Posted by Domski on December 8, 2009
It is
an understatement to say that the Regulative Principle of Worship is a controversial topic. Feelings run deep on the subject. Much of the polemical literature concerned with the Regulative Principle is less than charitable, and often riddled with generous amounts of straw men and personal attacks. Opponents in the debate vilify one another as devilish enemies of the truth. Ironically, each accuses the other of violating liberty of conscience and taking us back to Rome; one by imposing worship activities that are not explicitly forbidden; the other by limiting worship activities to what is explicitly commanded. It is sometimes true that controversy arises when men make one-sided things which Scripture does not, or when men speak where Scripture does not. This may account, in part, for the heated discussion about what is or is not acceptable in New Covenant worship. While Scripture is both sufficient and clear, truth usually lies somewhere between two extremes.
Both the level and tone of disagreement about the Regulative Principle witness to the prevalence of remaining corruption, blindness, and deficiency in grace even among professing followers of Christ. It is truly cause for shame that they would be so confused and prone to controversy about something so vital, basic, and central to Christian experience as the public worship of God. Professor John Murray has written eloquently on the importance and necessity of continuing the work of systematic theology. Never should his words be used to advocate change for the sake of itself, or to justify forsaking the old paths with a cavalier attitude. They do remind us, however, that our most cherished traditions, no matter how biblical we believe them to be, remain subject to both the authority and continuing scrutiny of the Word of God. Are any afraid that their principles won’t stand further examination?
I, for one, am convinced that there is more work to do on the Regulative Principle of Worship. I have always held to it, and taught it to my people. But I have also always been somewhat uncomfortable with going too far with it. My moderate discomfort has led me to write on this subject. I am painfully aware of deficiency and imperfection in the work I present here. My hope and prayer is that others with far better credentials, abilities, and grace than I possess will take what I offer, discard what is bad, and improve upon what is good. May our Living Head in some way bless these modest efforts for the preservation and improvement of pure and pleasing worship in His church.
The presentation of the subject will be in four parts. We have already surveyed the Regulative Principle of Worship as it has been understood and applied in church history. Now we will examine many of the biblical texts that elucidate the Regulative Principle. In subsequent studies, we will collate some of the major biblical emphases, principles, and theological considerations based upon the exegetical and historical materials, in an attempt to define the Regulative Principle from the perspective of systematic theology. Finally, in part four, we’ll attempt to address some practical issues associated with the application of the Regulative Principle.
In this section, we will survey various passages of Scripture to consider their regulative bearing on the subject of worship. According William Cunningham,
With regard to the Scripture evidence of the truth of the [Regulative] principle, we do not allege that it is very direct, explicit, and overwhelming. It is not of a kind likely to satisfy the coarse, material, literalists, who can see nothing in the Bible but what is asserted in express terms. But it is, we think, amply sufficient to convince those who, without any prejudice against it, are ready to submit their minds to the fair impression of what Scripture seems to have been intended to teach.
While appreciating Cunningham’s modesty of statement, one might respectfully disagree with him. Scriptural support for the Regulative Principle is in fact direct, explicit, and overwhelming. Any fair examination of the biblical materials leads inevitably to the conclusion that “the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by Himself.” God must be worshiped according to the rule of Scripture. As one has aptly put it, “God cares about how He is worshiped.” There can be no doubt that all true and acceptable worship must be regulated by divine revelation.
We begin with a survey of texts in the Bible that contribute in some way to the demonstration of this principle. The list is not exhaustive. Many more texts and passages could be cited, but these should be sufficient to show that the Regulative Principle neither stands nor falls on any single text but rests squarely on the comprehensive witness of Scripture.
Genesis 4:3-7
Abel and his offering were acceptable to the Lord. Cain and his offering were not. Why? The reason for the different receptions of the two offerings was in the worshipers’ attitudes toward God which manifested itself in the selection of their gifts. By faith, Abel offered a better sacrifice to God than Cain did (Hebrews 11:4). Biblical faith presupposes divine revelation. Throughout Hebrews 11, true faith is represented as a belief in God that results in obedience to God’s revealed will. How did Abel and Cain know to bring offerings to the Lord? How could Abel exercise faith by which his offering was more acceptable than his brother’s? Most likely it was through divine revelation, of which we have no written record. This may seem to be an argument from silence, but we will see that this instance is not an isolated one.
Genesis 4:26b
Invocation of the name of Jehovah commenced during the lifetime of Enosh, Adam’s grandson. The true and acceptable public worship of God began early on when men began to call upon the name of the Lord, that is, in accordance with God’s self-revelation. This text indicates nothing about the extent to which or the particulars by which worship was divinely regulated, only that it was.
Genesis 8:20, 21
After the flood, Noah offered clean animals in sacrifice to God. How did Noah know to offer blood sacrifices? How did he know which animals were clean and which were unclean? How did Noah know to offer clean, and not unclean animals? It must have been through divine revelation, of which we have no written record. When God instructed Noah about bringing the animals into the ark, He referred to clean and unclean animals (Genesis 7:2). But there is no prior written record in the Bible designating which particular animals were clean and which were not.
Genesis 14:18-20
As a priest of the Most High God, Melchizedek performed worship on God’s behalf. Where is the office of priest instituted prior to Melchizedek? What were his duties? Where is any warrant for tithing stated in Scripture prior to Abraham (Hebrews 7:1-10)? God in some way must have revealed these things related to worship, although there is no written record of it in the Bible.
Exodus 12:16
Here is the first mention in the Bible of the “holy convocation” (“sacred assembly”; miqra’ qodesh). These were meetings held for the worship of Jehovah. They were divinely regulated. It was stipulated that they were to be convened on certain days. No work was to be done. It is apparent, however, that they were not regulated in precisely the same way or to the same degree as the Tabernacle or Temple worship.
Exodus 20:4-6 (Deuteronomy 5:8-10)
The Second Commandment embodies the essence of the Regulative Principle. This commandment is a prohibition. It prohibits the use of graven images and representations of God as objects of worship. In other words, the Second Commandment prohibits idolatry of all kinds. Note carefully two important distinctions. First, this commandment prohibits idolatry at all times and in all places, whether inside or outside of corporate worship. Second, this commandment only prohibits the use of images as objects of worship. Images and representations may be used for other purposes, such as sculpture, painting, photography, architecture, and jewelry, but not as objects of worship (Exodus 26:1; 28:33, 34; 37:7-9; 1 Kings 6:23-32; 7::25; 10:19, 20; et al). Images of God inevitably misrepresent Him and convey false ideas about Him. Being lifeless and impersonal, they obscure His glory. By the use of images, the attempt is made to control God and secure His blessings (Ex. 32:1-6; Judges 17:1-13).
Like the other prohibitory commandments in the Decalogue, the Second Commandment implies a positive duty. This is a deduction from good and necessary consequence (Matthew 5:21-30; Ephesians 4:28). It implies that God is to be worshiped, not by means of images and representations, but in the proper way. What way is that? At the very least, it means without the use of idols or images intended to represent God. Beyond this, the commandment doesn’t specify particulars. Since God alone defines acceptable worship, we must learn what that is at any given point in redemptive history from other portions of His inscripturated Word.
Like the other nine commandments in the Decalogue, the Second Commandment isn’t exclusively Mosaic. Like all the other precepts of the Moral Law, its requirements are binding upon all people in all places and at all times. The moral scope of the Second Commandment is sweeping. God is always to be worshiped in the right way. What is that? Beyond the prohibition of graven images, the particulars aren’t specified here.
Like the Fourth Commandment, the Second contains an essential principle, the particulars of which are expressed in different ways at different periods of redemptive history. The essence of the Fourth Commandment is one-day-in-seven worship. Prior to Sinai that day was specified as the seventh. After Sinai the Fourth Commandment was regulated with more specificity than before. Certain ceremonial elements were prescribed in the Mosaic Law which weren’t in force prior to Moses (Exodus 16:22-30; 35:3; Numbers 15:32-36; 28:9, 10), and which did not remain in force under the New Covenant (Colossians 2:16). In addition, the designated day of worship was changed from the seventh to the first, the day of Christ’s resurrection (John 20:19, 26; Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2).
Similarly, the essence of the Second Commandment is to worship God in the right way, that is, as He prescribes. Prior to Sinai, worship wasn’t regulated with the same degree of detail or with the same specifics as it was after Sinai. Even the Tabernacle and Temple worship weren’t regulated in precisely the same way. The earthly Tabernacle was a copy of the heavenly reality (Exodus 25:9, 40 with Heb. 8:5). The Temple was not. The Synagogue worship wasn’t regulated with the same degree of detail or with the same specifics as the Tabernacle and Temple worship. No detailed specifications for New Covenant worship are present in Scripture. The essential principle in the Second Commandment is that God is to be worshiped in the right way, that is, not “in any other way than He has commanded in His Word”; Over the course of redemptive history, corporate worship is always regulated by the Word of God, but the degree and the particulars of that regulation (the “right way” of corporate worship) change. These observations suggest several questions. Under the New Covenant, is the “right way” of corporate worship limited to explicit commands only? Does it include biblical example? Does it include good and necessary consequence? We cannot say from the Second Commandment alone. We must consult other biblical passages to determine this. The only particular item specified in the Second Commandment is the prohibition of graven images. The good and necessary consequence is to worship God in the right way. Apart from the prohibition of graven images, the particulars of that right way are not specified here.
The Second Commandment addresses the matter of self-willed worship. The prohibition involved in the commandment extends to idolatry in all its forms. All worship, honor, and service of God which is the product of man and not divine revelation is idolatry.
Exodus 25:40
The Tabernacle had to be constructed precisely in accordance with the instructions that Moses received on Mt. Sinai. Why? The answer is given in Hebrews 8:5. The Tabernacle is uniquely a copy and shadow of heavenly things. It is also a picture/prophecy of Christ’s heavenly ministry (Hebrews 9:1-28). The copy must be an accurate one, so every detail is important. The Temple is never said to be a copy of heavenly things. But it is a picture/prophecy of Christ and His people. For this reason, it too is regulated in considerable detail. The picture must be an accurate one, so every detail is important. The Synagogue is never said to be a copy or a picture of anything. This doesn’t mean, however, that the Israelites could worship any way they wanted to in the Synagogue. We can’t be certain of how detailed its regulation was, only that it was regulated in some way by the Word of God (See the exposition of Leviticus 23:1-44.). These distinctions have significant implications for the worship of the church.
Leviticus 10:1-3
Nadab and Abihu died before the Lord because they “offered strange (foreign) fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them.” What does this mean? Was the fire strange because the Lord did not command it to be offered, or because the Lord commanded it not to be offered?
Brian Schwertley defines adiaphora (“things indifferent”) as involving “…activities that are neither commanded nor forbidden.” Sam Waldron asserts that Nadab and Abihu’s strange fire was “…not fire that God had forbidden…”, but “…was fire which He had not commanded them.” By Schwertley’s definition, then, Nadab and Abihu’s strange fire was in the category of “things indifferent” (adiaphora). Since we know that God consumed these men because they did something that was not morally neutral or indifferent, we shall have to find another explanation for their deaths.
One approach to this passage is that taken by Carl Bogue. He writes, “It was not that God had specifically forbidden other fires to be used. The issue is His appointment of a particular fire, and the conclusion is that whatever is not commanded is therefore forbidden.” Bogue is correct in asserting that God had not specifically forbidden other fires to be used. He is also correct in asserting that God had appointed a particular fire. Granting this, his conclusion doesn’t follow. The proper conclusion is that not doing what God appoints is forbidden.
Strictly speaking, it’s true that Nadab and Abihu did something that wasn’t commanded. Strictly speaking, however, it’s also true that Nadab and Abihu did what was prohibited, if not explicitly, then by good and necessary consequence. Matthew Henry observes:
Instead of taking of the fire from the altar, which was newly kindled from before the Lord and which henceforward must be used in offering both sacrifice and incense (Rev. viii. 5), they took common fire, probably from that with which the flesh of the peace-offerings was boiled, and this they made use of in burning incense; not being holy fire, it is called strange fire; and, though not expressly forbidden, it was crime enough that God commanded it not.
John Knox likewise understood Nadab’s and Abihu’s fire to be “…a common fire and not of that fire which God had commanded to burn day and night before the altar of burnt sacrifice, which only ought to have been offered unto God.” Not any fire would do. God had commanded that fire from the altar be used (Exodus 30:9; Leviticus 6:13; 16:1, 2, 12; Numbers 16:46). Granting that doing otherwise may not have been explicitly prohibited, it was still equivalent to doing what was prohibited because God had been very specific about the fire that was to be used. At the very least, Nadab and Abihu did what was prohibited by virtue of a good and necessary consequence from the positive command concerning the fire that was to be used. God said, “Use this fire.” He does not need then to prohibit all other fires by name. All other fires are prohibited by the negative implication of the positive command. In this way, Nadab and Abihu did what was prohibited and thus presumed to bring before God that which lacked divine authorization. This passage issues a sober warning to those who would follow in their footsteps.
Leviticus 23:1-44
The holy convocations (“sacred assemblies”; vd<qo-ar”q.m[RG11] <#_msocom_11> ) were meetings held for the worship of Jehovah (see Exodus 12:16). These meetings included the Sabbath (Leviticus 23:3), the new moon (Numbers 29:6), the yearly feasts (Leviticus 23:5, 6), and even the times of the daily morning and evening sacrifice (Numbers 28, 29). Every Sabbath a sacrificial service was held at the central sanctuary while holy convocations were held locally throughout the land wherever people lived. The holy convocations were a decentralized form of worship. They were divinely authorized and regulated, but not to the same degree or in the same particulars as the Tabernacle or Temple worship. Some conjecture that the holy convocations were the beginnings of the synagogue. This, however, cannot be proven with certainty.
Numbers 16:1-40
The Law of Moses stipulated that no one should burn incense before the Lord unless he was descended from Aaron (v. 40; Exodus 30:7-10). Korah and those associated with him acted contrary to God’s command and paid with their lives. This incident issues a sober warning to those who would worship God in a manner contrary to His revealed will.
Numbers 28:1-29:40
See the exposition of Leviticus 23:1-44.
Deuteronomy 4:1, 2
Moses exhorts the people to carefully obey the Law of God. Verse 2 is a prohibition. Both enlargement and diminution of the divine Law are explicitly prohibited. This exhortation stands near the conclusion of his first address (1:1-4:43). Most of this address is a historical review of God’s guidance of the people from Horeb to the sojourn at Kadesh-barnea. Moses appeals to Israel to give heed to the commandments of the God who had acted on their behalf. The obedience enjoined in the exhortation isn’t restricted to any one particular division of the Law of God. It encompasses it all (vs. 5, 6, 8, 40). This is also clear from the fact that the first address serves to introduce the second, which sets forth the Law in its entirety (1:5; 4:44, 45).
Deuteronomy 12:32
Moses again exhorts the people to carefully obey the Law of God. In addition to the command of careful obedience, the dual prohibition of Deuteronomy 4:2 is repeated. Again, both enlargement and diminution of the Law are explicitly prohibited. This exhortation is similar to the one in Deuteronomy 4:2. It comes in the midst of Moses’ second address (4:44-26:19). The more immediate context of chapter 12 is concerned with the centralization of the worship of God. This may not be in terms of one place of worship as opposed to many (Deuteronomy 16:21; 27:1-8), but in terms of the place(s) where God appoints that He will be worshiped, as opposed to places where Canaanite deities were worshiped (vs. 2-7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 26). In any case, the exhortation of Deuteronomy 12:32 is more immediately concerned with worshiping God in the place He appoints. It also introduces chapter 13 where Moses gives instructions for dealing with false prophets and others who would lead the people into idolatry.
The larger context (chapters 5-26) indicates that the exhortation envisions careful, comprehensive obedience to the Law of God, without enlargement or diminution. For Israel, the rule of Deuteronomy 12:32 applied to the Moral and Civil aspects of life, as well as the Ceremonial (Deuteronomy 5:1-21; 16:1-17; 22:1-12). In other words, no area of life was exempt from the rule of Deuteronomy 12:32. No distinction was made between “sacred” and “secular”, or between ethics and so-called adiaphora. This fact raises some important questions about the contemporary application of Deuteronomy 12:32. Does it have a contemporary application? If so, what is it? Should it be restricted to corporate worship? If so, on what biblical basis, and how far? If not, how does this affect the liberty of God’s people under the New Covenant?[RG14] <#_msocom_14>
Judges 17:1-18:31
These chapters describe Micah’s idolatry and its consequences. This is a biblical example of what happens when people attempt to worship God in the way they want to rather than the way God commands them to. Evil innovation is the inevitable result. Micah’s religion was a blatant violation of the Second Commandment (cf. Judges 17:3, 4 with Deuteronomy 27:15). This incident furnishes a sobering illustration of the depravity of man which makes him prone to worship God in accordance with rules of his own devising, and which necessitates divine regulation of worship. It demonstrates how easily idolatry and false worship spread and grow. The perverted idea in the mind of a single woman, Micah’s mother (17:3), was linked up with her son’s “house of gods” (17:5), eventually affecting a whole tribe (18:31), and later a whole nation (1 Kings 12:29). It is not surprising that one hundred years later Jeroboam found a place for his golden calf in Dan.
2 Samuel 6:1-11 (1 Chronicles 13:5-10)
David’s first attempt to bring the ark of God to Jerusalem failed. During the procession, the oxen slipped. Uzzah reached out his hand and took hold of the ark to keep it from falling off the cart. God immediately struck him down for his irreverence. The ark was not to be touched when it was transported. It was to be carried by means of the poles inserted into the four gold rings on the ark (Exodus 25:10-15; 35:12; 37:5). Touching the ark meant certain death (Numbers 4:1-15). David was more careful the second time (1 Chronicles 15:11-15). This incident is often used to demonstrate that God is displeased when things are done in worship which lack an explicit command. The use of the text in this way is not valid for at least two reasons. First, the transport of the ark wasn’t an act of corporate worship in the usual sense. Second, Uzzah died, not because he did something that God hadn’t commanded, but because he did something God had prohibited.
1 Kings 12:25-33
Jeroboam led the northern kingdom into idolatry of a particularly offensive kind. The place, people, and particulars of God’s worship were altered, not for the glory of God, but with political interests in view (v. 27). His golden calves were reminiscent of the incident at the foot of Mt. Horeb (Exodus 32). He set them up in unauthorized places, appointed unauthorized priests, appointed an unauthorized feast, offered unauthorized sacrifices, and burned unauthorized incense. Jeroboam’s innovations didn’t rest upon divine precept. They were the products of his own mind. To an undiscerning people, they must have appeared impressive enough and close enough to the real thing to seem legitimate.
“The sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat” became proverbial in Israel (1 Kings 14:16; 15:30, 34; 16:2, 19, 26, 31; 22:52; 2 Kings 3:3; 10:29. 31; 13:2, 6, 11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:22; 23:15). By altering God’s worship to serve his own ends rather than God’s honor, Jeroboam brought divine judgment upon himself, his posterity, and the nation (1 Kings 13, esp. vs. 33, 34; 14:16). This is a classic passage demonstrating the propensity of fallen man to alter the true worship of God, a particularly aggravated form of idolatry in that it high-handedly rejects the authority of the very God it alleges to be the object of its worship. Jeroboam’s innovations issue a sober warning to those who would carelessly tamper with the worship of God.
1 Kings 16:31
Ahab’s promotion of Baal worship in the northern kingdom was a further step down the path of apostasy. Douma comments: “We could say that Ahab sank from sinning against the second commandment to sinning against the first.” Jeroboam had opened the door, and Ahab walked through it. The progressive infidelity of these two kings illustrates how departure from the rule of Scripture in worship leads easily to further innovation and decline.
1 Chronicles 15:1-15, 25-28
David had previously attempted to transport the ark from the house of Abinidab to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6:1-11). Uzzah had touched the ark and died. The second time around, David took greater care when transporting the ark from the house of Obed-edom. God crowned the effort with success (2 Samuel 6:12-19).
2 Chronicles 26:16-21
Uzziah presumed to burn incense in the Temple which he was forbidden to do since he was not a priest of the sons of Aaron. The king paid dearly for his presumption and irreverence. The Lord smote him with leprosy, and Uzziah remained a leper until the day of his death, secluded away from common society and the public worship of God. Mark carefully the king’s offense. It was not that he had done what God hadn’t commanded, but that he had done what God had prohibited.
2 Chronicles 30:1-20
During the reign of Hezekiah, the Lord brought great spiritual revival. The king called for the priests and the Levites to consecrate themselves. He also called the people back to the temple as the appointed place of the nation’s worship, even inviting the tribes of the now decimated northern kingdom to join them (vs. 1, 11). Reformation was proceeding as the time approached for the celebration of the Passover. As with many other things in Judah, the Passover had been neglected for a long time. Hezekiah called for the Passover to be celebrated in the second month instead of the first month because not enough priests had consecrated themselves and the people had not yet assembled in Jerusalem (vs. 2, 3). The postponement was in accordance with the provision of Numbers 9:6-11. In Moses’ time, when anyone was unclean because of a dead body or away on a journey, they could opt to celebrate the Passover in the second month instead of the first. Even by the second month, however, many of the people, especially those of the northern tribes, were not yet consecrated. But they ate the Passover anyway. This was contrary to what was written (vs. 17, 18). So that God’s anger would not be kindled against them, Hezekiah assumed the role of intercessor, asking the Lord to pardon the people for eating the Passover while they were unclean. His prayer sprang from the conviction that an upright seeking of the Lord from the heart sometimes offsets deficiency in strict technical observance of the letter of the law. God heard the king’s prayer and healed them (vs. 18-20).
Care must be taken here. In the worship of God, the Word of God must never be arbitrarily disregarded, not even when the worshipers are well-meaning or sincere. The Lord attaches great importance to how He is worshiped (Deuteronomy 12:32). Hezekiah’s prayer was offered in recognition of this fact. These, however, were extraordinary circumstances, and extraordinary mercy was granted in answer to extraordinary prayer. On this occasion, the people were seeking God from the heart, and though technical precision was lacking, God was pleased to accept their worship in answer to Hezekiah’s prayer. Matthew Henry observes: “Let the circumstance give way to the substance, and let not the thing itself be lost upon a nicety about the time.”
On other occasions, the Lord rejected worship that was technically correct, but offered from lives void of moral integrity (Isaiah 1:1-17) or hearts void of sincerity (Isaiah 29:13, 14). Sincere, well-intentioned worship offered in careless disregard for the revealed will of God is as unacceptable to Him as technically correct worship that lacks sincerity. God looks favorably upon sincerity coupled with conscientious obedience. Either one without the other is unacceptable to Him.
Proverbs 30:5, 6
This passage, along with Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32, and Revelation 22:28 are often used to establish the principle that what is not commanded is forbidden in worship. What does this passage teach? Does it in fact establish this principle?
In vs. 1-3 Agur acknowledges his own ignorance. No man knows even so much as the name of God (v. 4). None but the omnipresent, omniscient Creator has perfect knowledge and wisdom. Ithiel and Ucal must understand that the full knowledge of divine mysteries does not reside with any man. What can be known of those mysteries is obtained only from the Word of God, which is pure, perfect, and therefore sufficient (v. 5; Psalm 12:6). It needs no addition. It therefore must not be corrupted by human enlargement (v. 6). Doing so invites God’s reproof. Verse 6 is a prohibition. For whatever reasons, Agur, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, only prohibits adding to the Word of God, not subtracting from it. This is certainly not because the latter is any less a corruption of the Word of God than the former (Matthew 5:19). The corruption of God’s pure Word by enlargement happens easily in the course of interpreting it, and is further accelerated by the perverse delight fallen human nature takes in its own inventions.
With regard to the question of using this text to prove the Regulative Principle, all must agree that the prohibition of adding to the Word of God isn’t limited only to corporate worship. It applies to every situation and circumstance of life. Further, all must agree that the prohibition must be understood and applied in a qualified way for the obvious reason that the broad spectrum of life’s experiences require that we do many things that aren’t explicitly commanded in the Bible. Matthew Henry explains:
This forbids the advancing of anything, not only in contradiction to the word of God, but in competition with it; though it be under the plausible pretence of explaining it, yet, if it pretend to be of equal authority with it, it is adding to His words, which is not only a reproach to them as insufficient, but opens a door to all manner of errors and corruptions; for, that one absurdity being granted, that the word of any man, or company of men, is to be received with the same faith and veneration as the word of God, a thousand follow. We must be content with what God has thought fit to make known to us of his mind, and not covet to be wise above what is written.
What is specifically prohibited here is the elevation of any human idea, command, or tradition to a place that is equal or superior in authority to the Word of God, whether inside or outside of corporate worship. This is not the same as saying that the text comprehensively prohibits anything and everything in corporate worship that is not explicitly commanded.
Ecclesiastes 3:14
This text is occasionally cited alongside of Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 12:32, and Proverbs 30:6 in order to prove that if God doesn’t command something for corporate worship, it is therefore prohibited. The citation of this text for this purpose, however, is due more to the fact that its wording is similar to these other texts, than to careful exegesis. The use of the text in this way is a stretch. The context of Ecclesiastes 3:14 is not dealing with corporate worship. Solomon asserts that all that God does in His inscrutable wisdom is perfect. Man can neither improve upon it by his contributions, nor frustrate it by his efforts. To be sure, no one can “improve” upon God’s worship by addition. But God’s worship can certainly be spoiled by addition, subtraction, or both. If one wishes to prove that we must only do in worship what God commands, and that if God doesn’t command it it’s prohibited, he must look elsewhere. This text, in the final analysis, doesn’t teach sola Scriptura with regard to corporate worship
Isaiah 1:1-17
Verse 12 is sometimes quoted in an attempt to demonstrate that God rejects worship that He hasn’t commanded. It’s true that God rejects worship that lacks Scriptural warrant, but that is not the point of the divine reproof in Isaiah 1. In the context, Israel brought offerings (v. 11), burned incense (v. 13), observed festivals and Sabbaths (vs. 13, 14), and offered prayers (v. 15). There are no innovations or additions here. Every one of these things had been commanded by God. So why did He reject their worship? It was because the people were without moral integrity (vs. 2-6, 15-17). Their worship was correct and precise, but they themselves were not upright people. Their formalism and hypocrisy made their worship unacceptable. Right worship offered from a wrong heart is as displeasing to God as wrong worship offered from a right heart (Amos 5:21-26; Micah 6:6-8).
Jeremiah 7:21-24
Chapters 7-10 of Jeremiah’s prophecy contain a message delivered at the temple gate in which the prophet reproves the people for their false trust in the temple, condemns them for their idolatry, and threatens exile. Verse 24 is sometimes cited as proof that God rejected their worship because it wasn’t offered in careful obedience to His commands. The context, however, demands a very different interpretation. God rejected their worship because it wasn’t offered from a life of moral integrity. The language of vv. 22, 23 is hyperbolic. The denial of one thing (sacrifice) does not exclude it altogether, but emphasizes its importance over another (obedience). “Not that, but this.” Of course God had commanded sacrifices and offerings, but not before the Moral Law was given. Mere sacrifice wasn’t so much what was commanded as sincere submission to God’s will, which gives to the sacrifice all its virtue. Sacrifice and offerings are to be the fruit of a covenant relationship, not a substitute for it. The Lord does not desire the sacrifices of a people who have fallen away from Him.
Jeremiah 7:31
This text (along with Jeremiah 19:5 and 32:35) is sometimes used to prove that worship that isn’t commanded by God is unacceptable to Him. Attention is drawn to the fact that Israel did in worship what God had not commanded. They did what had never even entered God’s mind. For this reason, the argument goes, it was unacceptable to God. But clearly Israel was not condemned merely for doing what God had not commanded, but for doing what God had explicitly prohibited. Child sacrifice is explicitly prohibited in Leviticus 18:21. It therefore had indeed entered into God’s mind. He gave thought to it—enough to condemn it! So it is obvious that the expression “it did not come into My mind” must be understood in another way, namely, that God would never require such a costly thing from His worshipers as the sacrifice of their own beloved children. He would never take pleasure such an act. In this sense, it never entered His mind.
It is one thing to say that worship activities are unacceptable to God because He hasn’t commanded them. It is quite another thing to say that worship activities are unacceptable to God because He has prohibited them. Clearly, the latter, and not the former, is in view in this passage. This is not to say that what God doesn’t explicitly command is always acceptable to Him. It is simply to say that what God prohibits is never acceptable. Passages that demonstrate the latter should not be used as alleged proof of the former. This is not responsible exegesis.
Jeremiah 13:10
This text is also sometimes cited to demonstrate that worship that is not commanded is unacceptable to God. But there is nothing about this in the verse or the surrounding context at all. God condemns Israel for worshiping other gods (something forbidden by the Second Commandment), not merely for worshiping in a way that had not been commanded by Him.
Matthew 15:1-9
This passage is often appealed to in defense of the Regulative Principle of worship. When the Pharisees saw some of the disciples eat bread without ceremonially washing their hands, they found fault with them. Jesus responded by turning the question around and asking the Pharisees why they broke God’s commandments in order to observe their traditions. As an example, He refers to their violation of the Fifth Commandment in order to observe their “Corban” tradition (Mark 7:11). He condemns them for this practice, quoting from Isaiah 29:13 and applying it to them specifically.
Two observations are in order. First, the principles and application of this passage aren’t limited to corporate worship. They certainly include worship, but they also extend to all spheres of life, including the domestic sphere, as is clear from the Jesus’ argument in vv. 4-6. Second, Jesus declares that human traditions aren’t binding on the consciences of His people. When human traditions contradict the Word of God or are accorded equal or superior authority to the Word of God, they must not be observed. If they do not contradict the Word of God, or are not accorded equal or superior authority to the Word of God, they are optional, and might be observed, depending on a number of other considerations. Jesus and the disciples would not have sinned by ceremonially washing, unless they did so as though they were obeying a commandment of God.
Luke 4:16-20
The reading of Scripture was a regular part of the synagogue worship. Christ’s participation (as well as the apostles’) in the worship of the synagogue sanctions its legitimacy (Acts 13:14, 27; 14:1; 15:21; 17:1, 2, 10, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8).
John 4:21-24
This is the Mt. Everest of passages in the Bible concerning corporate worship during New Covenant times. Jesus’ words to the Samaritan woman at the well are some of the most instructive words in all of Scripture concerning the corporate worship of the church.
Jesus’ response to the woman (vs. 21-24) is given in three parts. First, He announces the impending obsolescence of both the Jerusalem temple and the Mount Gerazim site as definitive places of worship (v. 21). Nevertheless, He insists, salvation springs from the Jews, not the Samaritans (v. 22). And finally, He explains more positively the nature of the worship that forever renders obsolete the conflicting claims of Jerusalem and Gerazim (vs. 23, 24).
Our Lord prefaces His statements with the words, ‘believe Me’. This is the only time that Jesus uses this expression in the gospels. It demands that special attention be given to what the Head of the church is about to say. At least six important things about New Covenant worship can be learned from Jesus’ words:
First, the time would come when acceptable worship would undergo a change in its geographical locale (vs. 21, 23). The ‘hour’ that is coming is the Gospel Era. The change in locale, commensurate with the arrival of the Gospel Era, is here stated negatively. When the Gospel Era commences, acceptable worship will no longer be restricted to Jerusalem, Mt. Gerazim, or any other geographical location. Jesus essentially says to the woman, “There is little to be gained by a prolonged debate over the relative claims of Jerusalem and Gerazim, since both sites are about to be bypassed by those who truly worship the Father.” The prophets spoke of a time when the earth would be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea (Isaiah 11:9; Habakkuk 2:14), and when incense would be offered to His name in every place (Malachi 1:11). Jesus here implies that this time had come.
Second, God the Father is the proper object of worship (vs. 21, 23). In the Gospel Era, worship takes on a distinctly Trinitarian flavor. The apostle Paul later designates the Trinitarian formula of worship in Ephesians 2:18: to the Father, through the Son, in (by) the Spirit.
Third, God determines what is acceptable worship (vs. 22-24). Worship is not acceptable unless it is sanctioned by divine revelation. Worship in ignorance is unacceptable to God. Worship must find its warrant in the Word of God in order to be acceptable.
Fourth, there are true worshipers and there are false worshipers (v. 23). Consequently there is true worship, and there is false worship. The Father seeks the former. He is displeased with the latter.
Fifth, the time will come when acceptable worship will undergo a change in its essential character (v. 23). The ‘hour’ that is coming, and now is, is the Gospel Era. It was “already proleptically present in the person and ministry of Jesus before the cross.” When Jesus spoke these words, this hour had already begun by the preaching of the kingdom of God. It was still to come in that Christ had not yet been crucified, raised from the dead, and ascended to the Father. The advent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost had not yet occurred, and the church had not yet been established.
When the Gospel Era arrives, acceptable worship will be “in spirit and truth” (evn pneu,mati kai. avlhqei,a). It is tempting to think of ‘spirit’ as a reference to the Holy Spirit, especially in light of Philippians 3:3. But it is best to take this as a reference to the human spirit. One preposition joins the two nouns so that a single idea is in view, a point that is obscured in vv. 23, 24 of the KJV, and in v. 24 of the NIV. It is not worship in spirit and worship in truth, but worship in spirit and truth, or “spirit and truth worship”. This is worship offered out of the fullness of the supernatural life they [true worshipers] enjoy (in spirit), and on the basis of the truth now objectively revealed in Christ (in truth), the One through whom God’s person and will are ultimately disclosed. These two characteristics form one indivisible whole.
Sixthly and finally, acceptable worship is consonant with the character of God as it is revealed in the Scriptures (v. 24). Because God is spirit, worship isn’t tied to a specific geographical place. Because God is spirit, visible, lifeless idols are inappropriate for His worship. Because God is spirit, He is unknowable unless He chooses to reveal Himself, which He has now done in the incarnate Word, the One “who baptizes His people in the Holy Spirit (John 1:33).” Since the Spirit works only in and through the Word, acceptable worship must be founded on the Holy Scriptures. Only worship that proceeds ultimately from the Spirit through His Word is pleasing to God.
By way of summary and conclusion, something new, something different was about to be introduced in connection with the corporate worship of God’s people. In fact, it had already begun. During the Gospel Era the worship of the New Covenant community would be geographically delocalized and corporately internalized.
A change was coming, first of all, with respect to the location of corporate worship. Acceptable worship would be geographically delocalized. No longer would it be restricted to one geographical location (v. 21). It would be offered wherever the people of God gather in Jesus’ name (Matthew 18:20; 1 Corinthians 3:16, 17). Not a temporary physical temple made by human hands (Acts 17:24), but the church, the spiritual house (Ephesians 2:19-22), the true spiritual temple made by divine hands, would be the place of acceptable worship.
A change was coming, secondly, with respect to the nature of corporate worship. Acceptable worship during the Gospel Era would be corporately internalized (worship in spirit and truth). Whatever else had been wrong with Jewish worship, it at least had divine warrant and Scriptural authority (v. 22). The God who was the object of its worship was the true and living God who had revealed Himself to Israel. At the same time, in spite of whatever may have been right about Jewish worship, for the most part it lacked sincerity. Jehovah repeatedly complains of this in the Old Testament (Isaiah 1:1-17; 29:13, et al.). Nevertheless, there have always been true worshipers who worship in spirit and truth. Abel, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Samuel, David, and a remnant of other Old Testament saints worshiped in this way. But never before had this kind of worship marked the covenant community as a whole. Never before had a covenant community existed on earth that worshiped in spirit and truth as a corporate entity.
There were two streams in the worship of Old Testament Israel: the Tabernacle/Temple, the place where God dwells and meets with His people (centralized and piacular) and the synagogue (decentralized and non-piacular). The church partakes of both streams. The essential elements of the centralized worship, namely, Tabernacle/Temple (place), priesthood (people), and sacrifice (particulars), are fulfilled in Christ and His people. No longer is worship tied to a particular location and a physical tent or temple, a ritual priesthood and shadowy types, or the sacrifice of bulls, lambs, and goats. The shadows are cast away, for the full light of the truth has come in Jesus Christ. The New Testament explicitly identifies Christ and His people with all three of these elements. Both He and they are the Tabernacle/Temple/Body (John 2:19-22; 1 Corinthians 3:16; Ephesians 2:19-22; Colossians 1:18, 24). Both He and they are the priests (Hebrews 7-10; 1 Peter 2:5, 9). Both He and they are the sacrifice (Hebrews 9, 10; Romans 12:1).
Christ is the Place, Priest, and Sacrifice. His people are the places, priests, and sacrifices. The worship of the church is always mediated through Christ who is the embodiment of the Regulative Principle. He is the Regulative Principle of worship.
In addition to fulfilling the Old Testament Tabernacle/Temple imagery, the church inherits the format of the non-piacular synagogue worship. Since Christ’s sacrifice is once for all, never to be repeated (Hebrews 9, 10), the worship of the church is non-piacular, and, not surprisingly, its format resembles that of the synagogue worship.
Furthermore, the worship of the church is itself prophetic in that it points ahead to the perfect substance yet to come in the new heavens and the new earth. Acceptable worship only takes place through Christ since He is the true temple (John 2:19-22). In the consummated kingdom, the new Jerusalem, no temple will be found because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple (Revelation 21:22). With the first advent of Christ, the hour was dawning when the principle ingredients of the heavenly reality would be set in operation. Worship during the New Covenant era would be a foretaste of the consummation to come. The worship of the church is a provisional fulfillment of the best that is yet to come.
Acts 2:42-47
This passage provides a glimpse into the life and corporate worship of the early church. Special meetings for corporate worship began to be held early on (Acts 1:6, 14; 4:23-31; 5:42; 13:2; 20:7-12; 1 Corinthians 11:18-34; 14:1-40; 16:1, 2). Certain items are commended and confirmed as belonging to acceptable worship, not by way of command, but by way of example. We are warranted to worship as the early church did. Some items found here, however, may not legitimately be brought over into our own experience and made binding on the people of God. Care must be take to distinguish these items from those that can. For example, the common purse, daily meetings for corporate worship, and daily home communion would not be among those things that are binding on all believers in all ages. The larger witness of Scripture is helpful in determining this distinction.
At least three items in this passage properly belong to the corporate worship of the church in all ages: reading, teaching, and preaching the Word of God (steadfast continuance in the apostolic teaching), the Lord’s Supper (breaking of bread), and corporate prayer (the prayers: tai/j proseucai/j). This passage demonstrates that in addition to explicit commands, biblically sanctioned examples are legitimate in determining what is or is not acceptable worship.
Acts 20:7-12
As we just saw, special meetings for corporate worship were held in the early church (Acts 1:6, 14; 2:42-47; 4:23-31; 5:42; 13:2; 1 Corinthians 11:18-34; 14:1-40; 16:1, 2). This meeting was held on the evening of the first day of the week. The Perfect Passive participle (sunhgme,nwn, “being gathered”, i.e. as usual) suggests that this was a regular practice. Even at this early date, the observance of the first day of the week, the day of Jesus’ resurrection, had become customary. The activities of this meeting included a sermon (in this case, not a very short one!), and the observance of the Lord’s Supper. Again, biblically sanctioned example carries considerable weight in determining what is or is not acceptable worship.
Romans 12:1
We have already seen that meetings for special corporate worship were held in the early church (Acts 1:6, 14; 2:42-47; 4:23-31; 5:42; 13:2; 20:7-12; 1 Corinthians 11:18-34; 14:1-40; 16:1, 2). Jesus promised His special blessing and presence upon His people when they gather in His name (Matthew 18:18-20). The worship referred to in this text, however, is of a broader kind. It is general worship in contrast to special worship. For the Christian, all of life is worship. This does not in any way preclude the warrant or necessity for special meetings for worship, but it does remove the restriction of worship to special gatherings and broaden it to include everything the Christian is and does. In the exposition of John 4:21-24, we saw that the Old Testament imagery of temple, priest, and sacrifice was fulfilled in Christ and His people. Under the New Covenant, ritual offering has been replaced by rational (spiritual) service. Believers no longer offer atoning sacrifices. This was done once and for all in Christ. But believers do offer sacrifices—not dead animal sacrifices, but spiritual ones that are pleasing to God (Hebrews 13:15, 16). Believers themselves are living sacrifices. They live in obedience to the Word of God. They sacrifice themselves to God’s purposes. The whole of their lives is priestly service to God.
1 Corinthians 11:18-34
Here is another instance of special meetings for corporate worship (Acts 1:6, 14; 2:42-47; 4:23-31; 5:42; 13:2; 20:7-12; 1 Corinthians 14:1-40: 16:1, 2). The observance of the Lord’s Supper was a regular activity in the corporate worship of the early church. Though celebrated in conjunction with the love feast (a fellowship meal), the Lord’s Supper itself was not an ordinary meal. It was a participation in the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16), and must be partaken of in a worthy manner (v. 27). Jesus called it the New Covenant in His blood (v. 25). Special worship, then, involves special activities. Again, biblically sanctioned example carries considerable weight in determining what is or is not acceptable worship.
1 Corinthians 14:1-40
Here is another instance of special meetings for corporate worship in the early church. This passage, more than any other in the New Testament, gives a glimpse of an early Christian worship service. As the apostle gives authoritative instruction (vs. 37, 38) concerning meetings for public worship, two overarching principles govern his thought. First, corporate worship should be edifying (oikodome, vv. 4, 5, 12, 17, 26). Second, corporate worship should be decent (euschemonos) and orderly (taxis, v. 40).
In the absence of a closed, written New Testament canon, certain revelational spiritual gifts were exercised in the corporate worship of the first generation church. These included tongues (glossa), interpretation of tongues (hermeneia), and prophecy (profetia). Male individuals (vs. 34, 35) brought psalms (psalmos), teachings (didache), revelations (apocalupsis), tongues (glossa), and interpretations (e`rmhnei,a). It doesn’t appear that these individuals were limited to church officers. Paul addresses two problems associated with the use of these gifts in the church at Corinth. One concerned the proper use of revelational gifts. The other the number of individuals permitted to exercise these gifts in a given worship service. The remedy for these problems is expressed in terms of the two principles enunciated above.
Without interpretation or prophecy, tongues cannot be understood. Genuine edification occurs only when the mind understands (vs. 1-25). Edification always involves the use of the mind. Unintelligible speech doesn’t edify because there is no understanding. So tongues must not be used unless there is someone to interpret or prophesy.
If too many people are speaking at one time, confusion and disorder result. So those who speak must go one at a time. Not more than two or three should speak in tongues, and only if there is an interpreter. Otherwise they must keep silent. Similarly, only two or three prophets should speak (vs. 26-33).
Corporate worship must be God-centered, not man-centered. At the same time, it also has a horizontal focus (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16). It is to be edifying (vs. 12, 26), and even evangelistic (vs. 24, 25). A proper concern for worshipers, however, doesn’t mean catering to their wants. “Worship is not, therefore, a program to provide entertainment, or to enhance self-esteem, or to encourage self-righteousness.” Also, the evangelistic thrust of worship must not be allowed to overshadow either its God-ward focus or the goal of edifying believers.
A clear distinction is present in this chapter between acceptable and unacceptable worship. This distinction is always determined by the Word of God (vs. 37, 38). We are warranted in following the example of the early church in its corporate worship.
1 Corinthians 16:1, 2
Special meetings for corporate worship were held on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7-12). Collections were made on that day for the relief of the saints. The example of the early church warrants us to do the same.
Ephesians 2:18-22
The apostle Paul describes the formation of God’s new people under the New Covenant. Christ has broken down the division between Jews and Gentiles and reconciled them both in one body through the cross (vs. 14-16). This has significant implications for the worship of the church. The language of this passage is rich and concentrated. Now believing Jews and believing Gentiles together are God’s household (v. 19). They are being built into a holy temple, a dwelling of God in the Spirit (vs. 21, 22). The foundation of the new house is the apostles and prophets, with Christ as the chief cornerstone (v. 20; 1 Peter 2:4-8). Consequently, Jews and Gentiles have access to the presence of God (v. 18). Under the old economy, the high priest alone could enter into the holy of holies but once a year. Now in Christ all believers have continual access. The Trinitarian formula of v. 18 describes the normal pattern of the church’s worship—to the Father, through Christ, by the Spirit.
Ephesians 5:19 (Colossians 3:16)
These passages have been understood and interpreted in a wide variety of ways. Consequently, there has been considerable disagreement about whether the corporate worship of the church should include congregational singing and, if so, what should be sung. The proper interpretation of these passages requires that at least three key questions be addressed: (1) Are these passages concerned with the corporate worship of the church to begin with? (2) How should these passages be punctuated? (3) Are psalms (psalmos), hymns (humnos), and spiritual songs (odais pneumatikais) three separate types of compositions, or are they synonymous? From 1 Corinthians 14:15, 26, however, it can be argued that at the very least, the singing of psalms was a part of the worship of the early church.
Philippians 3:3
The people who had formerly been called the circumcision were only so outwardly. They were but a shadow of the reality to come—a people who would be circumcised in heart (Romans 2:25-29; Colossians 2:11). They are the true circumcision, the true Israel of God. Three distinguishing characteristics of this group of people are mentioned. The first pertains to their worship. They worship (latreuo) in (by) the Spirit of God. The worship referred to here isn’t limited to corporate worship. It includes worship (service) in the broadest sense (Romans 12:1). This worship is initiated by the Holy Spirit through the inward transformation of the members of the New Covenant community (Ezekiel 36:26-28). This worship is also animated by the Holy Spirit who stirs up and empowers the believer to worship and service (Gal. 5:16).
Colossians 2:23
Paul uses a term which he may well have coined himself: ethelothreskia (“will-worship”, “self-made religion”, self-imposed worship”). This is religion that originates in the mind of man and not in the Word of God. Such religion is powerless against temptation, and unacceptable to God.
1 Timothy 3:15
Paul writes to Timothy so that he will be certain about what conduct is acceptable in the church. His words imply that some practices (including worship practices) are acceptable in the church, while others are not. Care must be taken about conduct in the church because it’s God’s house, the place where He dwells, the place of His special presence. The rule of acceptable conduct in the church is the apostolic Word. The specifics of acceptable conduct are discovered by interpreting and applying the apostolic Word in the usual way, not by using a different hermeneutic. In other words, the principle for interpreting and applying the Word of God for conduct in the church is the same principle for interpreting and applying the Word of God in any and all other areas of life.
1 Peter 2:4-10
Peter quotes from numerous Old Testament passages to demonstrate the fulfillment of the Old Testament temple worship in Christ and His people (Isaiah 28:16; Psalm 118:22; Isaiah 8:14; Exodus 19:5, 6; Hosea 1:10; 2:23). Both He and they are the place of worship, the true tabernacle/temple to which the Old Testament Tabernacle/Temple pointed. He is the Living Stone, the chief cornerstone in the spiritual house. They are the living stones in the spiritual house. Both He and they are priests. He is their Great High Priest (Hebrews 4:14). They are a royal priesthood. Both He and they offer sacrifices. He offers the sacrifice of Himself (Hebrews 9:12, 26). They offer spiritual sacrifices that are acceptable to God through the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The fulfillment is realized through faith in Christ (v. 4: “coming to Him”; John 6:35). Peter presents these as broad realities. There is no indication that they are restricted to corporate worship alone. They pertain to all spheres of the Christian life, not merely special gatherings of believers.
Hebrews 2:12
In v. 12, the writer to the Hebrews quotes from Psalm 22:22, a Messianic psalm. Christ is the speaker. He is the One who sings with the people of God in the midst of the gathered assembly. When the church gathers for worship, Christ condescends to meet with His people by the Spirit, in accordance with His promise in Matthew 18:20. Here is a line of argument in favor of congregational singing in the corporate worship of the church.
Hebrews 10:19-25
What was only an annual priestly prerogative under the Old Covenant is now the privilege of all believers at all times under the New Covenant. Through the excellence and effectiveness of Christ and His sacrifice, believers have continual access to God in worship. While the access of individual believers is certainly in view, the idea of corporate access is also present (vs. 24, 25).
Hebrews 12:18-29
The fathomless superiority of Mt. Zion over the fear-inducing solemnity of Mt. Sinai has significant implications for the manner of worship under the New Covenant. The words of v. 29 echo the words of Moses in Deuteronomy4:24. The God of Sinai is the God of Zion as well. Our exalted privileges under the New Covenant, coupled with the awesome holiness of God, demand that He be worshiped acceptably (latreuomen euarestos). Careless familiarity in the worship of this God is unacceptable. Joy, gratitude, and confidence are not incompatible with fear, humility, and reverence.
Hebrews 13:15, 16
Under the New Covenant, blood sacrifices are not offered occasionally. Spiritual sacrifices are to be offered continually. The scope of these verses is comprehensive both of worship in the special corporate sense, and worship in the general sense. The sacrifices mentioned in v. 15 are more conducive, though not limited to, special worship, while those mentioned in v. 16 occur in general worship. The list itself, however, is not comprehensive. With these and other similar sacrifices (toiautais thusiais) God is pleased.
Revelation 1:10
The “Lord’s Day” is a technical term for the first day of the week. It is the Lord’s Day because on the first day of the week Christ rose victorious from the grave. If we assume the abiding validity of the Fourth Commandment, and identify the Lord’s Day as the Christian Sabbath, then we must conclude that the activities of the gathered church on that day will be different in some respects from the activities of the gathered church on other days of the week. What might be an acceptable activity for the gathered church at a mid-week prayer meeting or a Friday night Fellowship Dinner may not be appropriate for a corporate worship service of the gathered church on the Lord’s Day, and vice versa. As examples, one might expect there to be preaching and observance of the Lord’s Supper on the Lord’s Day, while at a mid-week prayer meeting there will be far more emphasis on prayer, and no observance of the Lord’s Supper. A Saturday afternoon baptismal service will have an entirely different thrust, as would a Friday Night Fellowship Dinner where high school graduates are recognized and presented with graduation gifts from the church.
Revelation 22:18, 19
John by inspiration of the Spirit issues a solemn warning against tampering with the words of this prophecy by either addition or subtraction. Willful distortion of its message has serious consequences. Of course it is never right to add to or subtract from any portion of the Word of God. But in the strictest sense, the warning issued here applies to the book of the Revelation itself (this book: tou bibliou toutou; this prophecy: tes profeteias tautes) and not to the Bible as a whole.
This text is often lumped together with Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32, and Proverbs 30:6 as alleged proof of the Regulative Principle in worship, i.e. that we are only permitted to do in corporate worship what is explicitly commanded; if it is not commanded, it is prohibited. However, as was similarly observed in the exposition of Proverbs 30:6, the prohibition of adding to or subtracting from the Word of God can’t properly be restricted to corporate worship alone. It must apply to every situation and circumstance of life. This means that the prohibition must be understood and applied in a qualified way for the obvious reason that in the broad spectrum of life’s experiences we sometimes must, and at other times may, do many things that aren’t explicitly commanded in the Bible (eat grapes, play softball, take out the garbage, etc.).
If the prohibition of Revelation 22:18 is broadly applied to the whole Bible, two things are specifically forbidden. The first is the elevation of any human idea, command, or tradition to a place that is equal or superior in authority to the Word of God (adding to the Word of God). The second is attributing anything less than divine authority to any biblical command or principle (subtracting from the Word of God). This is not the same as saying that the text comprehensively prohibits anything and everything in corporate worship that is not explicitly commanded.
Summary and Conclusion
From this survey, at least four things are clear. First, corporate worship that is acceptable to God always is and always must be regulated by divine revelation. We are not at liberty to worship God in any way we please, but only in ways that His Word warrants us to.
Second, the regulation of corporate worship by the Word of God is not uniform throughout Scripture. Prior to Sinai, gatherings for corporate worship were regulated by divine revelation, but not with the same degree of detail or specificity after Sinai. Once Israel entered the land, worship was centralized in the Tabernacle and the Temple. No longer was it acceptable to offer sacrifices anywhere one wished to. Nor could they be offered indiscriminately by anyone who wished, or in the way they wished. Now sacrifices would be offered only in the authorized place, by authorized persons, and in the authorized way. One reason for this can be discerned from Israel’s relationship to the church, the new Israel. This was a relationship of shadow to substance; picture to reality; promise and prophecy to fulfillment. Precision was important. All pointed forward to Christ who is the Place, Priest, and acceptable Sacrifice through whom the worship of His people is mediated; and to Christ’s people who themselves are places, priests, and sacrifices of worship. Through the bloody sacrifice of Christ, their spiritual sacrifices of adoration, praise, thanksgiving, and benevolence are made acceptable to God. Concurrent with the centralized worship of the Tabernacle and the Temple was a decentralized worship, first in the holy convocations, and later in the Synagogue. This decentralized worship was also regulated by divine revelation, but not in the same way or to the same degree as the centralized worship of the Tabernacle and the Temple. It was non-piacular and word-centered. The church partakes of both streams of Israel’s worship. It is the antitype of Israel’s centralized worship. It takes up the format of Israel’s decentralized worship. The prophetic and typical relation of Old Israel to New Israel may at least partially account for the concentration of detailed regulation clustering around the Tabernacle/Temple, and the absence of such detailed regulation during other periods of redemptive history, including the New Covenant Era.
Third, the absence of a command isn’t necessarily equivalent to a prohibition. It is one thing to say that God cares about how He is worshiped; that we must worship Him according to His Word; as He has commanded; as He has prescribed in His Word. It is very different to say that this always has, does, and will mean that nothing must be done in worship unless it has been explicitly commanded; that the absence of a command equals a prohibition. Passages that are brought forward to prove that worship activities that aren’t expressly commanded by God are unacceptable to Him do not prove this at all. In each case, they actually prove that worship activities that are prohibited by God are unacceptable to Him.
Fourth, Scripture applies to corporate worship in the same way it applies to other things. The use of a special hermeneutic for corporate worship does not appear to have any demonstrable basis in Scripture.
These conclusions will be explored and further developed in part three, “The Regulative Principle in Theological Perspective.”
Jim Domm
Pastor of Englewood Baptist Church, Englewood, NJ
Student of Reformed Baptist Seminary, Easley, SC
Posted by Domski on November 10, 2009
The concept of the Regulative Principle of worship has been known and applied for centuries. References to “the principle,” “principles of truth,” “rule for regulating,” and the like are scattered throughout older writings. There is, however, some uncertainty about the precise origin of the term “regulative principle of worship.” R. J. Gore finds no explicit mention of it prior to the 20th century. Sherman Isbell credits John Murray as having first coined the term in a report presented to the Thirteenth General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in 1946. “After its use in the 1946 OPC report by John Murray, the prominence given the phrase “regulative principle of worship,” in Dr. [William] Young’s 1957 Puritan conference paper and in Iain Murray’s for 1963, as well in Reformation of the Church (1964), probably did much to cement the phrase as the title for the confessional Presbyterian and Puritan principle.” During and after the 1970s, the expression was used with increasing frequency until it eventually became a standard term in Reformed vocabulary.
Historical Overview
The historical roots of what is known today as the Regulative Principle of worship can be traced back to the Protestant Reformation. Rome had elevated human traditions to a place of authority equal or superior to Scripture and imposed them upon God’s people. Both Luther and Calvin, united in their opposition to Rome, were persuaded of the sole authority and sufficiency of Scripture, and desired to restore the pure worship of the primitive church.
How would this be done? At this point an important difference between Luther and Calvin began to emerge. Luther would allow what Scripture did not condemn. Calvin, on the other hand, would allow only what Scripture commanded. Luther would do what Scripture didn’t prohibit. Calvin would do only what Scripture prescribed. From this essential difference centuries of controversy ensued.
Debate initially crystallized in the conflict between the Reformed and Lutheran churches and the Anglican and Puritan churches during the late 16th and early 17th centuries. Lutherans and Anglicans agreed that much about Roman Catholic worship was contrary to and forbidden by Scripture. However, they agreed with Rome that the church has the authority to impose ceremonies and rites as necessary elements of worship, provided that they are not contrary to Scripture. This view eventually came to be known as the Normative Principle of worship.
In opposition to the Normative Principle, Calvin, and later on to a larger extent, the Puritans articulated what eventually became known as the Regulative Principle of worship. They contended that the church has authority to impose only those rites and ceremonies that have positive warrant in Scripture. Nothing may be done in worship unless Scripture requires it. Not only did Calvin and the Puritans see this principle as the proper application of Sola Scriptura to the worship of the church. They also considered it necessary to safeguard liberty of conscience.
The Regulative Principle came to have a firm confessional basis, and was strongly attested to by theologians and churchmen throughout the 16th and 17th centuries. Nevertheless, its influence began to wane in the 18th century and largely lost its hold in the Reformed community by the early 19th century. There were many reasons for this, some of which include: a general decline in Reformed piety and orthodoxy; the influence of revivalism with its attendant emotionalism and distaste for denominational distinctives; increasing rationalism with its appeal to reason apart from the Bible; the gradual rise of secularism and pluralism both inside and outside the church.
By the opening of the 20th century, Calvinism was on the decline and liberalism on the rise. Conservative churchmen locked arms with Fundamentalists in the fight against modernism which at the time seemed more important than the doctrines of grace or the details of worship. By the 1940s the Regulative Principle was almost completely forgotten. Only a few churches here and there were careful to hold to it. But as conservatives awakened to the dangers of liberal theology, they also began to rediscover their theological roots. In the mid 1940s, a few lone voices called for a reexamination of the doctrine of worship. These included John Murray, William Young, and Johannes G. Vos. During the 50s and 60s others followed after them, calling attention to what had become popularly known as “the Regulative Principle of worship.”
Throughout the 1970s, the Regulative Principle continued to receive attention, but uncertainty and confusion about it prevailed. Deep divisions developed between conservatives like Michael Bushell who favored “traditional” Presbyterian worship, and progressives like C. John Miller who saw the worship service as a means to an evangelistic end.
The decade of the 80s saw both growing support for and opposition to the Regulative Principle. The advent of the personal computer and desktop publishing made it possible for individuals and small publishers to produce articles, tracts, and books both old and new concerning the Regulative Principle in much greater numbers. During this period, Reformed Baptists began to take a greater interest in the Puritan doctrine.
By the 1990s the subject of the Regulative Principle could no longer be avoided. With the growth of the Internet, material concerning the doctrine came in even greater amounts. Support for the traditional understanding of the Regulative Principle increased. So did the severity of criticism it received, but with at least one important difference: Now some of those who were in opposition claimed to be confessional. Most notably among these were R. J. Gore, John M. Frame, and Steven M. Schlissel.
In the first decade of the 21st century, material concerned with the Regulative Principle came at a faster pace than ever. Some denied the doctrine altogether. Others interpreted it in a manner that made it barely recognizable. Still others maintained the doctrine and advocated the traditional approach to it.
Scriptural Demonstration
Those who hold the traditional view of the Regulative Principle are generally agreed in the way they demonstrate it from Scripture. Key passages usually include the Second Commandment in Exodus 20:4-6 and Deuteronomy 5:8-10; the offering of strange fire in Leviticus 10:1-3; the warning against false worship in Deuteronomy 12:32; the death of Uzza in 2 Samuel 6:1-11 and 1 Chronicles 13:5-14; the prohibition of adding to the Word of God in Proverbs 30:5, 6; the warning against false worship in Jeremiah 7:31; Jesus’ conflict with the Pharisees over the commandments of God and the traditions of men in Matthew 15:1-9 and Mark 7:1-13; Jesus’ teaching about worship in spirit and truth in John 4:22-24; the warning against will worship in Colossians 2:23; and the prohibition of adding to or subtracting from the Word of God in Revelation 22:18, 19. From these and other passages it is argued that the Bible explicitly condemns all worship that is not commanded by God.
In addition to Scriptural exposition, theological arguments are employed. From the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, the sovereignty of God, the total depravity of man, and other biblical themes, it is argued that it is God’s exclusive prerogative to determine the terms on which sinners may approach Him in worship; that the introduction of extra-biblical practices into worship inevitably tends to nullify and undermine God’s appointed worship; and that the addition of any unappointed elements into worship effectively calls into question the wisdom of Christ and the sufficiency of Scripture.
Nuances in Definition
Those who hold to the traditional view of the Regulative Principle of worship are generally agreed in the way they define it. “Whatever is commanded by God for worship is required, and whatever is not commanded by God is forbidden.” Some opponents claim that this rule is too restrictive, and impossible to practice. To this it is countered that such a characterization of the Regulative Principle is actually a misrepresentation of it, a caricature, a straw man that no one holds; that in addition to explicit commands, warrant can be derived from biblically sanctioned example and from good and necessary consequence, a theological concept articulated in the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Savoy Declaration.
Still, the fact remains that the requirement of explicit command is at the heart of the traditional understanding of the Regulative Principle of worship. Some are dissatisfied with simply saying that God must be worshiped according to His Word. For them, mere consistency with Scripture isn’t sufficient. Positive warrant is necessary for worship to be acceptable to God. The real question isn’t what may we do, but what must we do. Even among these, however, differing nuances of emphasis can be found. For example, some stress the positive, prescriptive nature of the Regulative Principle; others, its negative, proscriptive nature.
Frame distinguishes between the historical and normative definitions of the Regulative Principle. He asserts,
…define RPW historically from the British Reformed theological/confessional tradition; define it normatively by the Scriptures…At the outset, we should assume that such a normative definition may or may not agree with the historical definition of the term.
Given the many nuances in defining the Regulative Principle, it is not surprising to find considerable differences in both theory and practice among contemporary adherents. Between Schwertley on the conservative end, and Frame on the progressive end, moderates like David J. Engelsma, Terry L. Johnson, and Richard L. Pratt, Jr. may be found.
Elements and Circumstances
It would be unreasonable to expect Scripture to provide explicit commands for absolutely everything in worship. It is therefore universally recognized that the Regulative Principle as traditionally understood cannot be absolutely applied. This fact necessitates its qualification. This is accomplished by making a distinction between so-called ‘elements’ and ‘circumstances.’ Elements are the parts of worship which are religious in themselves such as prayer and preaching. The Regulative Principle applies only to these. Circumstances are the things surrounding the elements which are not religious in themselves such as the time and place of worship. The Regulative Principle doesn’t apply to these. The category of circumstances is derived from the confessions of faith. Samuel E. Waldron explains this important qualification of the Regulative Principle.
When we say that what is not commanded is forbidden, we are speaking of the substance and parts of worship (see para. 2-6), not its circumstance. There are certain minor circumstantial details that God has left to be determined by the light of nature, Christian prudence, and the general rules of Scripture.
The Puritan distinction of elements from circumstances is as helpful as it is brilliant. But it is not entirely free from difficulty. Cunningham observes,
But even this distinction between things and circumstances cannot always be applied very certainly; that is, cases have occurred in which there might be room for a difference of opinion, whether a proposed regulation or arrangement was a distinct thing in the way of innovation, or merely a circumstance attaching to an authorized thing and requiring to be regulated. Difficulties and differences of opinions may arise about details, even when sound judgment and good sense are brought to bear upon the interpretation and application of the principle.
Among those who are more traditional in their understanding of the Regulative Principle, there are differences about what specific things are elements, and what are circumstances. The Westminster Confession identifies five parts to the ordinary worship of God. These include prayer, the reading of Scripture, the preaching and hearing of the Word of God, the singing of psalms, and the administration and receiving of the sacraments. R. Scott Clark, appealing to the Confession, sees two elements, God’s Word, and prayer. He argues for the singing of inspired songs (not limited to psalms only), but does not view singing as a separate element of worship. Brian Schwertley produces a list of seven worship ordinances by distinguishing preaching from hearing and adding meeting on the Lord’s Day. Some charge others with confusing elements with one another.
There is no less disagreement about circumstances. Richard Baxter’s list of circumstances includes the use of musical instruments. Bushell, who defends exclusive psalmody, is criticized by others holding to the same for being “just a bit fuzzy regarding the categories of substance and circumstance.” Like Bushell, John L. Girardeau sees a distinction in circumstances. Noting that Chapter 1, Paragraph 6 in the Westminster Confession states that some (not all) circumstances are common to human actions and societies, he concludes that there are circumstances regarding the peculiar acts specific to Christian worship, and that these must be expressly commanded by God in Scripture. Thus, for him, the Regulative Principle applies not only to the elements of worship, but to the circumstances attending the elements of worship. The only circumstances given to the liberty of the church are those that are common to the very nature of human gatherings. All others must be explicitly prescribed in Scripture.
In an attempt to clear up some of the confusion about elements and circumstances, other categories have been employed. T. David Gordon and others speak of ‘forms.’ Forms have to do with the content of the elements. This category isn’t always defined in precisely the same way. There is also some disagreement about which forms are fixed and which forms are not, and whether forms should be urged or avoided.
John M. Frame mentions the category of ‘mode.’ According to Frame, mode applies to the elements of worship. It has to do with how the elements are to be carried out. While the elements are commanded, the mode is not.
Preaching is an element of worship, let us say; but Scripture does not specify how many sermons there must be in a service, whether there should be only one preacher or several, how loudly or softly one should preach, what text a preacher should use on a particular occasion, etc.
Gordon regards Frame’s category of ‘mode’ as merely another name for circumstances.
Finally, something must be said about another category, the adiaphora. These are “things indifferent,” things which are neither commanded nor prohibited by God. Some deny the concept, while others expand it “to include almost everything.” A problem emerges in connection with the adiaphora. Granting that the church cannot impose them in worship, on what basis can the church forbid them? Some who view the Regulative Principle as prohibiting whatever is not commanded attempt to deal with this difficulty by arbitrarily distinguishing worship ordinances from adiaphora.
This brief survey shows that the distinction between elements and circumstances, while very helpful, isn’t always clear or plain.
Did the Calvinists follow Calvin?
Some maintain that the Puritans and Westminster divines, in overreacting to Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism went too far. R. J. Gore observes,
Reformed theologians were often guilty of absolutizing principles of worship that had been determined in the reactionary setting of Reformation/post-Reformation European polemics. Too often plainness and simple uniformity were understood to be normative.
Seeing a disparity between Calvin and his heirs, Gore alleges that Calvin’s followers went farther than he would have; that the Puritans embraced a different principle of worship than did Calvin. He flatly asserts, “…there were substantial differences in practice between Calvin and the Puritans.”
Gore is not alone in his view. J. I. Packer asserts that the impression that the Puritan critique of Anglican public worship represented a reversion to the principles and practices of Calvin at Geneva is misleading. He later writes,
The idea that direct biblical warrant, in the form of precept or precedent, is required to sanction every substantive item included in the public worship of God was in fact a Puritan innovation.
Writing of the Puritans, Horton Davies similarly observes, “Biblical fidelity could all too easily degenerate into Bibliomania in the more extreme forms of text-hunting and strained interpretation.” Elsewhere Davies writes, “…neither [the Puritans nor the Anglicans] is in complete conformity with the Genevan tradition.” Hughes Oliphant Old likewise seems to leave the door open for the perception of a cleavage between Calvin and his followers.
Many disagree with the notion of a disparity between Calvin and his followers. T. David Gordon calls Gore’s thesis “unproven and unprovable.” Frank J. Smith and David C. Lachman charge Gore with completely misrepresenting Calvin. Rowland S. Ward disagrees with Packer’s characterization of the Regulative Principle as a Puritan innovation, and is “quite satisfied there is no fundamental difference between Calvin and the Westminster men on worship.” Edmund Clowney, while granting that there was amplification of the Regulative Principle, and “an unduly legalistic development of it in the Puritan Reformation,” likewise rejects Packer’s view. Similarly, William Young maintains that, “the Puritan principle of worship was no invention of the Puritans.”
Among those who are more moderate in their assessment is Douglas F. Kelly. He sees a continuity between the first Reformers (such as Calvin) and the Puritans. On the other hand, Kelly suggests that the Puritans went beyond Calvin when they asserted that “whatever is not commanded or warranted by Scripture is forbidden.” Christopher L. Bennett observes,
In some ways Puritan positions developed and became tighter: Dr. Ames in his preface to William Bradshaw’s English Puritanism (1605) says that the Puritans had become somewhat more rigid than the Reformers and even the earlier Puritans… because ‘miserable experience hath taught us many things which our fathers were ignorant of’.
In the same place he is quick to add that “the overall lines of the Regulative Principle, however, remain the same throughout the era.”
R. J. Gore, Stephen F. Winward, W. D. Maxwell, D. G. Hart, and others contend that Calvin believed in set forms of prayer, something that the Puritans would not have approved of. Rowland S. Ward and others regard this as a mistaken notion. Other ceremonies and practices which Calvin approved of, but the Puritans adamantly opposed, include the weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper, kneeling at the sacrament, the sponsorship of godparents in the baptism of infants, tolerance for vestments, the observance of holy days such as Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, and Ascension, and the rite of confirmation.
While the Puritans may have been somewhat more articulate with the Regulative Principle of worship, it must be remembered that Calvin was not the sole source of the Reformed tradition. If one wishes to set the Puritans against Calvin, one must set them against all of the Continental reformers. It is fair to say that the Puritans further refined and developed the theology of worship. But it is not fair to say that they and Calvin substantially differed regarding the prescription of worship. The “Calvin versus the Calvinists” paradigm is often employed by those who want to rescue (or wrest) Reformed worship from the hands of the Puritans. If one manages to drive a wedge between Calvin his followers, a shadow of doubt is cast over the Puritan understanding of the Regulative Principle of worship. Some even attempt to use Calvin to justify popular contemporary worship practices. The fact that there were differences between Calvin and the Puritans cannot be denied. Neither is it surprising. Care must be taken, however, in the conclusions one draws from this. It is probably best not to make too much of these differences.
The Question of Uniformity
The traditional understanding of the Regulative Principle is thought by some to guarantee a kind of uniformity of worship. In fact, however, it has not always done this. Those who have conscientiously held to the Regulative Principle have often and significantly differed from one another in its application. As Iain Murray has pointed out, “Merely to adhere to the regulative principle is not to resolve all questions. Nor is it an easy solution to all questions.” In the same place, he goes on to say that the overdoing of the Regulative Principle has been its undoing.
We have already noted several specific differences between the worship practices of Calvin and those of the English Puritans. Further, as Robert Godfrey points out,
Not all Reformed churches in Europe applied the regulative principle in the same way or were identical in their worship practices. For example, the Dutch Reformed kept a few hymns alongside their metrical psalms and continued to observe Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension, and Pentecost—not as obligatory holy days, but as important occasions in redemptive history. Scottish Presbyterians, on the other hand, sang only psalms and banished all elements of a liturgical calendar. When the Dutch reformed reintroduced musical instruments to worship in the 17th century, they did not reject the regulative principle, but rather applied it differently to the question of instruments.
The Westminster Assembly met from July 1, 1643 until February 22, 1649. Two of the documents produced by the Assembly during that period were The Westminster Confession of Faith and The Directory for Public Worship. The worship recommended in these documents is not uniform. R. J. Gore characterizes the Directory as a “compromise document,” deliberately broader than the Westminster in order to achieve wider acceptance. He maintains that “the practical application of the Puritan regulative principle of worship, even by the Westminster Assembly itself, was not consistent with the theoretical formulation of the principle.” Even if one disagrees with Gore’s observations, Henry Hammond, in his 1645 exposition of the Directory, explains that it intentionally avoided six basic characteristics, one of which was “uniformity in worship.”
Another area where there has been considerable lack of uniformity in connection with the Regulative Principle is the scope of its application. Does the Regulative Principle apply only to corporate worship, or does its application extend to matters outside of corporate worship? Historically, the Puritans restricted the application of the Regulative Principle to worship. Ironically, however, while rightly rejecting the Roman Catholic Church’s dichotomy between “sacred” and “secular,” a distinction rooted more in Greek philosophy than Scripture, they maintained a rigid distinction between worship and life. Was this a stroke of genius or a glaring inconsistency?
Today, those who are more conservative and traditional in their understanding of the Regulative Principle usually reject the idea that it should be applied outside of corporate worship. Many have a decided distaste for the idea that all of life is worship. For example, Frank J. Smith and Chris Coldwell write,
The notion that worship can be thought of as encompassing all of life (even with a distinction between worship in a broad sense and in a narrow sense) can lead to the perspective that the regulative principle applies to all of life. This is indeed the view taken by Professor Norman Shepherd, then a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary and minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Referring to Deuteronomy 12:32 (“Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to it or take away from it”), Mr. Shepherd claims: “This principle applies to the whole scope of our obedience to God. We may properly speak of it as the regulative principle for human life.”
Professor Shepherd essentially undercut one of the key supports for the regulative principle. If there is not an essential difference between the principles which govern life and the principles which govern worship, then the regulative principle of worship, as conceived historically in the Reformed faith, becomes meaningless.
Others see all of life as worship. These include John M. Frame and R. J. Gore. They deny that the application of the Regulative Principle should be restricted to corporate worship only. They are also clear in affirming that the “all-of-life-is-worship” view doesn’t imply that there is no mandate for special meetings for corporate worship. Samuel E. Waldron sees the application of the Regulative Principle as encompassing the church’s life as a whole (i.e., corporate worship, government, and ministries) and not limited only to the church’s formal worship. Brian Schwertley limits the application of the Regulative Principle to the church’s formal worship but to formal worship at all levels–private, family, and public.
Scripturally speaking, there are elements of truth in each of these views. The authority of Scripture extends to all these spheres in some way. The question is how. Is there a special hermeneutic for worship and the church and another for everything else, or one and the same hermeneutic for everything including worship and the church?
In fact, careful, conscientious adherence to the Regulative Principle should not produce a bland uniformity in corporate worship. J. Ligon Duncan argues for the cultural transportability and flexibility of historic Protestant worship. He writes,
Reformed worship does not produce a cookie-cutter pattern. Following the Westminster Directory for Public Worship’s guidelines does not eliminate diversity or different cultural expressions in the forms and circumstances of corporate worship.
It is clear that those who have held to the Regulative Principle have not been uniform in the way they apply it. In fact, considerable debate and disagreement about its application and practice have arisen among its proponents. An interesting example of this follows.
Congregational Singing
Many questions, opinions, and viewpoints about congregational singing have arisen among those who have conscientiously held to the Regulative Principle. Is congregational singing a distinct element of corporate worship or is it simply a form of teaching? Should psalms only be sung, or are inspired songs in general acceptable? Beyond this, are hymns acceptable? If psalms or inspired songs only should be sung in corporate worship, which translation should be used? Are paraphrases or metrical renderings permissible? Should congregational singing be in parts or in unison only? Should congregational singing be accompanied by any musical instrumentation? If so, how many instruments and what kind?
Particular Baptists in 17th century England were divided over the issue of congregational singing. Many did not practice it at all. The omission of congregational singing may have originated during times of persecution when Baptists were forced to hold their meetings in secret to avoid detection by the authorities. What began as an early expedient may have developed into an inviolable tradition that continued after the Act of Toleration was enacted in 1689. There were other reasons why the Baptists omitted congregational singing: their aversion to the antiphonal singing of the psalms in the Roman and Anglican churches.”; uncertainty as to whether it was Scriptural to sing with conjoined voices in worship since it necessitated a ‘set form’ of praise; whether the Scripture was to be interpreted as allowing only a single person at a time to sing, when moved to do so by the influence of the Holy Spirit; “the danger which was felt to be incurred by the presence of unbelievers and profane persons who could take upon their lips the sacred words of Scripture.”; whether the versification of the Holy Scriptures was permissible.
Benjamin Keach, a signatory of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, a confession that clearly articulates the Regulative Principle, came to reject exclusive psalmody in the late 17th century. He was the first Baptist to introduce the singing of uninspired hymns into corporate worship. Keach first introduced to his Southwark congregation the singing of hymns at the conclusion of the Lord’s Supper between 1673 and 1675. By 1691 the church had voted to have a hymn sung after the service every Sunday. Twenty-two of Keach’s members left the church because they felt that this was an unscriptural innovation. For a number of years they attended the church pastored by Hanserd Knollys, another signatory of the Baptist Confession. Later, after the group formed another church, they wrote against congregational singing in their articles of faith, calling it a gross error, equal to national forms of set prayer. William Kiffin, another signatory of the Baptist Confession, shared this conviction. Bitter disagreement continued in subsequent years, and numerous books were written by highly respected ministers on both sides of the issue. The controversy didn’t die down until the early 19th century.
Widely divergent views of congregational singing continue to this day even among conservative advocates of the Regulative Principle.
The Synagogue
The synagogue has occasioned some interesting discussion in connection with the Regulative Principle of worship. R. J. Gore and others attempt to demonstrate the Regulative Principle to be erroneous on the basis of Jesus’ participation in the worship of the synagogue, a purely human institution. In reply to this argument, it must be acknowledged that without any doubt the participation of Jesus and the apostles validates the legitimacy of the synagogue worship. The origins of the synagogue, however, cannot be determined with any certainty. Further, as has already been mentioned, the absence of any recorded directives for the synagogue worship doesn’t mean that no divine directives were ever given.
It is generally recognized that the synagogue was the context in which New Covenant worship developed, and shaped apostolic and early Christian worship. The early church took up the format of the synagogue worship. Andrew E. Hill argues that the synagogue structure and liturgy were largely duplicated by the church. Similarly, Steven M. Schlissel asserts that the organizational model for the worshiping communities called churches was the synagogue. “…[W]hen we look for the organizational and liturgical antecedents of church, we find them in the synagogue.” The elements of the synagogue worship included the reading of the Word of God, prayer, and the singing of psalms. Two important observations follow from this: first, the early church didn’t derive its worship practices directly from Scripture alone; second, the early church’s model for worship practices was the synagogue, not the Temple.
Finally, some who are more traditional in their understanding of the Regulative Principle might argue that since the synagogue wasn’t the place of God’s special presence, its meetings weren’t regulated. The Regulative Principle applies to the Tabernacle, Temple, and the church since they are places of God’s special presence. As Dr. Waldron acknowledges, however, the Regulative Principle doesn’t stand or fall on this consideration alone. Further, we have already seen that public worship of all kinds is regulated by divine revelation even when there is no record of that revelation in Scripture.
The Reformed Confessions and Catechisms
The Reformed Confessions and Catechisms are unanimous in their assertion of the Regulative Principle of worship. R. Scott Clark observes,
Contrary to the impression left by some contemporary discussion, the RPW is not the product of the fevered imaginations of the British Reformed churches. It was the universal confession of all the Reformed churches.
Objecting to the tendency to view Calvin as the sole source of the Regulative Principle, Clark elsewhere asserts,
This perception is unwarranted. In fact, streams flowing from across Europe fed the Reformed confession and practice of worship. Gradually, beginning with Zwingli, Oecolampdius, Bucer, and the Swiss-German Reformers and continuing with Calvin, the French Reformed, the German Reformed, the Dutch Reformed, and culminating with English and Scottish Presbyterianism and Puritanism, the reformed churches came to a remarkable consensus of the principle by which worship was to be guided, on the question to be asked, and on the understanding of that principle.
Notwithstanding the overall agreement of the confessions and catechisms as to the essence and definition of the Regulative Principle, they are not uniform in the scope of its application. Does it apply to formal worship only or to other matters also? The relevant chapters in the confessions concerning Christian liberty highlight these differences. The chart below (Table 1) compares the differences among the two readings of the Westminster Confession, the Savoy Declaration, and the 1689 Baptist Confession in the chapter(s) dealing with Christian liberty.
The accepted reading of the Westminster Confession distinguishes the liberty that Christians have generally in life from that which they have in matters of faith and worship. In life they are free from the doctrines and commandments of men that are contrary to the Word of God. In matters of faith and worship, however, they enjoy an additional liberty. In these matters they are also free from the doctrines and commandments of men that are beside the Word of God.
The Savoy Declaration and the Baptist Confession of 1689 change the wording. Instead of ‘beside it’ they read ‘not contained in it.’ Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether these expressions are strictly equivalent, the Savoy Declaration and Baptist Confession address the liberty of Christians in life in general. In all things, including matters of faith and worship, Christians are free from the doctrines and commandments of men that are contrary to the Word or not contained in it.
In the accepted reading of the Westminster Confession, a clear line of distinction is drawn between the liberty of Christians in faith and worship, and the liberty of Christians in other things. The Savoy Declaration and the Baptist Confession make no such distinction. In other words, in the Westminster Confession Scripture is applied to faith and worship differently from the way it is applied to life. In the Savoy Declaration and the Baptist Confession Scripture is applied in the same way to both worship and life. The question is, does the Scripture itself compel us to make any distinctions in the way it is applied to worship on the one hand, and life on the other? To put the question differently, is there one hermeneutic for worship and another for life? Or does the same hermeneutic apply to both? The writers of the Westminster here assert the former. The writers of the Savoy Declaration and the Baptist Confession here assert the latter.
Finally, in 1:6, the Baptist Confession replaces the phrase ‘by good and necessary consequence may be deduced’ with ‘necessarily contained.’ The latter expression seems to allow less “wiggle room” than the former. Does this unwittingly tend to shut Baptists up to a more rigid, narrower understanding and application of the Regulative Principle?
Summary and Conclusion
The Regulative Principle of worship was formulated during and subsequent to the Protestant Reformation with unprecedented precision in an effort to exclude Roman Catholic idolatry and to protect the liberty of conscience against the enforcement of Anglican Church orders. It is important to recognize the historical setting in which the Regulative Principle of worship developed. Doing so will help dampen the pendulum swing in the opposite direction toward adding to the Word of God by prohibition.
While historically there has been a substantial consensus in the Reformed community that Scripture alone ought to determine what is normative for the worship of the church, by no means has there been agreement either about the principle by which this should be done or the particulars of its application. Definitions of the Regulative Principle have not been uniform. There has been a considerable amount of discussion about which items of corporate worship are subject to the Regulative Principle and which ones are not. The confessions do not agree about the scope of the principle’s application. These differences may stem in part from the fact that the format of the church’s worship was inherited from an institution for which no explicit directives are recorded in Scripture. Not surprisingly, Reformed worship has not been uniform.
After a century or more of decline and neglect, Reformed theology began to be rediscovered in the 1930s and 1940s. Along with it came a renewed interest in Reformed worship. As the printing press imparted momentum to the Reformation, so the advent and increasing use of personal computers and the internet has occasioned a corresponding increase in discussion and debate about the Regulative Principle of worship. Though at many points the controversy has been unpleasant and disagreements sharp, it may yet prove to be a kind of “Third Reformation,” the crucible hopefully from which a more purified worship will emerge.
Jim Domm
Pastor of Englewood Baptist Church
M.Div. Student of Reformed Baptist Seminary
