Public Apology to R. Phillips

A few years ago Robin Phillips wrote an article arguing that Reformed liturgics is nominalistic.  What he meant by that was if something is beautiful and glorious in worship, then it takes away glory from God.  Practically speaking, for a church to be "glory to God," it needs to be ugly as sin.

I responded that is a false straw man.  And went back and forth for a while.  I think when you look at the Magisterial Protestants, Phillips' argument falls flat.  However, when you frame it towards RPW-advocates today, he is spot-on.

But it isn't just ugly church buildings.  It's what you say in the liturgy.  When the liturgy commands you to command angels to praise God, are you really commanding angels, or is it just "Mere words?"  If it is just words saying what angels already do, which seems to be the response I am getting, than it is nominalism, since the thing is just "mere words."

Reviewing Worship in Spirit and Truth (Frame) part 1

Frame does a decent job defining the RPW, and he is aware of the element/circumstance distinction, but he asks a number of tough questions:

• What are these “circumstances” (WCF 21.1)?  The Confession doesn’t say, except to note “light of nature.”  I’m open to general revelation, and I would agree with the WCF on this point, but general revelation by its very definition resists specificity.  
• Saying “circumstances” are secular elements (also common to ordinary life--time, place) isn’t quite accurate.  Frame notes, “There seem to be some matters in worship which are ‘not common to human actions and societies,” concerning which we must use our judgment (Frame 41; e.g., what precise words to use in our prayers).  Prayer is not “common to society,” yet aside from repeating the psalms as prayers (and one could do far worse), it appears that we will have to use our own judgment.  Frame scores points here.
• Frame suggests we use “application” instead of “circumstance” (41).  This avoids the Aristotelianism of earlier language.  Can one use the language without adopting the concepts?  Probably, but it’s hard and eventually something must change.
• Regarding Nadab and Abihu, Frame is correct to point out that this verse does not teach “What is not commanded is forbidden,” but “what is explicitly forbidden is forbidden.”  Nadab and Abihu did not use the right kind of fire.  They were doing a forbidden act.  

Elements

Agreed that the Bible regulates our worship.  We have the premise:

1. We may only perform what Scripture commands.

We must add another premise:

2. In the end God only reveals broad generalities (52).

Frame develops (2):  Where does Scripture bifurcate worship into elements and circumstances?   Scripture (a) nowhere divides worship into independent elements and (b) then brings them together.  Which activity is elemental in character and which is simply an application of carrying out certain elements (53).  

3. For example, per the above view, the Scripture prescribes singing psalms, whose content is identified.  Scripture also prescribes public prayer and preaching, whose content is not really identified.  

4. The things we do in worship are not always easily separated into elements and circumstances.  Singing and teaching are not always distinct.  When we sing a hymn, we teach other people (Col. 3:16).  

In pp. 56-60 Frame gives his own list of a worship service, which is basically what you will find in any sane Reformed, non-covenanter service.

Liturgy and Apocalypse

Preliminary points (because hard core Reformed people will not grasp this).

1. Bowing down to man made pesels and pretending that they mediate a higher degree of worship is idolatry and will bring a multi-generational curse from God.
2. Christ's work is finished and effected in the lives of believers.  Re-enacting it "bloodlessly" is pointless at best and dangerous at worst.
3. It is true we should not introduce man-made religion into God's worship.
4. However, even Reformed people are not always consistent.  The Psalms say we should sing a new song to the Lord, but hard-line RPWers say we should sing only psalms, which themselves say we should sing a new song to the Lord.  To say that injunctions to sing new songs with instruments apply only to the ceremonial order seems ad hoc at best.
5. The Exclusive Psalmody position has the further difficulty of being based mostly (I understand the appeal to Ephesians) on Old Covenant orders.
6. The EPer gets around this by saying elements of the Psalms are no longer binding today (any reference to singing new psalms and using instruments).
7. As it stands, (6) seems ad hoc and special pleading, so I do not find the strict RPW case persuasive on a surface level reading.
8. The distinction between circumstance and element, essential to the RPW, is good but ultimately subjective.  It is a difference in degree, not kind.

With that out of the way.  I agree with the RPW that some ceremonial elements of the Old Covenant typify the work of Christ.    I just don't believe every liturgical "thing" in the Old Testament typifies the work of Christ.  Incense, for example, is not tied to the work of Christ but to the prayers of Christ's people (Revelation 5:8).

The objection often comes:  liturgy deadens worship and detracts from the preaching of the Word.  Yes, there is much dead worship in all mainline churches.  No argument here, but what is "liturgy?"  Usually it means something like "any kind of formal structure that I am not comfortable with."  The problem with that is the NT carries forward a number of OT practices:

1. Liturgical worship in general (Acts 13.2)
2. Incense (Revelation 5:8)
3. The Trisagion (Isaiah 6:3 --> Revelation 4:8)

Someone could respond, "But we aren't supposed to imitate the liturgical structure of Revelation," but this is ridiculous.  Consider:

1. Revelation specifically says blessed are they who hear and do what is written therein (and this immediately fells all "spiritual" interpretations of Revelation because if everything is "spiritualized," then there is nothing specific "to do").
2. Liturgy is done in Revelation.
3. Therefore, we should do liturgy (premises 1, 2).