In his excellent book on worship, John Frame points out that Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, and Lutherans contend that we may do anything in worship except what Scripture explicitly forbids (the normative principle). Those of the Reformed faith who subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith operate on the basis of what is called the regulative principle. Thus, Presbyterian and Reformed churches, together with many Southern Baptists, argue that whatever Scripture does not command is forbidden. “Scripture must positively require a practice, if that practice is to be suitable for the worship of God.”^[1] The Westminster Confession defines the regulative principle as follows:

“The acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture” (Westminster Confession of Faith, 21.1).

According to the regulative principle, the essential elements of worship are regulated by what is explicitly taught in Scripture, while the “circumstances” of worship are left to “the light of nature, and Christian prudence” (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.6). The latter include the time and place of worship, as well as the content of prayer and songs. But as Frame rightly points out, “Scripture is silent about many things that we do in worship.”^[2] Frame struggles with the way in which the regulative principle is applied, and so do I. The most serious problem he finds in it “is that there is no scriptural warrant for it! Scripture nowhere divides worship up into a series of independent ‘elements,’ each requiring independent scriptural justification. Scripture nowhere tells us that the regulative principle demands that particular level of specificity, rather than some other.”^[3]

For example, how does one differentiate between what is “essential” and what is “circumstantial”? There is no biblical text to which one might appeal to make this distinction. There is no text that tells us which so-called “circumstances” of worship are allowed and which are not. And in the absence of any explicit biblical instruction, how would we know? Who is to say whether musical instruments, which are nowhere mentioned in the NT, are included as “circumstances” that may or may not be employed depending on “the light of nature and Christian prudence”? Who is to say, and on what basis, whether a dramatic enactment designed to illustrate biblical truths is permissible or not? Did not Jesus tell stories (parables) to provide concrete insight into deep theological principles? If so, why can we not do so today in a form that is suitable to the 21^st century? Although I am personally in favor of verse-by-verse expository preaching, where in the Bible are we told that it is the only acceptable form of communicating the Word on a Sunday morning? Is it permissible to make use of a single text, or a sentence, or a paragraph, or perhaps even preaching an entire book of the Bible in one setting? On what biblical basis is this decision relegated to “circumstance” and “Christian prudence”? As best I can tell, notwithstanding my personal preferences, no particular method of preaching is mandated in the NT.

There are several individuals in my church who give expression to their joyful adoration of God by waving banners during worship. Is this outside the bounds of what the Bible explicitly prescribes or does it fall within the domain of circumstances? And who is to make that judgment, especially given the fact, once again, that we have no explicit biblical text that endorses either view?

In the absence of any explicit affirmation of the regulative principle, why do so many in the Reformed world insist upon it? Although they may well disagree with my answer, I think it has much to do with their disdain for the more emotionally expressive and physically demonstrative ways in which charismatics and Pentecostals worship. It may also be that the regulative principle appeals to many evangelicals because it gives the appearance of holding to and defending a high view of the functional authority of Scripture. I’m certain that another reason is that the regulative principle enables them to exclude those elements that undermine or detract from the centrality of Christ. And on that point, I’m in agreement with them. But I don’t need the regulative principle to tell me what is and is not permissible in such cases. I only need the Bible and the basic rules of interpretation. That is how I know that the Catholic practice of withholding the cup from the laity during the celebration of the eucharist is wrong. It is how I know that baptizing infants is outside the parameters of what is acceptable worship. It is how I know that restricting the term “priest” to an ordained member of the clergy is wrong. Could it be that the regulative principle was developed at the time or immediately after the Reformation primarily to justify the elimination from worship of the many trappings and rituals of the Roman Catholic Church, many (most?) of which undermined the truth of God’s sovereign grace and the priesthood of the believer.

I’ve often wondered why so many in the Reformed camp (and I, too, am a Calvinist!) believe it is important for the pastor to preach while wearing ornate robes or vestments. Where is that in the NT? It is yet one more example of the countless things we do in worship that are nowhere explicitly mandated or forbidden in the Bible. I have no problem with robes. I’ve worn them while preaching in churches that requested I wear them. My problem is the arbitrary way in which a decision is made about what is and is not essential, what is and is not circumstantial.

One advocate of the regulative principle suggests that “many do not believe Scripture sets forth such parameters for worship as is argued by the regulative principle.”^[4] But when he then turns to cite Scripture to support his assertion, he lists Isa. 29:13, Matt. 15:8-9, Mark 7:6-7, and Col. 2:23. The first three of these texts all say the same thing, that to worship with a disengaged heart is unacceptable. But what are the “commandments of men” in these texts? Does gathering for worship in an ornate church structure, rather than in someone’s home, constitute a “commandment of men”? If not, why not? Who decides? And on what basis? He then argues that Scripture is sufficient for our worship and must not be amended, citing Deut.4:2; 12:29-32; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; Rev. 22:18-19. These texts tell us that we must not add to or detract from the inspired canon. But no one who follows the normative principle advocates eliminating certain texts or adding to the 66 books of the Bible.

Do those Southern Baptist churches that install the Senior Pastor as the lone Elder, as over against the plurality of Elders so clearly taught in Scripture, violate the regulative principle? I’m not aware of any biblical text that prescribes Sunday School classes on the basis of age or argues for a designated Youth Ministry. Why would these be “circumstances” but not “essential” elements in the life of the local church? I don’t typically make use of the sign of the cross, but on what biblical grounds would it be forbidden? None. Opposition to it is because of its use in the Roman Catholic Church. But must we necessarily never do what Catholics do? If so, why?

Jesus declared that he is “the light of the world” (John 8:12). John echoes this truth in declaring that “in him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it” (John 1:4-5). Jesus, says John, is “the true light” that gives light to all (John 1:9). So, on what basis do advocates of the regulative principle insist that it is inappropriate to employ candles to illustrate this truth, especially during advent season as we prepare our hearts for the celebration of the incarnation and birth of the Messiah. Nowhere are we explicitly commanded to make use of candles in this way, but neither are we forbidden from doing so. The question, it seems, is whether we find them helpful in facilitating our grasp of the truth of the coming of Christ and driving home to our hearts the work of spiritual enlightenment he accomplished.

One author cites the words of Baptist John Dagg who said, “When the finger of God points out the way, no place is left to us for human preferences.” I agree. When God’s finger specifically calls for a particular form or expression of worship or Christian living, there is no place left for our human preferences, especially if they run contrary to God’s stated will. But what should we do when God’s “finger” is silent? Such advocates of the regulative principle insist that unless a practice or ritual or activity or expression of adoration of God is not found in the canonical Scriptures, it is not to be permitted. But I believe that no one can consistently live with this principle, given the multitude of practices, rituals, and activities most churches embrace that are nowhere found in the Bible.

Again, the regulative principle insists that to incorporate any activity in our worship requires biblical warrant. According to Duncan, “That warrant may come in the form of explicit directives, implicit requirements, general principles of Scripture, positive commands, examples, or things derived from good and necessary consequences.”^[5] Dare I say that virtually anything could be justified on the preceding grounds, excluding only what is explicitly contrary to scripture?

Surely, if the Bible is sufficient, and I believe it is, we would expect it to provide explicit indications of how to differentiate between the so-called “essentials” of worship and those elements that are but “circumstantial” if such a differentiation were important for our determining what is and is not acceptable worship. But the all-sufficient Bible does no such thing. On what basis, then, aside from one’s own personal preferences or denominational traditions, does an advocate of the regulative principle insist on that distinction? As a strong believer in the sufficiency of Scripture, the absence from the latter of this differentiation prompts me to avoid making any attempt to draw dogmatic conclusions that the Scriptures decline to make. Simply put, if the Bible doesn’t explicitly draw a distinction between what is essential and what is circumstantial, what right do I have to do so?

Consider Chapter XXII of The Second London Confession of Faith, “Of Religious Worship, and the Sabbath Day,” Article I, which states:

The Light of Nature shews that there is a God who hath Lordship, and Sovereignty over all; is just, good, and doth good unto all; and is therefore, to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served with all the Heart, and all the Soul, and with all the Might. But the acceptable way of Worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself; and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations, and devices of Men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way, not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.

So, if all worship is “limited” by God’s “own revealed will,” on what grounds does anyone justify the countless expressions of worship and ministry in the contemporary church, none of which are explicitly revealed and mandated in Scripture? My point is simply that the regulative principle, so stated, is impossible to observe. Everyone violates it, and then does their best to justify such practices on the basis of this arbitrary distinction between essentials and circumstances.

Let me cite other examples. Why do we identify one particular Sunday each year as Easter and celebrate it as unique? Of course, some advocates of the regulative principle would argue that we shouldn’t. On a related note, why do we observe the events of Holy Week leading up to Good Friday and Easter Sunday? These are nowhere prescribed in Scripture. The same could be said of Pentecost Sunday and Christmas. Is it a violation of the regulative principle to focus on such special days, insofar as nowhere in Scripture do we read of the NT church doing so? It strikes me as singularly arbitrary either to forbid such celebrations, on the one hand, or to identify them as mere “circumstances” or “applications” on the other. Personally, I believe Christians and local churches are free to worship God in accordance with the Christian calendar, or not. Nothing in Scripture regulates either choice.

When my wife and I were for a short season part of an Anglican congregation, we observed Ash Wednesday and, like virtually all others in our church, received the sign of the cross on our foreheads. Nothing in Scripture either commands or prohibits such a practice. Although we no longer engage in this ritual on Ash Wednesday, I believe we are entirely free to do so. If we did, would this be participating in something not prescribed in the Scriptures and thus outside God’s “revealed will”? But simply not being a part of God’s “revealed will” does not necessarily mean it is contrary to God’s will. I have a friend who, during Lent, refrains from writing anything on his otherwise excellent blogsite. Is such a practice forbidden by the regulative principle, or is it permissible? And who makes that call, and, again, on what basis?

Is the manner in which the elements of the Table are served mandated in Scripture, or is this left to Christian prudence and personal preference? Nowhere in the NT are we told who may serve the elements. May women? May laymen? If only ordained clergy are permitted to oversee the Lord’s Table and water baptism, on what scriptural basis is such a decision made?

And where in Scripture is “ordination” explicitly commanded? And where does Scripture regulate how often the table of the Lord is to be celebrated? Narrative sections in the book of Acts portray the early church as engaging in communion on a weekly basis, most likely in conjunction with a corporate meal. Is every church, then, obligated to follow suit, or is there freedom in determining how these features of worship are to be implemented? Must one use only unleavened bread or, for the sake of those who suffer with Celiac disease, is gluten free bread also permitted? And must we always employ wine when we serve the cup, or is grape juice permissible, especially given the struggles that recovering alcoholics face? What about the common cup? Most have abandoned it out of health concerns during the Covid pandemic. But should we? May we?

One author seeks to prove that God cares greatly about how we worship by appealing to the provisions for tabernacle worship in Exodus 25-31 and 35-40, as well as in Leviticus. But those chapters only tell us what God required of those who lived under the dictates and terms of the Mosaic Covenant. They say nothing about what God requires of those who now live under the provisions of the New Covenant. And it is quite clear that neither this author nor any other advocate of the regulative principles lives in accordance with those OT texts. How, then, can they be cited as proof of the legitimacy of the regulative principle?

I don’t need the regulative principle to tell me what is permissible in the worship of the local church. As noted above, a close reading of the NT clearly indicates that teaching or preaching of the Word is standard practice, as is singing to the Lord and teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. The public reading of Scripture and prayer are two additional features of worship that all churches should regularly observe. Likewise, celebration of the ordinances of the Lord’s Table and water baptism, as well as the enforcement of church discipline, are fundamental to the life of the local church and its worship of the Lord.

Beyond this, it seems arbitrary and baseless to insist that other expressions cannot be approved unless there is some explicit biblical precedent or command. If we were to consistently apply such a principle, we would have to do away with church buildings, budgets, cafes that serve coffee, church bookstores, Sunday School, ministry restricted to and divided according to the age of youth, announcements, the distribution of a weekly bulletin, livestreaming of our services, the sharing of personal testimonies from the platform, making the church facilities available to a local blood drive, setting aside one week each summer for Vacation Bible School or some equivalent ministry, and countless other things we do in the pursuit of ministry.

To casually dismiss these many expressions of church life as merely “circumstances” or “applications” feels unjustified and, again, entirely arbitrary, largely grounded in personal preference and cultural norms. Who decides, and on what biblical basis that such things are either permissible or prohibited? If one should insist that these many expressions of Christian life and ministry are “derived from good and necessary consequences,” on what basis, biblical or otherwise, is such a judgment made? What strikes some as “good and necessary” will likely be found “bad and optional” by others.

Let me appeal to one more example of the inconsistency of trying to orchestrate church life and worship on the basis of the regulative principle. Some Southern Baptist churches who say they abide by the regulative principle do not admit to the Lord’s Supper a Christian who has not yet been baptized after coming to personal faith in Christ. In other words, those only “baptized” as infants are prohibited from receiving the bread and the cup. Again, the regulative principle states that we are not free to do anything that is not explicitly revealed in the Scriptures. So, where in Scripture does it ever say that a person must be baptized in water as a believer before they can partake of the Lord’s Table? The answer is, nowhere.

The same concept applies when it comes to whether water baptism is necessary for a person to be admitted into formal membership in a local church. Many who embrace the regulative principle insist the answer is yes. But again, where in Scripture is it explicitly stated that if you haven’t been baptized in water you can’t be a functioning member of a local church? The answer again is, nowhere. But if nothing is to be done in worship for which we don’t have explicit precedent in the Scriptures, something to which the Lord’s “finger” clearly points, on what basis can an advocate of the regulative principle deny church membership to an unbaptized believer? None, so far as I can tell. Should all believers be baptized? Absolutely yes.

Contrary to what some proponents of the regulative principle might say, my opposition to it is not because I don’t believe the Bible addresses how church life is to be pursued and practiced. I believe the principles of church government, for example, are clearly taught in the NT and that we are not free to deviate from those established rules. Other advocates of the regulative principle contend that God has clearly given us instruction on the nature and parameters of corporate worship. And yet perhaps the only (or at least, the clearest) example of corporate worship in the early church is Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 14. But, and here is the supreme irony of it all, most who insist on the regulative principle intentionally exclude the very elements of worship described in that chapter, be it prophetic ministry or the exercise of tongues with interpretation. It is an even greater irony (or dare I say overt inconsistency) that one of the clearest commandments of the apostle regarding public worship, “do not forbid the speaking in tongues” (1 Cor. 14:30), is regularly disobeyed. Virtually all non-charismatic churches believe that they should “forbid the speaking in tongues,” in direct contradiction to what Paul requires.

The bottom line is that the decisions by which the regulative principle is enforced are not rooted in explicit biblical instruction. This so-called “principle” is, therefore, largely useless as a way to provide direction for what is and is not permitted in worship. Certainly the Bible continues to supply us with the theological and ethical standards by which we decide on the propriety of anything that either is included or excluded in Christian worship. But given the paucity of explicit instruction on what must be practiced (aside from those elements I cited above), it is better to allow each church to determine, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, how best to worship God.

Yet another advocate of the regulative principle argues that “at least with the regulative principle we can come to worship knowing that nothing will be asked of us except that which can be shown to be true according to the Word of God.”^[6] What does that mean? Does “shown to be true” mean there has to be an explicit biblical precedent for a practice to be permitted today? Or does it mean that all practices/styles, etc. simply have to be theologically consistent with and not contrary to what is stated in Scripture? My point, yet again, is that the regulative principle is simply unworkable.

As I said before, this does not mean that “anything goes,” as the only things that “go” are those that one can reasonably demonstrate reflect the truths revealed in God’s word or do not overtly conflict with those truths. Thus, the Bible continues to exert a functional authority over how we worship, but also permits freedom regarding those features that are nowhere explicitly endorsed or denounced in its pages.

[Adapted from my book, Understanding Worship (Zondervan).}

[1] John M. Frame, Worship in Spirit and Truth (Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 1996), 38.

[2] Ibid., 40.

[3] Ibid., 53.

[4] Ligon Duncan, “Let God Teach You How to Worship Him: An Introduction to the Regulative Principle of Worship,” June 13, 2022, www.thegospelcoalition.org. See also, Kevin DeYoung, “The Freedom of the Regulative Principle,” www.thegospelcoalition.org, February 14, 2012. For a more rigorous defense of the regulative principle, see D. G. Hart and John R. Muether, With Reverence and Awe: Returning to the Basics of Reformed Worship (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2002), and Ryan Speck, Trembling Joy: A Biblical Defense of Traditional Worship (Lancaster: Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, 2022).

[5] Ibid.

[6] DeYoung, “The Freedom of the Regulative Principle.”