1

Congregational
Worship

Matt Marino
 2

1
A Very Brief Case for the Regulative Principle

The Biblical Warrant and Cultural Context of Liturgy

3
A Theology of Public Worship
 3

A Very Brief Case for

the Regulative Principle

It is a remarkable omission of modern Christianity that in the question of how to worship,

the most qualified (and interested) Person to ask is the one that we almost never do. I say
that this is remarkable first because if we ask the average Evangelical churchgoer why they
attend the church that they do, invariably most people will begin with the worship
experience. And yet if we ask that same group of people whether the Bible has much to say
about this worship, in the way of authoritative norms, a revolt of relativism will ensue!

Against this reduction of worship to mere preference, the Reformed tradition stands and
speaks. The central non-canonical source for the Reformation insistence on right worship is
the Regulative Principle, which is to be found in Chapter 21 of the Westminster Confession
of Faith. As we will see, this principle provides a corrective to several other historic views. In
the setting of the seventeenth century, the alternatives in view were of the Roman,
Lutheran, and Anglican persuasions. First we ought to consider the language of the principle
itself.

But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so
limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the
imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible
representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture (WCF, 21.1).

In my experience, Christians do not directly attempt to refute the language of the principle.
Instead the argument usually deflects to charges of legalism or irrelevance or hypocrisy. I
will answer the first under the heading of the conscience below. To the second and third, it
is alleged that what the Reformed call biblical and historic is really just their own
culture-driven ideal. In other words, everything from the music to the structure to the lingo
to the architecture is nothing but the culture of the northern European countries of the
centuries following the Reformation. So the principle is loaded to begin with, and the
 4

product will not work in, say, Africa, Asia, or Latin America. Addressing the issues of musical
form and contextualization exceeds the limits of this paper. But a few answers to this
objection may be given.

In the first case, there is no reason to conclude that the principle does not cut across
cultures. Derek Thomas responds to the subtle monolithic-worship or high brow
objections in saying: The issue has to be focused to ask the question: Is anything in the
worship service that should not be there and are all the necessary elements of worship
present?1 Here we can see that the shoe is on the other foot. It is the simple worship within
the boundaries of this principle that is transferable from one culture to another. The
Christians of the Roman catacombs could have taken it into downtown Orlando. But the
same cannot be said for all that sound equipment being dragged the other way. Besides that
it would seem that critics are missing the principle and fixating on some example or
experience of an individual Presbyterian or Reformed Church. As a matter of fact, the
principle oers quite a bit of diversity in specific practices.

Contrary to what some critics say, the principle is Scripture-driven. Indeed it is an

extension of sola scriptura2 to the one area that a God-centered theology would most
naturally apply it: to worship. And it takes Scripture as a whole and not merely in the New
Testament church.3 The principle is also conscience-driven. When the congregation is
compelled to perform acts of worship of which they are unsure, that ministry cultivates sin
because whatever does not proceed from faith is sin (Rom. 14:23). Hart and Muether say
that the principle liberates worshipers from the tyranny of churches that impose on their
people elements of public worship that have no biblical warrant.4 Again, remember that it
is the principle in view. We are not suggesting that absolutely anything that oends anyone
must be thrown out! Let me put some flesh on this to ease some fears: To raise hands or not
to raise hands in the worship service? That may be a matter of ones own conscience. But to
urge one on to raise hands (or put them down) as if it were a sin to do the oppositenow
that is where the principle comes in to remind that Scripture is not clear on that matter. In
other words, the proper interpretation of the Regulative Principle brings us right back to
the freedom and form of the Romans 14 church.

1 Thomas, Give Praise to God, p. 83

2 Duncan, Give Praise to God, p. 21
3 Thomas, Give Praise to God, p. 92
4 Hart and Muether, With Reverence and Awe, p. 85
 5

Roman, Lutheran, Anglican Worship in Light of the Principle

The best sense one can get of what separated the Reformers from Rome in terms that
connect doctrine to doxology is to simply read Calvins section on theology proper in the
Institutes.5 There the Reformers chief concern is idolatry. Nor was this an isolated polemic.
The whole point was that all sinners have a natural propensity to form idols. Anyone who
claims that the Regulative Principle was a Purtian invention has obviously not read this
portion of that formative work. The Church of Rome had bound the conscience of believers
with structures of the Mass which communicated the grossest errors about God and the
gospel. So the Reformers understood an important principle that governs our entire
thinking about church: Our structures speak. All of the churches of the sixteenth
century would have agreed that liturgy matters. From there they would part ways.

The Lutheran view (adapted somewhat by the Anglican tradition) is sometimes called the
Normative Principle. It basically says that whatever the Bible does not explicitly forbid is
permissible. Now what is the dierence between doing only what God commands as
opposed to restricting only what God forbids? Here Scripture does give specific aid. We
might think of where Paul says, All things are lawful for me, but not all things are
helpful (1 Cor. 6:12). Would not this principle apply all the more in matters that are more
essential? It is really the dierence between seeing what one can do out of their own reason
so long as it does not overtly violate Gods law (and we certainly commend Lutherans and
Evangelicals for not wanting to overtly violate Gods law!) as opposed to seeking out more
and more of Gods word to discover what would be wisest and most pleasing to him.
Perhaps we might even grow together in our worship of God! In short, the Reformed view is
most intentional to relate corporate worship to the rest of the Christian experience: e. g.
sanctification, idolatry, discipleship, etc.

Modern Evangelical Worship in Light of the Principle

Oddly enough it has become popular to object to right Lords Day worship on the ground
that all of life is worship. The supposed biblical ground for this argument is that the New
Covenant translates all of the elements of gathered worship into the more spiritual, every-
day activity of all believers. Are we not temples of the Spirit ourselves? And did not Jesus
liberate us from the tyranny of localized worship in John 4? This he seemed to do, most
critically, in his saving work in which he fulfills both the role of the priest and the activity of
those ancient worshipers in Israel. It all sounds very persuasive at first glance. D. A. Carson

5 cf. Calvin, Institutes, I.11-12

 6

and John Frame are among the most able proponents of this view today: able primarily in
how they do not fall into the most extreme consequences of this rationale.

Now we can agree with the broad theological points that function as the premises to this
argument; but as to the sweeping conclusion it is a non sequitor. In the first place the
argument proves nothing relevant to the controversy. We can agree that all of life is worship.
Our question is much more specific. It is whether or not gathered worship entails any
biblical mandates in the New Covenant era. 1 Corinthians 10, 11 and 14 directly refute the
no more specifics thesis, as Pauls rules there address the church assembled. Beyond that
the argument necessarily implies that the all of life is worship principle was not the case for
Old Covenant Jews. But that would have been a surprise to them after hearing Moses
comprehensive commands in Deuteronomy. Frame acknowledges that there is some
mandate6 for specifics in the New Testament, while Carson accepts certain elements of
corporate worship for prudential reasons.7

At a more popular Evangelical level the whole problem is a dierent end assigned to worship.
Both the Seeker (modern) and the Emergent (postmodern) paradigms for ministry define
worship as being almost entirely for the sake of the outsider. I am afraid that is often a
charitable way to say that it is aimed at a market. The specifics of the market may have
changed from Willow Creek and Saddleback to the burned down arts district. But the basic
assumption persists: Evangelicals are anxious that worship not oend the newcomer. It must
be admitted that Paul holds out sensitivity to the outsider in 1 Corinthians 14. But how does
he do so? He admonishes the church toward intelligle, congregational worship so that the
unbeliever will have a clear sight of God. The goal is that the visitor will say, God is really
among you (v. 25).

What is At Stake in the Specifics of Gathered Worship?

I said that the Regulative Principle is Scripture-driven and conscience-driven, and yet both
of these are subordinate ends. We could also add intelligibility-driven and maturity-driven.
All of these, however, are the means to the end that God would be honored in our worship.
If there was a repeated refrain by Dr. Duncan in his Worship lectures at RTS it was this:
How we worship determines who we worship. This in turn rests on the biblical truth that
we become like the thing we behold. This is as true of idols as it is of the one true God8; and

6 Frame, Worship in Spirit and Truth, p. 30

7 Carson, Worship by the Book, especially pp. 24, 55
8 cf. Psalm 115:4-8, 1 John 3:2
 7

it is as true of the medium as it is true of the message. In this respect the Regulative
Principle shows itself to be more discerning of the human predicament than the whole
roster of church growth experts.
 8

The Biblical Warrant and

Cultural Context of Liturgy

The so-called worship wars of our generation almost always use the word liturgy to
denote something like traditional or high church. As a matter of fact, all churches are
liturgical insofar as they follow a regular order in gathered worship. The word liturgy comes
from a Greek word which could be rendered work of the people or public service. It
means the form of a corporate worship service. So to have any expected form of religious
meeting at all is to have liturgy. So long as we have bodies and brains and buildings we will
have a liturgy. The only question is which liturgy that we know of best conforms to the mind
of God in Scripture.

However we must admit that this will be a dicult issue to tackle without emotional
luggage. When we think of liturgy, we have all sorts of notions come into our heads. We
have associations. And these half-baked images we entertain are not helped by being
pummeled year after year by the nonsense of modernist religion that has supposedly moved
us beyond religion.

Today most people no longer think of the liturgical calendar when we think of the subject.
But in times past, everything in the service was structured by it. Obviously Christmas and
Easter were early arrivals. Following the rise of Constantine and legalization of the faith, the
rest of the calendar began to fill up. Hughes Oliphint Old suggests a sense of divine
judgment after the barbarian invasions that caused Advent and Lent to be infused with
lamentation and penitence (27). There followed days for feasts and for various saints. And
the themes for each Lords Day were matched to the occasion. Augustine was instrumental
in preparing lessons corresponding to special days: a practice that became known as lectio
selecta, which is to be distinguished from lectio continua, or the sequential preaching through
books of the Bible. Old remarks that Within a few centuries this principle of lectio selecta
would almost entirely supplant the lectio continua (67).
 9

The Reformers understood that whatever ordered gathered worship would have an eect on
what was preached, or whether there was preaching at all. Calvin in particular thought that
the calendar took away from teaching the people the flow of the biblical authors mind.9
Puritanism emerged, in large part, because the Elizabethan Settlement had crowded out
prophesying in the name of liturgical pomp. By contrast, the Westminster Directory of
Public Worship of 1645 did not prescribe the exact order and circumstances of worship.
What it did insist upon is the biblical elements. Although it acknowledged the value of the
Book of Common Prayer, it spoke of an oence and much mischief that had crept into
its use.10

All of this brings us to another lesser known Reformed principle: lex orandi, lex credendi
the law of worship is the law of belief.11 Whatever our exact liturgy is, it will communicate
what we believe. And this means what it says in both lanes of trac. It is not just indicative
of what we already believe: it shapes our belief in countless ways. Our liturgy does a great
deal of our teaching. And there is no escaping the law. At least it will communicate what the
persons who crafted it believed. In Dr. Duncans lectures we heard of the sad cases where
people will often hear more of the gospel at a Roman Catholic or Liberal Protestant church
than the typical Evangelical service simply because the liturgies retain the verbiage of
Scripture. What an ironic tragedy! It is a good lesson in what is possible in our churches if
we would simply read a portion of the Bible (in addition to the text to be exposited), sing
songs written by theologians, and put care into writing prayers that are informed by the
Word. Let us now turn to how to measure whether our liturgies are faithful to the Scripture
and relevant to the culture.

Liturgy and Biblical Warrant

There is really an intersection of three issues: (1) What constitutes biblical warrant? (2)
Which matters of conscience should prevail? and (3) What do we leave out? Note that the
order of these questions matters. Throughout church history these have either been debated
or else ignored in the debate. Often all three are included, but unfortunately the lower
questions tend to usurp the place of the higher questions. My first criterion is nothing novel.
It comes right from the Westminster Confessions dual principle of what is explicitly written
and what ought to be inferred. As to my second criterion, I have said in my first essay that

9 cf. Old, Worship, 75

10 cf. The Westminster Directory of Public Worship, 79
11Literally this means the law of prayer is law of belief, but it has traditionally been used to state this
principle about overall liturgy.
 10

the Regulative Principle is conscience-driven. But it may be objected: Whose conscience?

Pauls teaching in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 cannot be extended indefinitely in every
direction, or else it would rule itself out the first time someones conscience was oended by
what Paul wrote! If a few dozen Baptists walk into a small enough Presbyterian church, are
the elders obliged to stop baptizing infants? That cannot be what Paul had in mind in those
chapters. Rather than press this thought experiment further, would it not be easier to
interpret the second criterion in light of the first? And that is only another way to say that
Scripture rules our conscience not the other way around, not side by side.

The third thing to consider is similar to the second. Now the question is not what to
exclude because of conscience, but rather because of time. If we did a thorough study of the
New Testament and attempted to include in our Sunday services all that the first century
church was doing, we would certainly need more than the two hours that are already
unthinkable for most American Christians. Many of our exclusions are a matter of
subjective preference. On the other hand, a simple glance at a bulletin from the average
Reformed church will remind us that it is the elements of worship that are retained. The
exact order may vary, but the elements fill us up.

Carson reminds us that the tendency in some traditions to nail everything down in great
detail in great detail and claim that such stipulations are biblically sanctioned is to go
beyond what is written (to use the Pauline phrase, 1 Cor 4:6).12 Of course this is true with
respect to the exact order. It is also true about which circumstances to employ. But if we can
agree that certain elements of worship are prescribed, then the lower questions are
determined by the higher. For example, the Bible does not tell us to arrange all of the seats
toward the front; but it does tell us to preach, to listen, and to be of one accord. Therefore
the universal, frontward direction of the seats follows by good and necessary consequence.
An expansive list of similar deductions would not be dicult to conceive. Likewise Paul tells
us to be addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and
making melody to the Lord (Eph. 5:19) and that, if the bugle gives an indistinct sound,
who will get ready for battle? (1 Cor. 14:8). From these New Testament premises of
congregational singing and orderly sounds, we would rightly infer a preference for piano to
lead most melodies, for many voices to be in unison, and for song selection that fits the
same. That doesnt mean that a guitar in both classical picking or more strumming
patterns cannot do many songs as well. But the general principle leads naturally to a
general superior practice.

12 Carson, Worship by the Book, 51

 11

Liturgy and Cultural Context

Order and reverence are not culture-bound. Indeed their contraries chaos and
irreverence are the hallmarks of cultural disintegration, for the reason that Chesterton
gave: that Culture comes from the cult. This is true about the building up or tearing down
of any culture. That is why I can no longer sympathize with the position that says that
traditional liturgies will not work here or there. It all depends on what is meant. Just as
the Reformers were sensitive to call the piece of furniture for communion the Table and not
an Altar, so we may consider not calling any platform in the front a stage, since that is
where performances take place. It may be that what is culturally relevant in gathered
worship lies much more in avoiding patronization. That is yet another principle of Pauls in 1
Corinthians 14. When the outsider comes to church it is supposed to be dierent than
anything else in his common sphere. Why tell them one more lie and call that relevance? If
our service is a pathetic attempt to repeat what they just saw done much better on Saturday
Night Live before they went to bed, then the only thing we will gain from the outsider is
pity.

How else do we hear that liturgy is inaccessible? Take certain elements of the reading-
response method. Not only do unchurched people do this all the time think of weddings,
concerts, childrens games, etc. but it keeps everyone engaged in the service. The order of
worship in Reformed churches tends to dramatize the gospel: flowing as it does from Gods
initial call to himself, to our adoration and confession, to his assurance of pardon, to another
oering of song, to hearing most clearly from God in the word preached, to more of the
means of grace, finished by the benediction: or a word of blessing. Embedded in these
rythyms are the law preceding grace, word explaining sacraments, all receiving from God
(not contributing to him). People think that in order to do this will require such monotony
and attention to detail that freedom goes out the window. But this is more emotional
baggage. The congregation does not have to do anything but receive and enjoy. The
worship leaders, principally the elders, are the ones who bear the burden of coordiating this
order and ensuring those with musical abilities will joyfully and skillfully carry out this
gospel order.

Sunday evening service is traditionally the time when the meat is served up for the mature.
Catechetical preaching in the evening goes back at least to the first generation of the
Reformation. Both these and a post-service question and answer session with the pastor are
examples of how deeper teaching can often be more seeker-sensitive: not less. Though it
exceeds the space given here, there is also a good case to be made that a few generations of
 12

postmodernism are driving people back to self-conscious liturgy, not away from it. There is
an untapped human longing for order and beauty and simplicity and, yes, reverence.

I have heard the phrase undistracted excellence and it really serves our purposes of
biblical faithfulness and cultural relevance here. It is in light of the inevitability of liturgy
that we should consider those great words of C. S. Lewis:

As long as you notice, and have to count, the steps, you are not yet dancing but only
learning to dance. A good shoe is a shoe you dont have to notice. Good reading
becomes possible when you need not consciously think about eyes, or light, or print,
or spelling. The perfect church service would be one we were almost unaware of; our
attention would have been on God.13

13 Lewis, Letters to Malcolm, quoted by Thomas, Give Praise to God, 92

 13

A Theology of Public Worship

Gospel theology determines Christian worship. Many people would agree with this as a
general principle, and yet our understanding of public worship begins to reveal dierent
meanings to the words. Much of this comes from variations on covenant theology. But since
that is too vast of a subject, let me assume up front a fully covenantal view and its
application to mandated Lords Day gathered worship. Even under this assumption, how
gospel theology determines Christian worship may still be unclear. I will divide my own view
into four tensions that gospel theology resolves: (1) Gods part and ours in the service, (2)
unity and diversity in the service, (3) freedom and form in the service, and (4) spirit and
truth in the service.

Gods Part and Ours in the Service

God speaks and we listen. Christ sets the table and we eat and drink. The Spirit washes us
and we are included. In other words, God first gives and then we receive. So a Christian
worship service should be just like the gospel. Here is where I lean wholly on the Reformed
tradition. This Godward-gospel-centered service is accomplished by flowing from the Word
to the sacraments to the other means of grace. Of course that does not mean that the event
of baptism or the Lords Supper have to come, chronologically, after the preaching event,
nor that the other means of grace must follow the two sacraments in time. It only means
that in the order of prominence, the Word explains all else and so maintains a gospel
meaning to everything. Thoughtful Reformed churches even maintain this meaning through
the architecture: most obviously in the location of the pulpit, or the insistence that the
Supper sits on a table and is not served from an altar.

In Gods part and ours there is not just a drama, but there is something of a dialogue. When
the congregation recites back a creed, confession, or passage of Scripture, there is maximal
participation with minimal question of conscience.

Unity and Diversity in the Service

 14

Singing Gods praises in the assembly is a beautiful picture of church unity and diversity. We
call it corporate worship from the word for body (corpus)namely, the body of Christ.
And as there are many parts, yet one body (1 Cor. 12:20), so there is one choir, so that the
many parts are to sing with one voice (Rom. 15:6). We could also say there is one orchestra,
so that there is the imagery of musical instruments. But how easily we forget that for the
congregation at large, there is only one instrumentnamely, the literal voice boxso
that the literal instruments of the praise or worship team must serve that end of the leading the
congregation in the only instrument that they possess. The instruments serve the voice, and the
multiple voices in the front are for the maximal voices in the whole body.

As to the song and tune selections, I start with Kellers Contemporary Reformed model
(Carson, 222) with the lone exception of reworking of the hymns. There is almost never
anything to be gained by it. And there are plenty of contemporary songs that can be done
conregationally with the right leadership. The problem is never, ever contemporary. The
problem is that most of what is meant by contemporary is actually just anti-congregational.
Listen carefully to the argument for exclusive-contemporaneity (or at least
predominant-contemporaneity) and what rises to the surface? It turns out that
contemporary does not ever finally mean recently written, but rather (1) led almost
exclusively by guitar, (2) largely syncopated, and (3) composed for a solo-artist. Isnt that
interesting? We are told that people from this generation (which they said last generation
too) will only sing contemporary songs. But then a very interesting thing happens every
Sunday. When the contemporary songs are played, everyones voices drop out; and when
the hymn plays next, everyones voice comes back. What is that all about? I thought young
people wouldnt be into the hymn but they would be into the song from the radio! Well, it is
all very simple. The erratic tune composed for entertainment did just that, but nothing
more. It entertained. It wasnt designed to be sung by a group of people in unison, and so
typically it is not. Truth be told, its entertainment value is not what we often think anyway.
What is called contemporary, nine times out of ten, sounds like the same musical form as
two to three decades earlier. No one has the heart to tell the middle-aged champions of the
contemporary that it simply is not. It is little wonder that the youth are not fooled.

Then there is the thorny question of who leads. At first glance the question of definition
may seem like a mere semantics issue. I do not think it is. To some extent, whether we say
the words worship leader or song leader or choir director or whatever is not the point.
That really would be mere semantics. However it would be a mistake to say there is nothing
to our words. The prevailing model today is what I call the one-man-band-leader model.
Carson pokes at the title worship leader because it implies that the rest of the service is
not worship (47). But I would extend his critique to how it eects the rest of the singers:
 15

including those out in the congregation. In simple terms, it makes them a passive audience.
It has been arguedmostly from the influence of the Charismatic movementthat the
worship leader is a model of worship. By the emotive activity he or she models at the front,
all will be inspired, or convicted, as the case may be. However, not only is such an idea never
found in Scripture, but common sense would tell us that, whether we intend to or not, such
modeling is drawing attention to the man (or woman). Indeed the whole argument for it
actually assumes that this is what is being donenamely, that attention is being spent on
observing his or her activity.

Freedom and Form in the Service

I have often heard, Matt, what about freedom? to which I always reply, Whose freedom
the musician or the congregation? The task of those leading in song is to edify the body and
not solely themselves. Whether we are talking about musical preference or artistic
expression, this objection demonstrates a basic ignorance about what spiritual gifts are for.
Along with phony freedom comes tiresome levity. Much like preachers today are persuaded
that they have to lighten things up to be accessible, so the worship leader is particularly
nervous about the audiences nerves and, yes, the word audience becomes apt when we
start thinking this way and so he cracks jokes. Little does he know that the gag backfires,
as the proper awkwardness of sinners before a holy God is exchanged for the pointless
awkwardness of a second-rate showman. In all of these things, the contemporary form
demands attention to a forced excellence (which I would argue is not excellence at all)
exalting the mechanics over the goal.14

Biblical form will tend to cultivate a Godward focus. And no one would argue that being
focused on God is the opposite of freedom. However I would point out that the
contemporary (largely Charismatic) model is inherently artist-centered or leader-
focused. James Smith has this to say to the contemporary worship band: 1. If we, the
congregation, cant hear ourselves, its not worship 2. If we, the congregation, cant sing
along, its not worship 3. If you, the praise band, are the center of attention, its not
worship.15 Pretty clear. The bottom line to congregational worship is that everything from
the song selection to the participation of each musician to the sound board adjustments to
the concept we have of worship leadingthe role and the actall have to serve the
maximization of the congregations ability to be singing with one voice.

14 cf. Carson, 32 for this same distinction

15 James K. A. Smith, An Open Letter to Praise Bands, fors clavigera blog February 20, 2012
 16

Spirit and Truth in the Service

John 4:24 is a proof-text for opposing sides of the worship wars. At the very least spirit and
truth worship must be driven toward the objective way that God is and must proceed from
the whole subjective dimension of the worshiper. The problem is that human beings can
neither ecaciously create nor accurately guage the aectionate service that God deserves.
Revivalists tend to ignore this and so inflate the role of the aections in our methods, while
we in the Reformed camp can often inflate this truth so as to marginalize the role of
aections in Gods purposes. This is as crucial for preaching and praying in the worship
service as for the music. We can be so suspicious of the invitation and other manipulations
of modern Evangelicalism that we make any aim at the aections and emotional-volitional
manipulation to be co-extensive. This too is a non-sequitor. There is an appropriate pathos
in preaching and desperate pleadings in prayer, every bit as much as there are crescendos in
a tune. So to say that we do not aim at the aections or at decisions in the elements of
worship services is a simplistic overreaction among the Reformed. It would be better to say
that we do not aim at the heart apart from intellectual reflection. The mind is the one way in,
but the mind is perverted if it remains a dead end. Jonathan Edwards once put it very well,

I should think myself in the way of my duty, to raise the aections of my hearers as
high as I possibly can, provided they are aected with nothing but truth, and with
aections that are not disagreeable to the nature of what they are aected with.16

Musician do you want a bonfire of praise in church? Then stop trying to light yourself on
fire musicially. What you need is all five hundred logs aglow. That takes an excellence among
the leaders in song that doesnt make too much noise about one individual or instrument.

Contemporary musicians have been taught to blame their audience for the lack of
response. Underneath this frustrated expectation are at least two unbiblical notions: (1) that
they are responding to a worship experience of the musicians to begin with; (2) that the
expression of aections is to be, to a certain extent, monolithic, exuberant, and bodily. From
these two faulty premises we derive a sense of failure either in a low level of artistic
expression in those on stage or else a low level of spirituality in the people out there. The
remedy follows by resistless (awful) logic: (a) pump up the aections by pumping up the
volume; (b) cheerlead and / or chide the dead. We might want to reconsider whether or not
the death was imposed by the man-centered methods. What is needed in all of our elements
down through our forms to our circumstances is to receive from God, responding only
within that grace.

16 Edwards, quoted in Piper, Desiring God, 103

 17

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008

Carson, D. A., Mark Ashton, R. Kent Hughes, Timothy J. Keller, Worship by the Book, Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002

Dever, Mark and Sinclair Ferguson, The Westminster Directory of Public Worship, Scotland:
Christian Focus Publications, 2008

Frame, John, Worship in Spirit and Truth, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed
Publishing, 1996

Gordon, T. David, Why Johnny Cant Sing Hymns, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed
Publishing, 2010

Hart, D. G. and John R. Muether, With Reverence and Awe, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian &
Reformed Publishing, 2002

Old, Hughes Oliphint, Worship, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002

Piper, John, Desiring God, Sisters, OR: Multnomah Publishers, 2003

Ryken, Philip, Derek W. H. Thomas, and J. Ligon Duncan, ed. Give Praise to God,
Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 2003