  This is, as he mentions, the most narrow way to read the commandment, and seems at first glance to be unrelated to a discussion of contemporary worship.  The Regulative Principle comes more specifically from the discussion of the second commandment in question 109 of the Larger Catechism which expands on the implications of the commandment by listing what is forbidden.  It says that this prohibits “all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving any religious worship not instituted by God himself…”[2]

Frame notes that many think this is a mandate for traditionalist worship, but says that actually it is a critique of it.  He points out that Jesus also criticized the Pharisees for their idolatry of tradition (Matt. 15:1-9) drawing on Isaiah 29:13 which passed judgment on the Israelites for worshiping according to the commandments of men.  Frame is using the word contemporary in a very broad sense.  He says that worship according to scripture is always contemporary if, as Paul prescribes in 1 Corinthians 14, we pay attention to the intelligibility of what’s being said—worship must be in a language that everyone  can understand so that it is edifying (1 Cor. 14:26).  He also notes that this was a theme of the Reformation that led to worship being conducted in German instead of Latin, and that also prompted Luther to compose hymns using common bar tunes (yay, Luther!).  Frame does say more specifically that he feels that the Regulative Principle excludes archaic worship, except where it can be sufficiently explained, and warrants contemporary music (481).  What Frame does not discuss here, but does discuss elsewhere (905-6), is what it means for worship to be edifying.  An Erskine Seminary professor of worship and preaching teaches that worship needs to engage hearts and minds in worshipping God, and I think that is a good way to explain “edifying.”  The writers of textbooks on church planting and evangelism were evidently like minded, since there is usually a great emphasis on learning native languages so that we can share the gospel with people in their “heart” language—so they can also engage their hearts and minds in worship.  Although an archaic worship service may still be technically in English, if it is using English words that aren’t common to our current understanding, or grammatical constructions or idioms that are no longer in use, than it’s not very intelligible or accessible to most people.  Even if someone could theoretically understand it, if people are having to use extra brain power to figure out what’s being said (in a sense, translating), that leaves a lot less brain power for focusing on God, and takes away from their ability to engage with their hearts.

I thought Frame’s discussion of emotion made some good points along this line.  He says that we are supposed to “desire God with passion” (379), and that our understanding of scripture is lacking without emotion because “emotional content is part of the meaning of the text” (381).  So we need to engage our hearts along with our minds in order to fully understand what’s being said.  It’s no wonder that music often becomes the central focus of this discussion, since, as Frame mentions, “music powerfully affects the heart” (904).  Of course our “chief purpose” in worship is to glorify God (905) and to serve his purpose, and I don’t think we accomplish this if we aren’t fully engaged both mentally and emotionally (and some might also argue physically).  Frame points out that in Hebrews 10:24-25 we are urged to “consider how to stir one another up to love and good works” as part of our worship (905-6), so of course we want to use whatever means will most effectively do that.  I love that he says that electric guitar can be uniquely suited to drawing us into extreme praise, although he also notes that this will not be the case for everyone (904).  For some only a well-played violin or dramatic soprano aria will accomplish this.  Any of these performed mechanically and without emotion will likely fall short of fully glorifying God and in encouraging others to fully engage in praising and glorifying him.

Frame acknowledges the difficulty in finding a balance between old and new that works for everyone, but he also points out that there needs to be a willingness to compromise on both sides “as a service to other members of the body” (905).  I agree that this is the more Christ-like approach and greatly needed as part of our growth as individuals and as groups learning to work together to the glory of God.  But I also think it falls short of the broader perspective.  Frame says at the very beginning of the book that “the study of ethics is enormously important for our witness to the world” (5).  He later also says that we are called to “bend and stretch, to accept discomfort and the trauma of change, in order to speak the Christian faith to a contemporary world” (287).  I think this is the greater reason to be willing to be flexible and contemporary in our worship, so that not only are we and our fellow church members engaged, but also those who are drawn in by the prospect of encountering the good news and engaged by what they find going on inside the room and inside our hearts.  That to me seems to be good, ethical worship.