On The "Regulative Principle"

I have not been an advocate for what is called "the regulative principle of worship." So, just what is that? Let me begin by citing from a question and answer post at Got Questions org., from "Regulative vs. normative principle of worship—which viewpoint is correct?" (here)

That answer says (highlighting mine):

"The regulative principle of worship maintains that Scripture gives specific guidelines for conducting corporate worship services and that churches must not add anything to those guidelines. For example, churches following the regulative principle in worship often do not use musical instruments, since there is no New Testament command or example that would warrant their use in the church. The normative principle is the idea that anything not expressly forbidden by Scripture can be used in corporate worship. One of the foundational differences is that the former considers the Bible’s instructions as a strict code of conduct while the latter sees them as principles to follow. Both hold to the truth of God’s Word, but they differ on whether or not it clearly establishes an unalterable blueprint for corporate worship."

It is not doubted that the old covenant (testament) had a strict ritual of religious service (and gatherings). All worship activities were finely fixed (or set in stone). But, that does not appear to be the case in the new testament. Though there are certain customs and practices that characterized the church of the apostles, these are not always the result of apostolic command or instruction. The early Christians gathered together and their gatherings were called "churches" or "eklesias" (Greek). They began more as informal gatherings before they became more formal and patterned. They did have a strict code of conduct but that is not to say that they were too rigid in their manners of worship.

The authors of the answer say:

"The regulative principle is most often associated with Reformed churches, while the normative principle is widely promoted by modern evangelicalism." 

I think that is true. 

Again they say:

"One weakness of the regulative principle is that it can easily become legalistic in its strict rejection of anything not found in the Bible. It can also place worship in a category saved only for corporate settings, rather than encourage it as a daily practice. It also does not account for many aspects of a worship service not dealt with in the Bible, such as length of services, instrument use, how much technology should be employed, and dozens of other cultural questions not applicable in Bible times."

This being true, the regulative principle is closely tied to Landmarkism, to "patternism," to tradition. These are solid objections to the regulative principle, or at least against being too strict in regard to that principle. 

Again they say:

"The normative principle of corporate worship also uses the Bible as the final authority but teaches that anything not expressly forbidden may be incorporated in services. Drama, special music, movie clips, and PowerPoint presentations may all be used in normative worship services since they are not forbidden in Scripture." 

Most of those who claim to be guided by the regulative principle do many things for which they can find no express biblical warrant or example. Thus, they may profess to be regulative but they act often according to the normative principle. Paul's command for all to be done decently and in order should govern all things. All things should be done for the purpose of edifying the body is another principle. Trying to regulate every detail of the gatherings and public worship of believers is going too far I think.

Again they say:

"Here are some strengths of the normative principle: It encourages creative expressions of worship through the arts and technology. It creates a more relaxed and relevant environment for new believers and those not familiar with the “churchy” atmosphere. It allows for differences in taste and style, while still maintaining allegiance to biblical principles. It brings Scripture into current culture, minimizing the tendency of postmoderns to view the Bible as outdated and irrelevant. Some weaknesses to the normative approach are that it opens the door to worldliness in its efforts to incorporate culture. It can also tend toward entertainment-based gatherings rather than pure worship of God. It may also slide toward a man-centered focus as it incorporates whatever is popular with the congregation."

I think those weaknesses are to be guarded against.

Again they say:

"So which viewpoint is correct? Every Bible-believing church body must be regulated by the authority of Scripture. If it does not, it has ceased to be a New Testament church. But within those churches that hold fast to God’s Word, there is a vast array of acceptable expressions of worship." 

I think that is true. Each church should preach, pray, and sing. Each should have all kinds of gatherings, such as general Sunday church, Sunday Schools, bible classes, choir meetings, special singings, etc. Meetings in the "fellowship hall" after regular services should also be viewed as part of worship activity even though it is used for general fellowship (koinonia). Just gathering together to share thoughts is an act that God takes special notice of. Wrote the prophet Malachi:

"Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name." (3: 16)

Paul told the church at Corinth that each member came to church with a psalm, a hymn, a word of exhortation, etc., and that each would have opportunity to speak. (I Cor. 14: 26, 31) Church worship and practice is not restricted to what is done in the formal Sunday morning service.

Again they say:

"Many congregations embrace a combination of both views. The extreme of either is displeasing to God. Extreme regulators can become pharisaical, creating rules out of principles and judging anyone who veers from those rules (Matthew 7:1). But extreme normatives can be guilty of walking on the edge of worldliness and justifying questionable activities by claiming they are being “all things to all people” (1 Corinthians 9:22)."

I think that is what is best, to practice a combination of both views.

Again they say:

"Paul addressed this issue in 1 Corinthians 10:23–24. “‘I have the right to do anything,’ you say—but not everything is beneficial. ‘I have the right to do anything’—but not everything is constructive. No one should seek their own good, but the good of others” (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:12)." 

Agree. Abide by the general directives. Yes, there are specifics, such as singing, preaching, and praying. But the forms of these things are not delineated in the bible under the new covenant. 

Again they say:

"The Bible does give us guidelines for the assembly of the church, and no congregation has the authority to completely disregard them. Several elements are vital for a healthy congregation: reading the Bible (1 Timothy 4:13), preaching the Bible (2 Timothy 4:2), singing hymns and spiritual songs (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16), prayer (Matthew 21:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:17), and celebrating the Lord with two ordinances, baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Matthew 28:19; 1 Corinthians 11:23–26)."

I agree. Well said.

Still, I have my personal preferences. Choosing a church to attend and support by membership must first of all depend on my agreement with its beliefs. But, after that, style of worship is important. I enjoy a lively church with spirited singing and passionate preaching and solid bible teaching. I enjoy a church where people feel free to testify and exhort.