"The result has been that although few conservative Presbyterian churches actually worship in the Puritan way, the Puritan theology of worship remains the standard orthodoxy among them. This discrepancy sometimes leads to guilty consciences"
About this Quote
Frame is doing a very Presbyterian kind of provocation: polite on the surface, faintly accusatory underneath. By separating “the Puritan way” (a recognizable set of practices, aesthetics, and inherited habits) from “the Puritan theology of worship” (the doctrinal logic that once justified those habits), he names a modern mismatch that many conservative churches would rather leave vague. The word “standard” matters: Puritan categories aren’t merely present, they function as gatekeepers of legitimacy. Even when the music, liturgy, or church calendar drift, the mental rulebook stays put.
The subtext is less about Puritans than about moral psychology. If your community treats a particular theology as “orthodoxy,” then deviations don’t feel like neutral adaptations; they feel like minor apostasies. Frame’s “discrepancy” isn’t an aesthetic quibble but an internal audit: your practices have moved, your theological self-description hasn’t, and that gap produces “guilty consciences” as a predictable byproduct. Guilt here isn’t only personal; it’s socially generated. Standards create shame even when nobody is policing you out loud.
Contextually, this sits in late-20th-century/early-21st-century Reformed debates about the regulative principle, tradition, and cultural change: contemporary evangelical forms entering churches whose identity was built on being not that. Frame’s intent is diagnostic and, subtly, reformist: either bring practice back under the old theory, or revise the theory so ordinary worshipers aren’t trapped between inherited ideals and lived reality.
The subtext is less about Puritans than about moral psychology. If your community treats a particular theology as “orthodoxy,” then deviations don’t feel like neutral adaptations; they feel like minor apostasies. Frame’s “discrepancy” isn’t an aesthetic quibble but an internal audit: your practices have moved, your theological self-description hasn’t, and that gap produces “guilty consciences” as a predictable byproduct. Guilt here isn’t only personal; it’s socially generated. Standards create shame even when nobody is policing you out loud.
Contextually, this sits in late-20th-century/early-21st-century Reformed debates about the regulative principle, tradition, and cultural change: contemporary evangelical forms entering churches whose identity was built on being not that. Frame’s intent is diagnostic and, subtly, reformist: either bring practice back under the old theory, or revise the theory so ordinary worshipers aren’t trapped between inherited ideals and lived reality.
Quote Details
| Topic | Faith |
|---|
More Quotes by John
Add to List
