Frame: The New Testament does not describe the early Christians as meeting for worship.
As I’m going through some of my research for my dissertation, I occasionally run across a quote that puzzles me. One of those is by the famous theologian and prolific writer John Frame. Frame often writes about worship, including the book Worship in Spirit and Truth which I include as part of the research for my dissertation. (By the way, for those who don’t know – and who care – the title of my dissertation is “Mutual Edification as the Purpose of the Assembled Church in the New Testament: A Study in Biblical Theology.”)
In his book, Frame comes to the same conclusion regarding the New Testament evidence as me. At one point, he writes:
Is the Christian meeting a “worship service”? Some have said no, on the ground that in the New Testament all of life is worship. It is true that the New Testament does not describe the early Christians as meeting for “worship.” Nor does the New Testament typically use the Old Testament language of sacrifice and priesthood to describe the Christian meeting as such. Much of the New Testament teaching about the meeting has a horizontal focus: the importance of showing love for one another in the meetings (1 Cor. 11–14), the importance of education (1 Cor. 14:26; Heb. 10:24–25). (pg 31)
Did you catch that? According to Frame, the authors of the New Testament do not use worship terminology to describe the times when believers gather together. They do not use the language of sacrifice or priesthood either, terminology often used in the Old Testament. Instead, again according to Frame, the authors of the New Testament – when writing about the assembled church – focused on “showing love for one another” and “the importance of edification.”
Yes, exactly. Again, that’s the same conclusion that I’ve reached through studying the New Testament.
Not only that, but Frame and I also agree when it comes to using “worship” terminology to refer to the gathering of the saints:
Traditionally, Christians have called it [the Christian meeting] ‘worship,’ having in mind a sense of the term that is analogous to its use in the temple setting. This use of the worship vocabulary is somewhat dangerous, for it may lead us to forget the vast differences that exist between Old Testament worship and the New Testament meeting. (pg 32)
Did you catch that also? Frame says that it’s dangerous for Christians to use “worship” terminology to refer to the times that we gather with our brothers and sisters in Christ. Why? Because it confuses “the vast differences that exist between Old Testament worship and the New Testament meeting.”
Yes, exactly. Again, that’s the same conclusion that I’ve reached through studying the New Testament.
So, what’s the problem? Well, while we agree about the New Testament evidence concerning the church meeting, Frame and I do not come to the same conclusion regarding our application of this evidence.
He writes:
Therefore, it is not wrong to describe the Christian meeting as, in one sense, a worship service. To say this, however, is not to say that there is a sharp distinction between what we do in the meeting and what we do outside of it. (pg 34)
So, Frame concludes, “Go ahead and call it a ‘worship service’ and describe what you do as worship – even though the New Testament authors did not refer to the gathering of the saints in worship terminology and even though using worship terminology is dangerous and even though there is no distinction between our worship when we are together and our worship when we are not together.”
Honestly, it just doesn’t make sense to me.
I think it actually does make sense, though. If I call bible study worship, would that be wrong? I would argue no. I think everything we do is a form of worship. Singing songs to and about God is not the TOTALITY or even consummation then of worship but rather an aspect of it or one exhibit of it. I would define prayer as worship, bible study as worship, meditation as worship, singing songs as worship, etc. Anything quite honestly done for him is an act of worship. What could this attitude do if we really got a hold of it?! Working for the glory of God! Eating for the glory of God! Counseling for the glory of God! The list is endless!
I would say the early church gathered for worship through service, but not for a ‘worship service’. The acts of serving others was/is the worship, for what we do for others is what we do for Jesus.
Rob,
That was Frame’s conclusion. It’s okay to call it a “worship service” as long as everyone understands that there’s nothing distinctly “worship” about gathering that’s not also “worship” when we’re not gathering. The difficulty for me, though, is that “worship service” is specifically used to describe times of gathering. I can’t imagine someone calling a single person serving their neighbor a “worship service.” But, in effect, Frame is saying you can call the gathering a “worship service” as long as you recognize that the individual serving is also a “worship service.”
Andrew,
Yes, they gathered to serve one another (which is an act of worship) and they dispersed to serve others (which is an act of worship).
-Alan
This very topic has been an issue that has concerned me greatly. I have always tried to point out Romans 12:1 for instance when dialogueing with friends on this. It is almost impossible for folks today to grasp that worship isn’t a corporate meeting where we sing songs. That worshp CAN occur during that time I won’t dispute, but to reduce it down to singing songs in a group is hugely misleading.
My issue is that while discussions of concepts such as Romans 12:1 leads to (sometimes) a mental assent of it’s validity, our current church practices essentially reinforce the opposite. People have just come to the place where it’s what they expect, know and just ‘like’ and they will justify it and even speak as though it’s necessary for any proper ‘gathering together’. (which you know we’re not supposed to forsake!)
Thanks, Alan for validating what I’ve already been thinking here. I suspect you’ll get a lot of push back on this. Not that they will argue what worship is, but that many will still just want to ‘do it’ the way they’re comfortable and familiar with.
Sometimes we go even further. In the home group I’m part of each week, there is a specific section called ‘worship’, someone is selected in advance to ‘lead worship’ and the other two thirds of the meeting focus on questions from the previous Sunday’s sermon and on prayer.
I find this quite hard but I go along with it because I wan to continue meeting with them. I also meet completely informally with other friends at other times in the week. (If you’re interested there’s my diary for a recent week here, about halfway through the article – http://jesus.scilla.org.uk/2013/02/best-of-both.html )
Like you, Alan, I’m uncomfortable with the use of the term ‘worship’ in the context of meetings. It’s become a habit, a tradition; but you are right to say there is no biblical support for it.
Thanks, as always, for your posts Alan. Not only is “worship” not at all descriptive of the NT gatherings of the saints, it intrudes and displaces the biblical purposes of our gathering.
If we replace our daily exercise with water color painting time instead, would our body remain healthy? Our aesthetic sense might be appealed to and be pleasured, but our bodies would suffer. If we replace our daily food with time in a sauna, we might feel better for a time, but our bodies would suffer.
We can replace the biblical focus of loving one another and mutual edification when we gather with “worship music” and a sermon, but, well, just look at what it does to the Body.
I think we should just scratch the English language and start over – or go back to the original and not be allowed to use English in regards to our faith. 🙂 We have messed up too many words. Worship, church, the list is endless really.
Heartspeak,
Yes. We also invent new terms and phrases like “corporate worship.”
Chris,
I think that’s the “danger” that Frame talked about. If we call the church meeting “worship,” then will start associating those specific activities with “worship.” Now, of course, “worship” has been even further modified to mean just the musical/singing part of our gathering.
Art,
Great analogies, thanks!
Randi,
That’s why it’s important that we understand the terms that we use from the perspective of Scripture, then use the terms consistently in that way.
-Alan
I’m trying! 🙂 but some days don’t you feel like you need a translator when speaking with people who don’t have the same lens? Some days I really do tire of feeling like such an alien or outsider.
I wish I could sit back and listen to you or any of my friends from this blog talk to a person in the traditional church system about ‘church’ or ‘worship’ to figure out some better ways to communicate across the lines. I actually very rarely get into conversations anymore with anybody from the church system about “church” or “worship” – I’m not sure if that’s what God desired of me or what I desired. I often wonder if I don’t bring up conversations anymore out of love or out of frustration – really not sure which it is. I apparently need some growth in this area.
Randi,
If I’m talking with someone who I think is using words like “church,” “worship,” “ministry,” “pastor,” etc. in a more traditional way, then I change to other words like “gathering,” “serving,” etc. And, I never try to correct them in the way they are using words. I try to make sure that I’m more interested in communicating clearly (from my side) as I can, that I’m focused on our relationship, and that I’m not interested in proving my point about church.
-Alan
Alan, as I glanced over this atricle, I thought I read “Mutual Edification as the Purpose of the Assembled Church in the New Testament: A Stuffy Biblical Theology.” But I looked more closely and realized I had read it wrong.
Alan and Randi, you are talking about the part that matters the most. “Do I understand what the other is saying?” and failing that “Do I make myself understood?”
A rose by any other name smells as sweet, but if you call it a dandelion no one will know what you are talking about.
“If I’m talking with someone who I think is using words like “church,” “worship,” “ministry,” “pastor,” etc. in a more traditional way, then I change to other words like “gathering,” “serving,” etc. And, I never try to correct them in the way they are using words. I try to make sure that I’m more interested in communicating clearly (from my side) as I can, that I’m focused on our relationship, and that I’m not interested in proving my point about church.”
RIGHT ON! Perhaps choice of words falls into the ‘weaker brother’ aspect of meat offered to idols…we are probably more concerned about words than our Lord who sees the heart.
Still, I have to say I hate the carry over of “altar”, “sanctuary”, “tabernacle”, and even “sacrifice”. My Charismatic settings have gotten me over the ‘holy hush’ requirement to get the right perspective on ‘worship’, but I am… slowly… learning to accept brothers… and sisters… where I find them!
“A Stuffy Biblical Theology” From what He’s written, I think Alan can appreciate that but , tee hee, that is great!
the old temple system, along with various pagan temples, are distinguished for hosting designated worship.
Much confusion is fostered by misuse of “worship”, as also by the invention of many “worship” terms and ideas alien to Christ. (i.e., “worship time”, “worship band”, “worship leader”, “Sunday worship”, etc.)
It is the way of marketing to use labels, slogans & branding. It’s what you do when you need to sell something that isn’t quite worth the price you’re asking.
I agree with not trying to correct or “teach” whoever uses the words incorrectly — and am thankful that God, from the beginning of this journey, has helped me shut my mouth from doing harm that way (that I know of).
Mostly in the beginning I was just really going through shock because of this total paradigm shift so I couldn’t really put into words what God was doing/showing me. Then after that, I feared what people would think because of the first reactions I got from traditional church friends.
And at this point, I do feel God has freed me from caring what others think about the Truth I know and I do feel He has given me more courage so that I’m a little more able & willing to share what I believe & know & live (thanks to the courage of my children)…. BUT I do believe that only giving bits & pieces when asked and not trying to sell is key.
You are right, Alan. The WHO needs to stay the focus (the Lord & others) and the what & how & why – really can take a backseat and doesn’t need to be discussed unless it is clear God is nudging me to throw out a seed. Thanks for the encouragement!!
Marshall –
You are exactly right. “Worship” is a great key word for marketing and making people feel that whatever they just consumed was pleasing to the Lord & that they can check that off the list for the week.
“worship” – complete.
and P.S. I see that I only feel like an outsider & alien when my focus is wrong. It’s definitely not from the Lord. It’s a lie. And whatever it is I feel like I am an outsider from was exactly what I did *not* want to be apart of – so it’s silly that I can be tricked to be envious of exactly what I ran from. I must remind myself – it’s just a facade! 🙂 Stop looking at the glam & glitter and refocus on the Lord and the Truth He has shown you!! See with your heart, not your eyes!! I guess it’s a battle & temptation I will fight for a long time.
All about the FOCUS! 🙂
or is it glitz & glamour?
I think worship is your response to an encounter with the living God. There’s a seeking and a finding.
Where is He who is born King of the Jews? We’ve seen His star in the east and have come to worship Him.
They couldn’t worship Him until they found Him. You can pray and praise from 10,000 miles away – but worship is at His feet.
Worship can happen in a corporate gathering, or it can happen to a demoniac who encounters Jesus in a graveyard. The goal is not to facilitate worship – but assist people in finding Him.
A very interesting discussion, and thanks to everyone who contributed. I loved reading them. I find the timing of ‘things’ quite interesting, and I don’t believe in coincidences. I believe, speaking very generally, we’ve lost the distinction between ‘ministry’ and ‘worship.’ What is called worship in many instances today, is simply ministry. And our ‘services’ today are so far removed from what actually took place during the 1st Century in the local churces, it isn’t even amusing.
We happen to be studying 1 Timothy in our adult Bible class (which I’ve been given the responsibility of leading). We hit chapter 2 last Sunday, and our study guide entitled the chapter “Corporate Worship.” The NIV even heads this section, “Instructions on Worship.” Worship?
Prayer? Yes. Worship? No. At least, I don’t equate the two. That you can’t have one without the other is obvious, but they aren’t synonymous. I consider prayer the vehicle… how we get to the throne of God, and to the ear of God. What we say in our prayer(s), the content, determines whether or not it’s a prayer of thanksgiving, intercession, petition, or worship — or a mixture of them all. (In saying that, I believe all prayer is a mixture…).
But here is something to think about… Heartspeak mentioned Rom. 12:1 — worship on an individual level. In fact, we discussed this verse last Lord’s day when I introduced the topic of “priesthood” — we are all priests — we become priests upon being born again. That took some by surprise. Some hadn’t realized that before (believe it, audible gasps from a few). That’s how we understand our lives to be, our ‘reasonable service’ (individual worship – 24/7). But then what about when we gather together, as we are instructed to do? Is there a sense that we can worship as a collective (local church)? I believe there is…it only makes sense. Without developing this too much further, here are some things to meditate on, as they relate to us as individuals, and as an assembly of believers:
1. Indwelling — Individuals, referred to as a temple; the Church, the habitation of God during the NT period, a Temple.
2. Ordinances — Baptism, an individual act demonstrated to many; the Lord’s Supper, a collective act involving individuals.
3. Worship — The individual, our daily life and walk before the Lord; Corporate or collective, when we gather together.
The Lord ‘instituted’ only two ordinances, and when you think about it, one is individual (baptism), and the other is collective (the Lord’s supper). We are ‘living stones’ (individuals) being built up into a ‘spiritual house’ (the Church, reflected by and in the local churches). And if Romans 12:1 identifies our individual worship (by our lives), then I believe Hebrews 10:19-25 outlines in very general terms, our collective worship. Just how do we worship collectively? Well, I submit that it has to have something to do with the Lord’s supper (a local church ordinance), as well as our ability as functioning ‘priests’ in the local assembly.
I’d appreciate any comments…and thanks for reading such a long post.
Ron –
I loved your comment & the breakdown of individual & corporate. So beautiful!! 🙂
Nelson,
At times it can be stuffy.
Tom,
You said, “but I am… slowly… learning to accept brothers… and sisters… where I find them!” I am too. 🙂
Marshall,
In the New Testament, many terms used as worship terminology were used figuratively of those of us who are in Christ. in later years, this figurative terminology was changed back to point to literal objects, places, events, activities, etc.
Randi,
If only it was easy to keep focused on the “who”… 🙂
Ron,
From what I can garner from Scripture, we worship God when we obey him… anytime we obey him. So, “corporate worship” is simple a group obeying God together.
-Alan
Alan,
Frame is well respected in “traditional” Reformed and neo-Calvinist circles, almost across the board. I have a good number of Facebook friends who have Frame as a FB friend. He is rarely criticized in these circles, so I would hope his book could have been taken to heart in a big way. But it was written 1996, so unless there is a revival of his writing, I’m not sure it would have a great affect in traditional Reformed churches.
It is interesting to look at terminology and how consistent its use. I attended a church that had a “worship service” and viewed church leadership as being “in ministry,” but we changed “sanctuary” to “auditorium,” because we didn’t see a chruch building as a sanctuary, and “stage” to “platform,” in reaction to contemporary music being used to entertain rather than in worship.
John Frame had a HUGE impact on me at Westminster back in the ’70s. He had just taken over from van Til and taught my Apologetics class. That class was used by the Lord to help shape my perspective on many things.
At the time, Frame’s views on worship were causing a stir on campus – although he never talked about them in class. Coming from a more Charismatic/House church background, I failed to see what the controversy was all about. But it did rattle some of the more rigid Reformed folk.
Your blog brought back lots of memories…
Steve,
I don’t remember how much more Frame talks about edification in this book on worship. Many authors (and I’m not saying Frame did thing, because I don’t remember) throw out the edification term, then spend most of their book talking about the different parts of the “worship service.”
Jim,
Do you remember which of Frame’s views on worship caused a stir?
-Alan
Vaguely. I don’t recall the specifics, but do remember that my reaction at the time was “what’s so controversial about that” – coming from my own more Charismatic perspective of the time.
Frame was viewed as having much more of a “worship” focus and his worship ideas were outside the comfort zone of many of his “reformed” brethren at Westminster – although, again, it was never something I ever heard him mention in class. I never got drawn into that issue, because for me it simply wasn’t an issue that interested me because a focus on worship was not strange to me. His influence on me was more in the area of apologetics.
Jim,
That’s interesting. Thanks for the info!
-Alan
I would suggest that Paul did not have to write about what the Church already knew how to do. So your argument from silence is moot.
Joe (JR),
I don’t understand your comment. My argument is that the church should gather for the purpose of mutually edifying one another. I base my argument on specific commands in Scripture, as well as examples and principles found in Scripture. So, this is not an argument from silence.
Frame admits, however, that his position (that the church gathers for worship and that the gathering should legitimately be called a “worship service”) is not found in Scripture. That would seem to be the argument from silence to me.
Am I missing something from your comment?
-Alan
Worship should permeate our entire being as we are to be grounded and completely covered in Christ. Our life should not be secular and non secular. Our life is to be Christ, our all in all. “Services” give the Christian the allusion they are now full and can go about their life as everyone else does. We are supposed to be called out and different, but do we as Christians look any different to those in the world? If we do, it is not because of our love. …and they will know they are Christians by thier love..” That is what typified the early church! It should typify us as well.
HI Alan,
We agree, the church should gather for edification of the body. My only point is that not every gathering serves the same purpose, nor is it necessary that every person use their gifting in every gathering. There is a diversity of gatherings for a diversity of purposes as lead by the Spirit. It is completely irrelevant to me what Paul does NOT describe as happening. The book of Acts covers 30 years of history and I suspect that not everything the church did gets a mention.
The NT is less about the mechanics of gathering and more about the purpose and that purpose can be accomplished in a great many ways. If the traditional Sunday service is the ONLY way a church gathers, then you are right, we are missing out on the ultimate purpose. But if it is only ONE of MANY gatherings, then I think it can be a healthy part of the Christian experience.
Joe
Kevin,
Yes, part of my concern with using the term “worship” to describe our gatherings is that it gives the exact impression that you mention – whether intentionally or unintentionally.
Joe (JR),
No, it’s not necessary that every person use their gifts in every gathering, but I do think that Paul described gathering in a way in which any believer had the opportunity to use their gifts. As long as that is allowed/permitted, then I think we’re on the same page. My concern is that we often see gatherings in which only certain people are allowed to speak and/or serve. From what I can tell that goes against Paul’s instructions about gathering for the purpose of building each other up. (The “mutual” aspect of gathering is even stronger in Hebrews 10:24-25.)
You said, “If the traditional Sunday service is the ONLY way a church gathers, then you are right, we are missing out on the ultimate purpose.” I would add that if ANY type of gathering is the ONLY way a church gathers, then we are missing out on the ultimate purpose. We need to be gathering in many ways and at different times and locations, and always for the purpose of mutual edification.
-Alan
Hi Alan,
First let me say that in the main, we agree on the biggest parts of these issues. Here are some responses though.
You wrote, “I do think that Paul described gathering in a way in which any believer had the opportunity to use their gifts. ”
Well, I think Paul said something different. He says in 1 Cor 14 that there are times when some people should not speak. He writes, “Let all things be done for building up. 27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. 28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. 33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.”
So from my perspective, the guiding principle is not that everyone have an opportunity in every gathering, but that each gathering 1) edify all and 2) everything is done in decent order without confusion. If we follow those 2 guides, then who speaks or not is taken care of in all gatherings.
You mentioned Hebrews 10:24-25 which reads, “24 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.”
this does not tell us anything about “how” this can be done, just that this is the goal of the church gathered. So in my opinion, I allow for a lot of liberty in letting each community seek out the best means to achieve this goal and I try not to be judgmental of others who do things differently than I would chose to do them.
Finally, you wrote, “I would add that if ANY type of gathering is the ONLY way a church gathers, then we are missing out on the ultimate purpose.”
I agree 100%. That is my biggest takeaway. We need many gatherings, for many purposes and there is no need for all gifts or every person to speak in every single one. Mutual edification takes more than one meeting so the fact that on a Sunday there is a sermon does not bug or violate the Scripture, HOWEVER, what does bug me is that most “pastors” treat every gathering (Sunday, midweek, etc…) as their opportunity to speak and speak and speak and speak… instead of their opportunity to remain silent and let others edify using their giftings. So when I teach my students, I work on helping them see their role as a leader in the church is to create opportunities for OTHERS to speak, teach, and edify.
Blessings,
Joe
Joe (JR),
In 1 Corinthians 14, when one person is speaking and another stands to speak, it’s the first person who is called to be silent… and Paul says this is decent and orderly. Today, when one person is speaking, are others even allowed to consider speaking? Have we changed what it means to be decent and orderly?
Concerning Hebrews 10:24-25, that instruction (“Consider one another to stir up love and good works”) is given to the same group that are also instructed to “draw near” and “hold fast”. I don’t think we can do any of these for others, nor can we ask others to do them for us. Thus, the instruction to “consider one another to stir up love and good works” is a mutual instruction intended for all of us to act on. I am to both consider those I gather with and encourage them towards love and good works. This goes for all who gather together.
-Alan
Hi Alan,
In 1 Cor the main point of Paul’s instruction is to give an example of what “decent” and “orderly” assembly looked like. Paul then illustrates this with a specific example that showed the Corinthians how they were abusing their giftings for self-gratification. This is one situation and a single example and there is no reason to believe Paul was saying this was ALWAYS and ONLY the way to do church.
But, since you think this is a clear instruction of the pattern every meeting must follow, do you also teach that in every meeting your church must always exhibit tongues and prophecy and healing… etc?
We have followed each other for years now so I do understand your conviction brother.. you think the typical Sunday gathering is a corruption of the NT pattern. I just disagree.. at least to the degree that I have no problem if a particular gathering of the church features the gift of teaching. I am equally open to a church gathering where the gifts of healing are featured. After all, Discernment is also a gift of the Spirit and if a church discerns that they are to have a meeting where the Spirit operates using certain giftins, I am okay with that. In my view, there is liberty in the church and as long as there are many opportunities beyond one kind of gathering where all the people are encouraged to use their giftings, I have no problem with churches accepting Sunday as one KIND of gathering among a diversity of gatherings.
That being said, you know that I am not a fan of how the “solo”/Celebrity pastor model has taken over and stifles others who also have a teaching gift (see http://www.morethancake.org/archives/987 ) There is way too much arrogance from guys who think they are the ONLY person gifted to teach the church. But my problem here is not with how teaching/preaching is given value on a Sunday morning, but how some men think they “own” it. (see http://www.morethancake.org/archives/2192 )
I know you may disagree with me on some details here, but I know we are both striving to be faithful to the same biblical teaching.. we just have different solutions to the same problem.
Blessings bro!
Joe (JR),
1 Cor 14 cannot be taken out of the context. It follows what Paul said about spiritual gifts in 1 Cor 12 and love in 1 Cor 13. In 1 Cor 12, the focus is on how gifts are given to all for the benefit of all. In 1 Cor 14, Paul focuses on 2 gifts (prophecy and tongues). Why? He tells us why. Prophecy is directly edifying and tongues are indirectly edifying (thus, the difference in instructions concerning the two gifts – which, I think, are used a paradigms for other gifts such as teaching, which would also be directly edifying). Thus, Paul’s point in 1 Cor 14 is not how do things decently and in order. His point in 1 Cor 14, which he spells out several times, is that when the church gathers together everything should be done for edification. Given the context with 1 Cor 12, it seems clear that he intended this to be mutual edification – not a one way edification.
I’ve read most of what you’ve written on this topic. I appreciate your direction and your concern for the church, and I agree that what you’re proposing is much better than what we normally see today among the church. As Paul wrote in Ephesians 4, I don’t think the church will grow until we all work together to build up one another. I don’t see a reason to limit that “working together” any time we gather together… whether we think it’s better or not.
-Alan
Fair enough brother. One day we will have to sit down and talk more. I appreciate your insights.
Joe
Joe (JR),
I’d love that. Maybe I’ll make it out to California again one day.
-Alan