WORSHIP NOTES
Volume 20, No. 7 ( July 2025)
Silence and Freedom
It is an amazing fact that the New Testament is virtually silent on the matter of form for the church’s worship. D. A. Carson writes: “There is no single passage in the New Testament that establishes a paradigm for corporate worship.” (“Worship under the Word,” in Worship by the Book, 40) (Of course, this is in marked contrast to the Old Testament, where the worship under the Mosiac law was prescribed in great detail, as Exodus and Leviticus show us.)
This is surprising, to say the least. The apostle Paul is writing letters to newly established churches, and we might reasonably expect that as Paul writes he would lay out specific and detailed instructions for these churches’ worship (and hence for ours also). Yet that is exactly what he does not do. John Piper makes this astonishing (but true) observation:
In the New Testament, all the focus is on the reality of the glory of Christ, not the shadow and copy of religious objects and forms. It is stunning how indifferent the New Testament is to such things: there is no authorization in the New Testament for worship buildings, or worship dress, or worship times, or worship music, or worship liturgy or worship size or thirty-five-minute sermons, or Advent poems or choirs or instruments or candles. . . . Almost every worship tradition we have is culturally shaped rather than Biblically commanded.(sermon, “Our High Priest Is The Son of God Perfect Forever.” https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/our-high-priest-is-the-son-of-god-perfect-forever).
It must be emphasized, though, that Piper’s last statement above does not mean that our worship traditions are wrong; after all, we do need to make many decisions about what worship in our churches is going to look like (in Piper’s terms, about our buildings, our worship times, our worship music, the length of the service and the sermon, etc.). But the clear implication is that the New Testament’s silence on so many of the details, the absence of specific commands, means that we are allowed considerable freedom in the structuring of worship in our churches.
And not total freedom: there are biblical principles to guide us, but also a considerable amount of flexibility for wise and prudent application of culturally meaningful expressions. As Piper says:
[We are] free to find place and time and dress and size and music and elements and objects that help us orient radically toward the supremacy of God in Christ. (John Piper, “Our High Priest”)
Global Implications
We certainly can see the application of this principle in the vast array of worship expressions seen down through the history of the Christian church and in churches around the world today. There has been, and is, an enormous variety in terms of architecture, atmosphere, form, structure, style, dress, music, liturgy, etc. And God, who has created the world and humanity with such incredible diversity, must certainly rejoice in such variety from his people.
Tim Keller makes a fascinating point along these lines:
Why has Christianity, more than any other major religion of the world, been able to infiltrate so many radically different cultures? There is of course a core of teachings . . . to which all forms of Christianity are committed [the biblical framework]. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of freedom in how these absolutes are expressed and take form within a particular culture. Contrary to popular opinion, then, Christianity is not a Western religion that destroys local cultures. Rather Christianity has taken more culturally diverse forms than other faiths. (The Reason for God, 45)
The world of missions has grown in recent decades in its recognition of the validity and value of encouraging local cultural expressions of worship among the peoples of the world. Yet it is fascinating to observe a number of statements from church history that show a much earlier appreciation for this principle.
Historical Perspectives
Early Catholicism, AD 596:
Pope Gregory I sent Augustine of Canterbury to England as a missionary about AD 596 with this advice: “It seems to me that you should carefully select for the English Church, which is still new to the faith and developing as a distinct community, whatever can best please Almighty God, whether you discover it in the Roman Church, or among the Gauls, or anywhere else. . . . From each individual church, therefore, choose whatever is holy, whatever is awe-inspiring, whatever is right; then arrange what you have collected as if in a little bouquet according to the English disposition and thus establish them as custom.” (James White, A Brief History of Worship, 44; emphases added)
Martin Luther, 1523:
This is enough for now about the mass and communion. What is left can be decided by actual practice, as long as the Word of God is diligently and faithfully preached in the church. And if any should ask that all these [forms] be proved from Scriptures and the example of the fathers, they do not disturb us; for as we have said above, liberty must prevail in these matters and Christian consciences must not be bound by laws and ordinances. That is why the Scriptures prescribe nothing in these matters, but allow freedom for the Spirit to act according to his own understanding as the respective place, time, and persons may require it. (“Order of Mass and Communion for the Church at Wittenberg,” in Luther, Liturgy and Hymns, 38; emphases added)
Augsburg Confession (Lutheran, 1530):
And to the true unity of the church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. (Article 7; emphases added)
John Calvin, 1536:
The Master . . . did not will in outward discipline and ceremonies to prescribe in detail what we ought to do (because he foresaw that this depended on the state of the times, and he did not deem one form suitable for all ages). . . . Because he has taught nothing specifically, and because these things are not necessary to salvation, and for the upbuilding of the church ought to be variously accommodated to the customs of each nation and age, it will be fitting (as the advantage of the church will require) to change and abrogate traditional practices and to establish new ones. Indeed, I admit that we ought not to charge into innovation rashly, suddenly, for insufficient cause. But love will best judge what may hurt or edify; and if we let love be our guide, all will be safe. (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4:10.30)
Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (Church of England, 1563)
It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s Word. . . . Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, ceremonies or rites of the Church, ordained only by man’s authority, so that all things be done to edifying. (Article 34: “Of the Traditions of the Church”; emphases added)