"What Should I Look for in a Church and When Should I Leave One?"

"What Should I Look for in a Church and When Should I Leave One?"
By Scott Wakefield, Lead Pastor

*Note: This is a GQA in process. As of Nov 2025, the first 3 introductory sections and 3 “Essential Marks” have been completed.

Not every theological issue carries the same weight, so we must discern whether each factor in choosing a church is essential, a strong conviction, or a mere opinion.[1] 

As covered in the Intro to GQA, under “Not All Questions Carry Equal Weight: The ‘Essentials–Convictions–Opinions Chart’”, how much importance to give to one’s answer to the title question is complex because it necessarily involves a whole host of doctrinal matters beyond a narrow definition of ecclesiology (i.e., theology of church). So, simply by virtue of this one point–that the church we choose has massively important ramifications for almost everything about one’s understanding of salvation in Christ, the basics of Christian belief, and how to live the Christian life–I’d say it’s definitely an “essential.”

Now, what I do not mean to say is that different models for church governance, per se, (single-elder-led congregational, plural-elder-led congregational, democratic congregational, presbyterian, episcopal, denominational, nondenominational, one-service, one-site-multiple-services, multiple-sites-and-services, etc.) are “essentials,” as if one cannot become or grow as a Christian in some other form of church structure, governance, or polity.[2] In other words, because God’s grace is the actual operative means of salvation and the Holy Spirit is the worker of heart change, one can become a Christian and learn many wonderful truths about Christ and His work under teaching or church structure that are in some measure errant, as literally every Christian does in our fallen world. However–and this is a significant caveat–this shouldn’t encourage us to eschew the search for a biblical church model and faithful Bible-centered teaching! That the Holy Spirit can change hearts despite errant human teaching isn’t a good argument for being unwise! So, since so much rides on what local church one chooses, I’m sticking with today’s GQA holding “essential” importance until shown differently.

There is an important distinction to notice embedded in this GQA’s title question that narrows its scope—“What Should I Look for in a Church?” We are not talking here about the “universal” church, which is the group of all true Christians throughout all time who are known only to God, but “a” particular church—a “local” church—which is a group of believers who are also known to each other and who build and share Christian community. In the New Testament, of the 115 occurrences of the word “church,” (Greek ekklesia, an “assembly” of those "called out" from the world), at least 93, and perhaps at least a few more, explicitly refer to the gathering of believers rather than to an ungathered or unknown-to-us universal church-at-large or even to individual believers.[3] The Scriptures do not have a category for “member-at-large of the universal church” who is not also a member of a local church. Here’s a good summary of the distinction and relationship between the universal and local church:


This is worth more than passing mention because the unprecedented levels of modern luxury, technology, and personal control snooker many into the illusion that being a member-at-large in the universal church is a viable option without also being part of a local church, as if being known to God but not other Christians qualifies as being part of the body of Christ. Sorry, but that’s not Bible in any meaningful sense that can be called faithful to its intent. At that point, you might as well just rip out half of the New Testament and start your own cult.[5] Just don’t call it biblical Christianity. Rather, it is a selfish and consumeristic standpoint epistemology that tailors personal spiritual experience according to your comfort more than God's design for your holiness and His glory. The church, like anything that is actually helpful for one’s growth, isn’t there to serve and cater to you. It’s there to train and equip you for fruitful mission. And you can’t do that anonymously, from afar, without meaningful participation, and with little investment.

So if you consider yourself a member of the universal church but not a particular church with the “Essential Marks” which follow, the Bible has some questions to ask you: To what persons are you meaningfully accountable for your Christian growth, doctrinal fidelity, service that fits your gifts, generosity, and learning to submit your heart and mind more faithfully to God by being regularly engaged in worship? Who are your Elders? Who are those responsible to discipline you? Who are those responsible to feed you from God’s Word? Where are you learning to be more fruitfully part of God’s Kingdom mission by hearing the regular feedback of other believers? Who are those in the body into whom you are pouring your life for the sake of their growth? And can you do all those things and more (i.e., the “Essential Marks” below) by yourself, without a formal, public, and clear commitment to an actual group of believers who likewise understand their commitment to you and submission to Elders who lead by the Word of God? In case it’s not clear, the answer is: No. It is… Literally. Mathematically. Impossible.

So, to be clear, we are referring—not to a mish-mash of this celebrity preacher you watch, that church’s music you enjoy, this Bible Study you like, and that youth group in which your kids feel most accepted—but to “a” (i.e., “one”) particular local church where the many parts of the body of Christ are working and visible, including yours.

(Click here to go to “H3: Connect in a small group.” and read more about how we define “meaningful participation” at FCC. Also, see this previous GQA re “Is Church Membership Biblical?”)

So, what is a local church and what are its defining characteristics? Here’s a one-pregnant-sentence answer from the Bible: From eternity past, God the Father’s wise plans (Ephesians 1:3-14; 2:10; Acts 1:7: Romans 16:25-27; 2 Timothy 1:9) were to glorify His Son (John 17:1, 5, 22, 24; 1 Corinthians 1:19-25) in history by constituting a people for Himself (Ephesians 2:10; Deuteronomy 7:6-8; 32:5), calling them out[6] (1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1) of the world and their sin by the gospel of grace (Matthew 16:18; Ephesians 2:4-9) and the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5, 8), that they would witness to His Kingdom, power, and glory as the sanctified body of Christ (Acts 1:8; 14:21-22; Romans 1:16-17; 12:1-5; 1 Corinthians 6:19-20; Ephesians 1:3-20, 33; 2:10; 13-16; 19-22; 4:1-5:21; Hebrew 9:14-15).

Because the church is God’s idea—initiated by Him as revealed in His Word—from generation to generation it has sought to align its practice accordingly such that its rediscovery of purpose is not found in discovering something previously hidden but in learning to embody a faithful witness to God’s glory. This nuance isn’t semantics—it is the difference between human innovation that builds on sand and submitting ourselves to God’s wisdom for building on His Word!

As early as the first chapter of Acts, after Jesus told His disciples to stay in Jerusalem to wait for the Father to send the promised Holy Spirit, this concern was why they asked Him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel” (Acts 1:6)? Sure, it turned out to be the wrong question. Indeed, they could hardly have been more wrong in their hope that Jesus the long-awaited Messiah would return Israel to its former religious glory and sociopolitical power. But perhaps most glaring was their unawareness that new life in Christ meant they themselves would carry on the work, as those who were learning to embody a faithful witness to God’s glory. Notice Jesus’ response in Acts 1:7-8 to their question from verse 6: 7 “It is not for you to know the times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority,” i.e., ‘Don’t worry about when and what will come at the end times when the Father brings a new heavens and earth,’ 8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” Jesus is telling them that following Him meant getting to work. Then, immediately, as if to highlight the point, Jesus ascended to be with the Father: ‘It’s your turn, y’all. Carry on the work.’ Ever since, gathered Christians have continually endeavored to clearly understand and faithfully articulate who they are and what they are to do in light of God’s character and work in Christ as revealed in the Scriptures. (For more teaching on Acts 1:6-11, see the first half of this sermon, “What is a Multisite Church and Why Are We One?”)

Even in our own more immediate history as Protestants, because the Reformation of the early 1500s was at center a reformation of the authority of the Scriptures (“sola scriptura,” the “formal principle,”[7] over against the unbiblical papal authority of the Roman Catholic Church,) there was a great deal of discussion among the Reformers about what constitutes a “true church.” John Calvin said, and Martin Luther agreed: “Wherever we see the Word of God purely preached and heard, and the sacraments administered according to Christ’s institution, there, it is not to be doubted, a church of God exists.”[8] Though their application of sola scriptura resulted in other characteristics of the church like the priesthood of all believers, leadership of pastors, elders, and deacons, and church discipline, the Reformers held that correct teaching of God’s Word and proper administration of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, as gospel-centered signs of entrance into Christ, were such centrally defining characteristics of a true church that they believed it worth dividing if not present.

So what are the “essentials” that must be present?

What to Look For: Does the church clearly teach that sinners are justified by faith in Christ’s atoning death and resurrection apart from our works (Romans 3:24-28)? Is the tone of preaching and ministry shaped by mercy and patience (1 Timothy 1:15-16)? Are members encouraged to confess sin and forgive one another (James 5:16; Ephesians 4:32), knowing that “we love because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19)? A grace-empowered church will exalt the cross as the only hope for holy living, not just as an entry point but as the continual source of life (Galatians 2:20).

When to Leave: If a church you’re looking at doesn’t clearly teach and strive to embody a costly Christ-purchased and grace-empowered gospel—where righteousness needn't be manipulated from or maintained by sinners—it is definitionally not a church. It’s a human-empowered morality club that looks and sounds like people are finding freedom from sin, but in reality, they are further enslaving one another. In other words, if the gospel of grace is muddled or replaced with a program of self-improvement, run—you should not place your soul in the care of a community that enslaves rather than frees (Galatians 5:1). Paul told the Galatians that those who preach a false gospel are “anathema” (“accursed,” Galatians 1:9). Of course, mix discernment with grace—no church is perfect, and neither are its leaders. But if the official doctrine or dominant culture of a church contradicts the fundamental truth that Christ alone saves and sanctifies by grace, then that church has forfeited its right to your membership. Instead, look for a church soaked in grace, where the good news of Christ crucified and risen is front-and-center (1 Corinthians 2:2). If that ever ceases to be the case where you are, it may be time to say goodbye for the sake of the gospel.

You may hear from some Christian traditions that the church created the Bible. Roman Catholics, for example, hold to this conviction as warrant for their claim to be the one true apostolic church that is authoritative over against the Scriptures and orthodox interpretation thereof.[9] 

But that is a myopic misunderstanding of the essential character of the Bible as divinely preserved and inspired revelation (2 Peter 1:19-21; 2 Timothy 3:14-16). The truth is exactly the opposite—the Word of God is the power that created and sustains the church. In fact, we see the power of God’s Word from the very beginning in that He:

Though the following claim runs counter to the modern idol of unrestrained freedom and self-control, for the sake of communicating what most Western Christians conveniently ignore about the awesome and terrifying glory of God’s holiness, purity, and power that burns away sin,[17] I hope this lands, where needed, as a personal affront: We do not get to determine how we worship God.

The reason is simple. If God is as the Scriptures claim—a perfect, infinite, and entirely holy God whose very existence and essential being define, create, and sustain what is good, true, and beautiful—then we sinners don’t get to determine the manner in which He is to be approached, glorified, and praised.[18] Ligon Duncan says it this way: “There is a god we want and a God who is, and the two are not the same.”[19] It doesn’t matter how relatively good, true, right, and healthy you or anyone else might judge your motivations, thoughts, emotions, or experiences, human finitude means you and I do not get to tell God how He is to be rightly worshiped. It also doesn’t matter what tradition we like, grew up in, or believe is right. Said succinctly: God is perfect Creator, we are sinful creatures, and fitting worship is not as we desire but as He commands and empowers.

In Engaging with God: A Biblical Theology of Worship, David Peterson writes, “[T]he worship of the living and true God is essentially an engagement with him on the terms that
he proposes and in the way that he alone makes possible.”[20] To propose otherwise is a category mistake that ignores the difference between God’s holiness and our contingent creatureliness.

This particular “Essential Mark” may be a difficult pill for some to swallow, not because “Christ-Centered Worship,” generally understood, is at all objectionable, but because the implications of the biblical argument I am making to get there—via the “regulative principle of worship,” and therefore, church practice—will likely be new and challenging. This is because most of us likely learned what we consider correct about worship practices the same way the overwhelming majority of American evangelicals have learned most of their doctrinal beliefs since at least the mid-1900s, namely based on a rather unintentional and accidental process rooted in a subjective standard of church experiences, personal preferences, and pragmatism that eschewed thorough biblical and theological guidelines. Frankly—and here comes the offense—most of us hold to our current convictions about worship practices based on a process more akin to uncritical osmosis than sustained thought about what is directed by the Scriptures.[21] 

In basic terms, the default position for most Protestant traditions’ practice of worship has developed into what is known as the “normative principle,” which allows anything not forbidden in Scripture—often stated as ‘silence equals permission.’[22] This approach is characteristic of many Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Pentecostals, Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ,[23] Bible Churches, and many broadly evangelical churches,[24] where freedom is assumed unless Scripture explicitly prohibits a practice.[25] On the other side of this continuum, the more restrictive “regulative principle” allows only what is commanded in Scripture.[26] This principle has historically been championed by the Reformed tradition, including Presbyterians, Puritans, and most acappella Churches of Christ and Plymouth Brethren churches.[27] While there is a wide variety of practices between these two conceptions, it is important to bear in mind that this is an intramural discussion among Christians, not a dividing line between orthodoxy and heresy.[28] That being said, I will be arguing that the Scriptures consistently hold to the general concept of the Regulative Principle of Worship. While practical implications clearly follow—and we will get to this eventually—we must establish its biblical precedent.

Regulative Principle Established
From the very beginning, the Bible makes clear—formally and by implication—that worship is most properly Christ-centered[29] when enabled by God’s commands and not by human innovation. In Genesis 1, pre-Fall, when God looks at what He has made and calls it “good,” it is because creation is flourishing as He intended, to produce His goodness and glory. This is rightly called worship![30] 

Then, immediately after the Fall, in Genesis 3:15,[31] when God promises that the woman’s offspring would crush the serpent’s head, He sets the trajectory of redemption as restoration of worship. Where Adam and Eve had failed to honor God’s word,[32] God promises to send a Redeemer who will enable His people to rightly worship again. In other words, God doesn’t abandon His design for creation’s praise but He ensures and empowers it, establishing worship’s future through the promise of Messiah’s victory over the evil one (cf. Romans 16:20; Hebrews 2:14; 1 John 3:8). Yet the Fall reveals why such restoration was needed at all—humanity’s first sin and deepest problem is false worship: approaching God on our own terms rather than His. This is the heart of the Regulative Principle of Worship: we approach Holy God only as He prescribes—through Christ, in the power of the Spirit, and according to His Word. The story that follows, from Eden to Sinai to the kings of Israel to Christ and His church, traces this one unfolding theme: God’s people worship rightly when they worship as He commands.

In Genesis 4, Cain and Abel’s offerings are the first explicit example of formal and intentional worship in Scripture. Abel brought “the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions” (v 4), a gift reflecting faith and dependence on God’s provision (Hebrews 11:4). Cain’s offering of “some of the fruits of the soil” (v 3), by contrast, was received as token and perfunctory, lacking the faith and heart motivation of regeneration (1 John 3:12). God’s rejection of Cain’s sacrifice reveals that not all worship is acceptable; what matters is worship that accords with God’s revealed will and springs from faith. This distinction becomes foundational for later worship: true worship is not defined by sincerity or human invention but by faith in God’s promise and conformity to His command. Reisinger and Allen say it clearly: “God not only prescribes whom we should worship (himself) but also how we should worship.”[33] Duncan says it thus: “The only way to be sure that we have the whom of worship right is to worship according to God’s written self-revelation.”[34] 

In Exodus 8, after Pharaoh gave the Israelites permission to “sacrifice to your God within the land” (v 25), the specific reason Moses gave for being unable was that the manner of worship must be according to God’s command: “It would not be right to do so (v 26) ... We must go three days’ journey into the wilderness and sacrifice to the LORD our God as he tells us” (v 27).

In Exodus 20, the first two of the “10 Words”[35] echo this idea that God initiates right worship, prescribing whom should be worshiped and how. The first commandment forbids the worship of any other gods (v 3; cf. Deuteronomy 6:13-15; Matthew 4:10), and the second forbids making or bowing down to images (vv 4-5; cf. Deuteronomy 4:15-19; Romans 1:22-25), grounding both in God’s jealousy for His glory and His covenant love for His people. These commands make clear that true worship is not determined by human imagination or desire but by God’s revelation of Himself (cf. Leviticus 10:1-3; John 4:23-24). In short, the Ten Commandments begin by teaching that worship must be exclusive to the Lord and is thus regulated by His word.

In Exodus 25, God’s instructions for the sanctuary highlight three essential aspects of worship—its standard, motivation, and goal (and by implication, its exercise). First, worship was to be willing: only “every man whose heart moves him” (25:2) was to contribute to the sanctuary, a sharp contrast with the coerced giving in the golden-calf episode (32:2). Worship that does not spring from gratitude for God’s grace and respond from the heart to who He is and what He has done is hollow. Second, worship was to aim at communion with the living God. The tabernacle was built so that God might “dwell among” His people (25:8). This covenantal goal—“I will be your God and you will be my people”—is the very heart of worship. Anything less is an empty substitute. Third, worship was to be ordered precisely according to God’s command. The tabernacle and its furnishings were made “after the pattern… shown to you on the mountain” (25:40). God’s initiative, not human creativity (again, unlike the golden calf), was to govern the construction and the priestly service that would follow.{36} 

In Exodus 32-34, the golden calf incident powerfully illustrates that the means matter and worship can be false and covenant-breaking even when directed to the true God. Israel, impatient for Moses, demanded a visible mediator and fashioned an idol, claiming it represented the Lord who brought them out of Egypt. In doing so they violated the first and second commandments, replacing God’s command with their own initiative. Moses and later commentators highlight the deep irony: the people created in haste what God had promised to provide, substituted coercion for willing offerings, and traded the invisible God for a visible image. God’s verdict—“they have quickly turned aside from the way which I commanded them” (32:8)—shows that the sin was not merely idolatry but disobedience to His commands for worship. The result makes clear that the how of worship matters: unauthorized worship, even of Yahweh, is rebellion against His covenant and leads inevitably to corruption and judgment.[37] 

In Leviticus 10, when Nadab and Abihu offer “unauthorized fire” (Exodus 30:9) to the Lord, in a manner “which He had not commanded them” (10:1), God strikes them dead (10:2). Their presumption shows that worship not ordered by God’s word is deadly because it flouts the priority of His holiness to indulge human innovation. The Lord Himself declares through Moses an enduring principle for all worship: “Among those who come near Me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified” (10:3; for parallels to Leviticus 10, see Numbers 4; Exodus 32; 1 Chronicles 13-15).[38] 

In 1 Kings 12:25–33, Jeroboam deliberately violated God’s commands for right worship by building shrines on “high places,” reviving the very practices Deuteronomy 12:5–14 had forbidden once God chose Jerusalem as the sole place of sacrifice. Perverting worship for political power, he established rival worship centers at Bethel and Dan, made golden calves, appointed non-Levitical priests, and instituted his own feast “in the month that he had devised from his own heart” (v 33). Though claiming to worship Yahweh, Jeroboam rejected God’s Word as the rule for worship, substituting convenience and human invention for divine command by instituting unauthorized place, means, priests, and feasts. Biblically, his actions epitomize the violation of the Regulative Principle of Worship—worshiping the true God in a false way—and they became a template for how later generations’ worship violations were measured: “He did not depart from all the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which he made Israel to sin” (2 Kings 10:29; cf. 1 Kings 13:34; 15:30–34; 16:19, 31; 2 Kings 13:2, 11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:21–22).

In 2 Samuel 6, when David seeks to bring the ark to Jerusalem, it is set on “a new cart” (v 3)—a human innovation that ignored God’s command that the Levites carry it on poles (Numbers 4:15; 7:9). When Uzzah reaches out to steady the ark, God strikes him dead (vv 6-7). David understood the cause with sobering clarity: “Because you did not carry it the first time, the LORD our God broke out against us, because we did not seek him according to the rule” (1 Chronicles 15:13). Once the ark was carried properly, “when those who bore the ark of the LORD had gone six steps, he sacrificed an ox and a fattened animal” (2 Samuel 6:13), showing that simple obedience to God’s command restored the joy of God’s presence.[39] 

In Matthew 4:8-10, when Satan offers Jesus “all the kingdoms of the world and their glory” in exchange for worship, the temptation is not simply moral or political but regulative—an invitation to worship God in a way not commanded. Jesus’ response, “You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve” (v 10; cf. Deuteronomy 6:13), rejects this premise outright. By appealing to Scripture as the sole authority for determining how and whom to worship, Jesus exemplifies the Regulative Principle of Worship: that worship must be offered only as God commands, not as circumstances, preferences, or perceived outcomes suggest. The devil’s logic is a perverted form of the Normative Principle—worship rooted in human permission rather than divine prescription—but Jesus counters it with the revealed Word, proving that obedience, not innovation, is the mark of true worship.

In Matthew 15:1-14, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for setting aside God’s commands in favor of human tradition, exposing their ritual handwashing as an empty substitute for obedience. By enforcing rules like korban, they “invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition” (v 6), turning worship into “vain” lip service that honored God outwardly while their hearts were far from Him (vv 8-9). Jesus exposes their worship as empty because it substituted human invention for divine command, making clear that true worship must conform both in heart and in outward form to God’s revealed Word.

In John 4:20-26, Jesus’ words to the Samaritan woman reveal the new-covenant transformation of worship: no longer tied to a sacred place like Jerusalem, worship is wherever God’s people gather because His presence is with them. He stresses that true worship must be according to God’s revelation, not self-chosen forms, since the Samaritans erred by inventing their own worship apart from God’s Word. Jesus insists that “true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth,” showing that the how of worship matters profoundly, that worship must conform to God’s Word, and that it is central to God’s purpose for his redeemed people.[40] 

For the sake of brevity, here are other key passages and points to consider, in bullet point form:

• Of what are well over half of the books of Leviticus and Numbers comprised if not instructions about proper worship? The principle of obeying God’s command in worship matters so much because the primary goal is not personal expression but humility that obeys His Lordship.
• The prohibition in Deuteronomy 4:2, “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it…,” recalls Israel’s failure of worship at Baal of Peor (4:3-4) and leads into warnings against corrupting worship with images (4:15-24). The same formula reappears in Deuteronomy 12:32—“Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it”—explicitly bracketing Israel’s worship regulations.
• In 1 Samuel 15:22, Saul’s disobedient sacrifice, offered contrary to God’s command, is met with God’s rebuke: “to obey is better than sacrifice.”
• Jeremiah 7:31, 19:5, and 32:35 make clear that God rejected the Israelites’ adoption of pagan practices “which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind.”
• In 1 Kings 12:28-30, Jeroboam led Israel into false worship of Yahweh by making two golden calves, declaring, “Behold your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.” God judged this practice as the sin that “led to [his house’s] downfall and to its destruction” (1 Kings 13:34), showing that false worship of the true God is no less condemned than worship of false gods.
• In Matthew 4:9-10, when Satan tempts Jesus to worship him, Jesus rebukes him with Scripture: “You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve,” affirming that worship must be directed and defined solely by God’s revealed Word.
• In Mark 11:15-17, when Jesus cleanses the temple, overturning tables and driving out money changers, He declares, “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations, but you have made it a den of robbers.” His righteous anger exposes worship corrupted by greed and convenience, showing that zeal for pure, God-directed worship—free from human distortion—is central to honoring the Father.
• In Acts 5:1-11, Ananias and Sapphira’s deceit in presenting their offering is met with immediate judgment, showing that hypocrisy and self-devised worship in the gathered church offend the Holy Spirit who governs true worship.
• In 1 Corinthians 14:2-5, Paul regulates even Spirit-given acts of worship, insisting that all things be “for building up.” As Ligon Duncan notes, Paul “places a premium on corporate worship that is understandable and mutually edifying,” showing that even charismatic worship must be ordered by God’s Word and aimed at edifying His church.[41]
• In Colossians 2:16-19, Paul rejects man-made regulations and “the worship of angels,” condemning such practices as empty “will-worship” that exalts human will instead of Christ.
• In Hebrews 12:28-29, believers are commanded to “offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire,” grounding new-covenant worship not in freedom from form but in reverent obedience to God’s holiness.
• In Revelation 22:8-9, when John falls to worship the angel, he is rebuked—“You must not do that! … Worship God”—underscoring that even in heaven, and perhaps most especially so, the object and manner of worship are not self-chosen but divinely regulated.

All of this shows that from the very beginning, God’s people have never been free to worship Him however they please. Every story—from Cain and Abel to the golden calf, from Nadab and Abihu to David and the ark, from the Pharisees’ empty rituals to the church in Corinth—teaches the same truth: God’s people worship rightly only when they worship as He commands. The Regulative Principle of Worship isn’t about restricting joy or creativity; it’s about reverently honoring God’s holiness by approaching Him on His terms, through Christ, in the power of the Spirit, and according to His Word. When we worship as He directs, we reflect His glory, rest in His grace, and rejoice in His presence—the very things for which we were made. True freedom in worship isn’t doing what we want before God, but wanting to do what God commands before Him.

Regulative Principle Defended and Worship Issue Clarified—It’s About Hermeneutics
Some Christians protest, “What about the New Testament, which frees us from the Old Testament laws and regulations? What about Jesus’ words that nullify the law, or the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, or Romans, Galatians, and especially Hebrews, where Christ is our once-for-all sacrifice that frees us from the obligations of the law?” Because they see the New Testament as replacing the Old—at least functionally if not admittedly—many conclude that the church no longer needs clear biblical guidelines for worship: if it’s not against God’s Word, it’s fine. Why, they ask, restrict creative expressions that glorify God and can be done with integrity?

But that question rests on a false dichotomy between law and grace, freedom and obedience. The real issue is not whether we are free from the ceremonial system—which all agree is fulfilled by Christ—but whether God has given us freedom to regulate how He is properly worshiped. For the same God who ordered the tabernacle now indwells the church, and He is not indifferent to how He is to be approached—His Word remains the standard. The Regulative Principle is not a call to reinstitute the Old Testament temple system but to ensure that practice flows from principle, in this case, that God’s Word alone determines our worship.

But, if worship practices are determined by personal preference or cultural pragmatism, this hermeneutic of expressive individualism will increasingly shape the church’s theology as much as its liturgy. When preference rules, orthodoxy erodes. We are not called to adjust the church to our desires but to conform our desires to God’s revealed Word—especially in how we approach Him.

Ultimately, the issue in a church’s approach to worship is not about guitars and liturgies but how it reads the Bible. To embrace the Normative Principle of Worship is to say, in effect, that God’s silence in Scripture is permission. To embrace the Regulative Principle of Worship is to say, with Scripture, that God’s silence is prohibition. And the issue beneath every worship debate is no less hermeneutical: Does God’s Word regulate His worship, or does man’s will? The Regulative Principle holds that God’s revelation is sufficient and binding in all matters of faith and practice, including worship. The Normative Principle assumes that human imagination can safely supplement divine instruction. One treats Scripture as the rule for practice; the other, as a resource for pragmatism. And in recent church history, that subtle shift—from rule to resource—has consistently marked the line between Christ-centered corporate reverence and man-centered personal expression.[42] 

Normative Principle Questioned
One might still protest that worship can be “Christ-centered” without adhering to the Regulative Principle. If so, by what biblical principle is that claim justified? What command, Old Testament precedent, teaching of Christ, apostolic example, or theological logic supports the idea that God’s people are free to determine how to approach Him in worship so long as they mean well? These questions do not mean to suggest that those holding to the Normative Principle don’t have any answers. But these are the questions that must be answered if an approach to worship is to have integrity, and frankly, most churches and Christians are led by cultural default rather than principled guidelines. To detach the means of worship of Christ from the commands of Christ is not properly-defined Christian liberty—it is functional lawlessness disguised as devotion, even if unwitting.

If the functional theological filter for our worship is “whatever is not prohibited is permitted,” where does that logic stop? Would we apply it to doctrine—believing whatever Scripture does not explicitly forbid? Would we apply it to morality—doing whatever the Bible does not explicitly denounce? And if not, why is worship uniquely exempt from God’s normal pattern of command and obedience?

The Normative Principle’s fatal flaw is that it functionally replaces special revelation with personal intuition—certainly not everywhere, but nonetheless enough. It assumes that human imagination is a safe guide in the presence of a holy God. And churches that embrace the Normative Principle—which is most unbeknownst—are more apt to slowly drift toward innovation, entertainment, and pragmatism that measures worship by what moves people while skipping the first step of establishing what God tells us pleases Him in worship. This is not biblical freedom; it is functional autonomy dressed in liturgical clothing. And it contributes to a major problem in contemporary churches—false professions of faith and empty revivalism driven by emotionalism rather than proper understanding of the gospel let alone orthodox doctrinal truth. For most Christians today, their personal emotional state is the god they worship—and that makes for a capricious standard for corporate experience. When the principle is “whatever is not forbidden,” eventually, human standards reign.

Regulative Principle Applied
A worship service is the body of Christ gathered to honor the Father through the Son by the Spirit, for the edification of the saints and the glory of God, as expressed in the elements delineated in Scripture as essential:

• reading and preaching God’s Word,
• hearing it with faith and obedience,
• prayer offered through Christ and empowered by the Spirit,
• singing that teaches and gives thanks according to God’s truth, and
• the observance of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as visible signs of the gospel.

Ligon Duncan captures these basic elements, each of which is unpacked below, in this simple summary: “Read the Bible, preach the Bible, pray the Bible, sing the Bible, and see the Bible.”[43] 

Read the Bible
Public reading of Scripture is one of the most ancient and direct acts of worship. From the days of Ezra, who “read from the book of the Law of God” (Nehemiah 8:8), God’s people have gathered to hear His Word read aloud. Paul exhorted Timothy, “Devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture” (1 Timothy 4:13). When God Himself speaks to His people through His written revelation (Hebrews 4:12), it establishes His authority among His people.

When churches neglect public reading of Scripture—which is far too many evangelical churches today—they deprive the congregation of hearing God’s voice and undermine His rightful authority. Worship that reflects the biblical pattern will include extended readings from both Old and New Testaments (Luke 4:16-21; Colossians 4:16), allowing the Word to shape our understanding, confession, and response. As a way to set a trajectory of the gospel of grace for our worship, the gathered people of God should begin by listening and receiving, not performing nor producing.

Preach the Bible
Preaching is God’s primary means of proclaiming His truth and building His church. Scripture insists, “Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17). Paul charged Timothy, “Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching” (2 Timothy 4:2).

When a faithful preacher opens the text and explains its meaning among God’s people—like Ezra who “gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading” (Nehemiah 8:8), Jesus who “opened the Scriptures” (Luke 24:27, 32), and the apostles who “reasoned from the Scriptures” (Acts 17:2–3)—the same living Word still works by His Spirit. Preaching that is rooted in Scripture exposes hearts (Hebrews 4:12-13), convicts of sin (2 Timothy 3:16; Acts 2:37), comforts the weary (Isaiah 50:4; 2 Corinthians 1:3-5), and exalts Christ (1 Corinthians 1:23; Colossians 1:28); for when the Word is faithfully proclaimed, Christ’s voice is heard (John 10:27), His gospel is declared (Acts 20:27; Romans 1:16), and His Spirit transforms His people (2 Corinthians 3:18; John 17:17).

Pray the Bible
God commands His people to pray corporately because prayer helps rightly direct our worship. Jesus declared, “My house shall be called a house of prayer” (Matthew 21:13), and the apostles devoted themselves “to prayer and to the ministry of the word” (Acts 6:4). The early church gathered continually for this very purpose—“all these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer” (Acts 1:14; cf. Acts 2:42). In prayer, we acknowledge God’s presence as Lord and respond to His revealed will (Philippians 4:6; Ephesians 6:18).

To “pray the Bible” is to speak in harmony with divine revelation—to let Scripture’s theology, promises, and priorities shape our adoration (Psalm 145:1-3), confession (Psalm 51:1-4), thanksgiving (1 Thessalonians 5:18), and intercession (1 Timothy 2:1-2). When church leaders pray biblically, the congregation learns to love what God loves and to desire what He commands; in this way, prayer conforms our hearts to His.

This is why public and pastoral prayer is not filler between songs and sermon but an essential act of worship. Just as preaching declares God’s Word to His people, prayer returns God’s Word to Him in faith and dependence.

Sing the Bible
Singing is one of the most unifying and formative acts of corporate worship. Believers are commanded to “address one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord” (Ephesians 5:19; cf. Colossians 3:16). Throughout Scripture, God’s people have always sung: Moses at the Red Sea (Exodus 15:1-2), David in the Psalms, Jesus and His disciples after the Last Supper (Matthew 26:30), and the redeemed in heaven (Revelation 5:9-10).

The content of what we sing must be drawn from and consistent with God’s Word. To “sing the Bible” means that our songs should be filled with Scripture’s truth, themes, and proportions—rich in theology, clear in gospel focus, and expressive of the full range of human experience under God’s sovereignty (Psalm 13; 96; 103). Songs that sound like Scripture—developing ideas rather than repeating clichés—teach, admonish, and move the heart toward reverent joy.

Because music in worship is not neutral but shapes what we believe and feel about God, not only must the words we sing be weighty with truth, but the melodies and instruments must serve that truth with fitting beauty, clarity, and restraint that highlights the primary “instrument” God has given His gathered people—not the band, but the congregation’s voices. Corporate singing is designed to be a mutual ministry—“addressing one another” (Ephesians 5:19)—and therefore the voices of the saints should carry the room. How are we to “address one another” if we cannot hear the people sing? In a worship service, instrumentation is a welcome servant but a terrible master; it should strengthen, not swallow, the sound of God’s people declaring His praise together.[44] When the church’s voices lead, sound and sense unite, and truth sung from the heart glorifies God and edifies His people (John 4:24).

See the Bible
In the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper,[45] God’s Word becomes visible. These are the signs and seals of the gospel—divine pictures that portray and confirm the promises of redemption.[46] 

In baptism, we see the cleansing of sin and the believer’s union with Christ in His death and resurrection (Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:12). In the Lord’s Supper, we remember and proclaim His atoning death until He comes again (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). These sacred acts are not human inventions or traditions but direct commands of Christ (Matthew 28:19; Luke 22:19).

Through them, God strengthens faith by engaging the senses—seeing, tasting, touching the visible symbols of grace. They do not replace the Word but confirm it, pointing back to the same gospel truth that preaching declares. They are not optional enhancements but gracious ordinances meant to remind the church that salvation is not achieved by ceremony but received by faith (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Summary
Biblical worship is simple, Spirit-filled, and Scripture-saturated. Its form and content are not defined by cultural preference or personal creativity but by God’s revealed will. From beginning to end, corporate worship should be an encounter with God through His Word—read, preached, prayed, sung, and seen.

When the church gathers to worship in this way, it confesses that God alone determines how He is to be approached (Leviticus 10:1-3), that obedience is better than sacrifice (1 Samuel 15:22), and that worship “in spirit and truth” (John 4:24) is the fruit of hearts shaped by His revelation. In Christ-centered worship, Jesus is the focus—not the performers on stage, and not the personal preferences of the congregation, but the glory of our Redeemer. Worship that begins with God’s voice will always end with His glory.

What to Look For: In a church that applies the regulative principle, and often even in those with a well-developed theology of worship—almost totally missing in many—you won’t find gimmicks that overfocus on entertainment or emotion. Instead, you’ll find a reverent yet joyful atmosphere focused on God. This doesn’t mean the style must be stern or that creativity is banned—there is plenty of room for vibrant music and cultural contextualization (Psalm 150; Revelation 7:9-10). But everything done is evaluated by: “Does this honor Christ and follow Scripture?” (1 Corinthians 14:26, 33, 40).

In practice, while the aforementioned essential elements of what we do are regulated by Scripture, the circumstances such length of service, meeting time and place, and choice and balance of instrumentation should serve the elements as guided by sanctified wisdom (1 Corinthians 14:40). This means discernment that goes beyond initial impressions and is rooted in an understanding that Christ-centered worship will mean a gospel-centered service with a redemptive trajectory. The liturgy (order of service) should include a call to worship (God inviting us), confession of sin (acknowledging our need), assurance of pardon (recalling Christ’s grace), thanksgiving, petition, and a charge to serve. Note that these can happen in various ways the Word is read, preached, prayed, sung, and seen—the more, the merrier. When a church service reflects this gospel-centered intentionality, it ensures that God is the audience, not us, and those gathered are there to magnify Him and be shaped by His truth—that’s a good sign. In contrast, if the service feels like a concert aimed at pleasing the crowd, or a TED Talk aimed at self-improvement, something is off-kilter.

In a prospective church, don’t merely observe a worship service online—95% of churches don’t have huge tech budgets to ensure an engaging online experience. Rather, participate in a minimum of three because—barring obvious alarm bells—our initial emotional impressions are not always trustworthy indicators, it takes more than one point to make the straight line that constitutes meaningful pattern recognition, and everyone can have an off-day. Ask: Is the content of the service saturated with Scripture—readings, prayers, musical lyrics, preaching, etc.? Is there a sense of reverence and awe (Hebrews 12:28) appropriate to encountering the Holy God, yet also the joy and gratitude of people redeemed by grace (Psalm 95:1-6)? Are the prayers thoughtful and God-honoring, illustrating that those praying have deep and abiding relationship with God, or are they composed largely of empty clichés (Matthew 6:7-9)? Does the music invite congregational singing (Colossians 3:16) or is it a performance where the people generally watch? Is the Lord’s Day gathering treated as special, as a high priority event, or is just another program? Consider the theology of the songs, prayers, and preaching: do they exalt Christ’s character and work—His cross, resurrection, and reign—or do they focus on feelings? A man-centered song might be largely indistinguishable from a secular love song centered on emotional hype, but a Christ-centered song declares: “In Christ alone my hope is found.” Preaching that is chiefly Christ-centered and emerging from the Bible will feed the people by teaching its meaning—preferably verse-by-verse through at least one extended passage; but a sermon comprised of meandering argumentation, prooftexting out of context, aimless personal storytelling, or charisma aimed at emotional response starves the flock. Does the church regularly and meaningfully celebrate the ordinances of baptism upon credible profession of faith and the Lord’s Supper as a communal proclamation of Christ’s death; or, over the course of many months, is there little evidence of new life or the fruit of disciplemaking?

When to Leave: If a church’s worship gatherings consistently ignore biblical commands or glorify something other than Christ, that is serious. For example, if Scripture is rarely read, or if prayer is a minor afterthought, or if sermons and songs could just as easily be in a civic club with little mention of Jesus—the church is losing its lampstand (Revelation 2:5). Another alarm: if you notice unbiblical practices creeping in, say, praying to saints, or ecstatic chaos attributed to the Spirit but without order (1 Corinthians 14:26, 33, 40),[47] or teaching that venerates the pastor more than Christ. That said, style issues require discernment; leaving a church merely over musical preference, like hymns versus contemporary, may not be warranted if Christ is still the clear focus. But if the substance and focus of worship have shifted away from the gospel to either entertainment, tradition for tradition’s sake, or emotionalism devoid of truth, you should voice concern and possibly depart if it’s not in the process of being corrected.

Our souls become like what we worship (Psalm 115:8). If a church leads you to effectively worship self or experience or leaders, it’s time to “flee from idolatry” (1 Corinthians 10:14) and find a fellowship that leads you to worship God in Spirit and truth (John 4:23-24).

[1] “Theological Triage in the 21st Century” by Trevin Wax, Gospel Coalition, June 25, 2020, accessed July 15, 2025.

[2] ”Polity” refers to the method of governance, especially how power is distributed among leaders to care for those under their charge.

[3] Robert Duncan Culver, Systematic Theology: Biblical and Historical, (Geanies House, Scotland, UK: Christian Focus), 914. Because the “universal” church is truly known only to God and New Testament usage almost exclusively refers to “local” churches, some theological traditions believe that the New Testament never truly speaks to the “universal” church but only of it and only by implication of human reason and not by explicit didactic revelation. I think they’re more right than most realize.

[4] R. Stanton Norman, The Baptist Way: Distinctives of a Baptist Church, (Nashville: B&H), 114.

[5] While numerous further verses corroborate this point in more specific terms, for now, because, e.g., 23% of the New Testament was written by Paul, to specific churches, (not to mention the rest, which was written to locally gathering communities (ekklesia) of Christians,) it is prima facie true that the Bible knows nothing of a Christian who is not part of a local body. (Stats taken from https://overviewbible.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Books-of-the-Bible.jpg: 611,000 words in the Bible, 140,530 in the NT, 32,408 written by Paul.)

[6] The ekklesia, predominantly translated as our modern word for the local “church,” is the assembly of those “called out” from the world.

[7] For more about sola scriptura, watch this Brown Bags & Bibles episode. For a really helpful explanation of what is meant by the “formal principle” (and likewise, the “material principle”), read this brief article: “Why Do We Call Them the ‘Formal’ and ‘Material’ Principles of the Reformation?” For the record, though the material principle of justification by grace (sola gratia) through faith (sola fide) was also a motivating factor for the Reformers’ claim to have rediscovered the “true church,” for our purposes, sola scriptura is more germane as the Bible is where we find the church’s definition and purpose.

[8] Calvin, Institutes, 4.1.9. Re Luther’s agreement, Article 7 of the Augsburg Confession, a Lutheran statement of faith, says, “the congregation of saints in which the gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments rightly administered.” Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof summarizes it thus: “The Reformation was a reaction against the externalism of Rome in general, and in particular, also against its external conception of the Church. It brought the truth to the foreground once more that the essence of the Church is not found in the external organization of the Church, but in the Church as the communio sanctorum. For both Luther and Calvin the Church was simply the community of the saints, that is, the community of those who believe and are sanctified in Christ, and who are joined to Him as their Head.” https://ref.ly/o/stberkhof/1646928?length=520

[9] https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/catholics-and-the-bible; See also our GQA Booklet or Post called “Why Do Protestants Oppose the Concept of a Pope?”

[10] See Brown Bags & Bibles episodes #61 and #62 re the “forms” of the Word of God.

[11] Lectio continua, the section-by-section reading and preaching of God’s revealed word, has a substantive biblical-historical precedent. In delineating the emerging pattern in the synagogue, post-Ezra’s reforms, Hughes Oliphant Old, in his classic work, says, “It was read in what today is called a lectio continua, that is, the reading took up each Sabbath where it had left off the Sabbath before.” Hughes Oliphant Old. Worship: Reformed According to Scripture. Revised and Expanded Edition, Westminster John Knox Press, 2002, p. 61. He makes the argument in pp. 57-67.

[12] Though I think a verse-by-verse pattern of preaching through a book of the Bible is best and helps ensure we are submitting to the Scriptures as God revealed them to us rather than a more topical format where cherry-picking verses runs the risk of allowing man-centered felt needs to direct interpretation, for now, I am characterizing the verse-by-verse preaching form as a “convictional” issue and not “essential” because the form of preaching is valued by implication, not explicitly commanded, and valid arguments can be made to the contrary. (See fccgreene.org/introtogqa#ecochart for more.)

[13] This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of all possibly important principles, but a representative list of some particularly important factors to consider when looking for a biblically-centered church or determining church health.

[14] Meaning is primarily determined by using normal grammatico-historical and redemptive-historical methods that prioritize plain sense exegesis deriving from and tested against Scripture’s interpretation of itself. [By aforementioned "redemptive-historical methods," we mean those a là Geerhardus Vos’ biblical-theological and covenantal “History of Special Revelation,” as distinct from the older “redemptive-historical” heilsgeschichte (“salvation history”) and heilsgeschichtlich (“salvation-historical”) methods, which are a subset of the "historical-critical" (or "higher critical") models, which are to be, on the whole rejected, though they can provide ancillary and comparative insight. See “What is historical criticism?” for more. [For more, see the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, especially Articles III-VI, VIII, XIII, XV, XVII-XIX, and “Skepticism and Criticism” (top of p 10.)] If all the above sounds like gobbly-gook to you, see “What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?” for a brief overview of the basic interpretive issues involved.

[15] I’ve chosen “saving grace” to distinguish it from cheap, intellectual, or human-initiated grace, and as a mediating term that establishes that we’re talking—at least generically and in terms with which all Christians agree—about true repentant faith that results in spiritual fruit and that also allows for “1689ers” (holding to the 1689 2nd London Baptist Confession, the1689confession.com) and Reformed/Covenantal folks like me to hold to “effectual grace/calling” as part of the so-called “doctrines of grace” (see Episode #36 of BB&B on “Call” for more).

[16] Two notes worthy of mention at the beginning: (1) This is a much longer “essential mark” than the others because it needs more explanation as the content will likely be new and perhaps controversial for the majority of readers. (2) For those who—after 5 minutes—will be champing at the bit to jump to practical questions, you’ll need to pause lest you become frustrated. We’ll get there, but we must first simmer significantly on establishing principles before we get to practicals.

[17] Isaiah 6:1-7. For some good teaching about this passage, see the second half of Brown Bags & Bibles episode #87, starting at 23:55, regarding chapter 2 in R. C. Sproul’s Holiness of God.

[18] For more on God’s holiness and perfection and the idea that He cannot abide sin, see the Brown Bags & Bibles series (Jan 2023) that covers the R. C. Sproul book called Holiness of God.

[19] Quoted by Dr. Mark Dever on page 7 of the Foreword of Dr. Ligon Duncan’s Does God Care How We Worship? In case it’s not clear, my position calls into question the assumption that method and means are morally neutral. While a tool, technology, or instrument is morally neutral per se, its use never is. In fact, no one has ever used any tool in a morally neutral way, nor do such technologies come without implications for how they work, form human response, and affect outcomes. When we use a gardening spade for pulling weeds or planting seeds, we are engaging in the morally good work of God’s pre-Fall command (i.e., His intent for creation) to “have dominion,” to “be fruitful” (Genesis 1:26-28), and to “work the ground and keep it” (Genesis 2:15). We can also use this same tool for terrible and destructive ends. To be clear and a bit crass, I can use my pocket knife to open packages or pierce through flesh. The way we use anything comes with consequences. For the Christian, how we use any tool or do anything is as morally contingent as our use of it (Colossians 3:17). (See Marshall McLuhan’s famous The Medium is the Massage (also here) for more, as it relates to communications media. (And yes, that is spelled “massage,” not “message,” though, to thoroughly confuse us all, McLuhan is also credited with saying “the medium is the message” and you can even find copies of his book with the wrong title!) He essentially says that the medium affects how we understand and respond to content more fundamentally than we can account for even as we use said medium. While this dynamic is practically taken for granted in our technocratic society and increasingly verified in multiple studies, (Delgado et al; Mueller and Oppenheimer; Ophir et al; Bailenson; Mayer; Hancock and Guillory; Daft and Lengel), it was a smidge of a radical idea in the 60s.) For the Christian, every medium and means, including the way any tool, technology, instrument, or physical body part is used, are to be used for God’s glory—set apart for whole-life worship and all-resources stewardship that communicate that He is Lord of All Creation (Romans 12:1-2). To the contrary, for most moderns, a method is considered genuine to the extent that it capably elicits or meaningfully expresses one’s feelings, desires, or hopes, as if self-expressive individualism is the locus of truth and its practice. If we begin thinking about worship thusly, from the ground up, we run the risk of ignoring God’s commands in Scripture, implementing pragmatism that lionizes the wrong things, and worse, communicating that addressing a holy God on our terms constitutes saving faith. The point here isn’t ultimately to deny or denigrate our feelings, nor any particular preferences or methods of congregational worship, but to make clear that God’s holiness and commands in Scripture must lead the way—theology leading to practice—rather than a from-the-ground-up assumption that the moral neutrality of tools and technologies per se (in/of themselves, apart from use) means their use per accidens (as they relate/interact with other things/people) is likewise. So, to wrap up this ridiculous footnote, essentially, I am positing two things that apply here: (1) The argument that tools, technologies, and instruments are morally neutral is true only when not being used and as a function of not being made in God’s image. When we humans, made in God’s image, use any tool, technology, or instrument, the use is never morally neutral. (2) The vast majority of Christians and supposedly Bible-believing churches begin their thinking about worship from the ground-up, haven’t even a smidge of a theology of worship to guide their practical thinking, and end up in a place that produces easy believism and flimsy faith.

[20] David Peterson, Engaging with God: A Biblical Theology of Worship, Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1992, 20. Peterson also says, “Acceptable worship does not start with human intuition or inventiveness, but with the action of God. The earliest books of the Bible emphasize God’s initiative in revealing his character and will to his people, rescuing them from other lords in order to serve him exclusively, and establishing the pattern of response by which their relationship with him could be maintained” (26). Peterson’s book, widely used in conservative Bible-believing colleges and seminaries, is considered one of the most comprehensive, even-handed, and irenic treatments of the Bible’s teaching on worship. And yes, its title is behind some of what became our Habit #1, “Engage in worship.” Our modern word “worship” is a shortened form of the Old English “worthship” which speaks to a thing’s inherent worth or value. Note that, depending on the source and historical timeframe referred to, it is not uncommon to find varied spellings of “worthship” such as “worshipe” (Middle English) and “weorthscipe” (Old English), etc. See https://www.thefreedictionary.com/worship.

[21] This is not meant as a pejorative or ad hominem critique. The reality is that nearly everything everyone believes—myself very much included—tends to be absorbed through uncritical osmosis and is left unstudied unless and until we deliberately examine it.

[22] The essential idea of the normative principle of worship (NPW) is often summarized in colloquial formulas such as: “silence is permission”; “what is not forbidden is allowed” (a phrase used by Lutherans and Anglicans to justify retaining medieval ceremonies unless Scripture expressly condemned them); “where Scripture does not bind, the church is free”; “if the Bible doesn’t say no, we can say yes”; “all things are lawful that edify” (echoing 1 Corinthians 10:23); “the burden of proof is on prohibition, not permission”; and “the church may adopt anything consistent with the Word.” Each of these captures the same hermeneutical instinct: biblical silence functions as allowance rather than restriction.

[23] I.e., centrists in the early 19th-century Restoration/Stone-Campbellite Movement, not the movements associated with Kip McKean, the late 20th-century “International Churches of Christ” or early 21st-century “International Christian Churches”.

[24] I.e., from a more congregational and less formally denominational tradition.

[25] With the exceptions of Anglicans and Lutherans, who ironically held to the NPW as warrant for holding to pre-Reformation worship practices and maintaining ‘high church liturgy,’ almost everyone held to the RPW before 19th-century revivalism and the Second Great Awakening. Pentecostals are also an exception that has always held to NPW, but only because they came a bit after and were born in the stream of revivalism. On how revivalism shifted worship toward normative-principle reasoning, see Frank Lambert, Inventing the “Great Awakening” (Princeton University Press, 1999); Charles G. Finney, Lectures on Revivals of Religion (1835); and Michael A. Farley, “What Is ‘Biblical’ Worship? Biblical Hermeneutics and Evangelical Theologies of Worship,” JETS 51.3 (2008): 591-613. These works together illustrate how the Second Great Awakening and Finney’s “new measures” loosened older regulative instincts and made pragmatic freedom the evangelical norm.

[26] The essential idea of the regulative principle of worship (RPW) is often expressed in maxims such as: “God alone determines how He is to be worshiped” (cf. Deuteronomy 12:32; Matthew 15:9); “silence forbids”; “what is not commanded is forbidden” (the classic Puritan formulation); “the acceptable way of worship is instituted by God Himself” (WCF 21.1; 2LBCF 22.1); “only what God has prescribed is permitted”; or, in shorthand, “Scripture regulates worship.” Each of these underscores the hermeneutical instinct that biblical silence is prohibition, guarding worship from human innovation and reserving to God alone the prerogative to define how He is approached. Btw, for the few who care, the 2LBC narrows the scope WCF’s wording of “good and necessary consequence” (WCF 1.6) to “expressly set down or necessarily contained” (2LBC 1.6) to emphasize the sufficiency of what’s explicit while still affirming consequence in hermeneutics outside of worship practices. Functionally, Baptists wanted more explicit warrant for ordinances and worship practices, while Presbyterians allowed more by inference in areas of doctrine and practice, beyond worship.

[27] Though certainly not monolithic, Plymouth Brethren would generally hold to a form of the regulative principle by appealing to “New Testament example only,” rather than to the Presbyterian Reformed concept of “good and necessary consequence.” Similarly, the acappella Churches of Christ (the conservative, non-instrumental branch of the Stone-Campbell Movement) exemplify a regulative approach to worship, though grounded in their own hermeneutic of “command, example, and necessary inference.” Their insistence on unaccompanied congregational singing rests on the conviction that only what is positively authorized in the New Testament is permissible. Since the NT commands singing (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16) but nowhere authorizes instruments, they conclude that instrumental accompaniment is excluded. Both traditions illustrate that regulative logic has arisen in different ecclesial contexts beyond the Reformed: the Brethren by emphasizing NT patterns, and the Churches of Christ by restricting worship to explicit NT authorization. By contrast, the Reformed RPW is rooted in a broader theological framework of God’s holiness and law, applying the whole counsel of Scripture. It relies not only on explicit command but also on “good and necessary consequence,” so that worship is governed less by a narrow NT blueprint and more by a confessional, theological application of sola scriptura. For Churches of Christ re RPW, see Everett Ferguson, A Cappella Music in the Public Worship of the Church (Abilene Christian University Press, 2013); Richard T. Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith: The Story of Churches of Christ in America (Eerdmans, 1996); Douglas A. Foster, Paul M. Blowers, Anthony L. Dunnavant, and D. Newell Williams, eds., The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement (Eerdmans, 2004).

[28] While I would call the RPW an “essential mark” of a church, because both the normative and regulative principles are represented in the stream of orthodox Christian faith, many would call it a “conviction.” The RPW has roots in the Reformed confessions (e.g., WCF 21.1; 2LBC 22.1), while the normative principle has long been affirmed in Lutheran and Anglican traditions (see the Augsburg Confession, Article XV). Helpful secondary discussions re the history and distinctions involved include John Frame, Worship in Spirit and Truth (1996); Derek Thomas and Guy Prentiss Waters (eds.), The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century, Vol. 2 (2005); and Bryan Chapell, Christ-Centered Worship: Letting the Gospel Shape Our Practice (2009).

[29] By “Christ-centered” we mean that God’s purposes and promises, in the Scriptures and for His redeemed people, all point to Christ as their fullness. So even the Old Testament is only truly understood in that light, including God’s moral laws and commands, which never change because they derive from His character and nature (as distinct from civil and ceremonial). Thus, when God commands how He is to be approached in worship—whether in the pattern of Eden (Genesis 2:15-17), in Cain and Abel’s offerings (Genesis 4:3-5), or in the detailed instructions of the Law (Exodus 20; Leviticus 10:1-3)—He is not establishing temporary regulations but revealing His holy nature and redemptive plan, which culminates in Christ as the true temple, sacrifice, and priest (John 2:19-21; Hebrews 9:11-14). In this sense, OT precedents serve as typological foundations for worship, showing that God has always prescribed the manner of His people’s approach, and that those prescriptions find their fulfillment and continuity in Christ. This grounds the regulative principle not merely in a NT blueprint hermeneutic but in the whole redemptive arc of Scripture, from creation to consummation. See David Peterson, Engaging with God: A Biblical Theology of Worship (IVP, 1992), who argues that worship is always God-initiated and fulfilled in Christ; G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission (IVP, 2004), which develops how temple worship functions typologically and climaxes in Christ; and Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology (Eerdmans, 1948), especially his treatment of how OT institutions foreshadow NT realities in Christ.

[30] The biblical witness consistently presents creation’s pre-Fall fruitfulness and order as worship, not merely environment. Genesis 1 repeatedly affirms “God saw that it was good” (vv 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31), where “good” (tov) denotes not just utility but conformity to God’s will and thus reflection of His glory. Creation itself, by functioning according to God’s word, declares His majesty: “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1). Paul interprets the order and productivity of creation as revealing “his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature” (Romans 1:20). In this sense, creation’s proper functioning is doxological. The language of Isaiah 43:7 (“everyone… whom I created for my glory”) and Colossians 1:16 (“all things were created through him and for him”) confirms that the telos of creation is worship. John Calvin remarks that “there is not one blade of grass, there is no color in this world that is not intended to make us rejoice” (Institutes I.14.20), and Augustine describes creation as a chorus: “Heaven and earth also tell me to love Thee” (Confessions X.6). Thus, before the Fall, creation’s fruitfulness and harmony in fulfilling its created purpose was worship in act—an embodied proclamation that God is good and sovereign. Theologically, this aligns with the regulative principle’s root: true worship is always God-initiated and God-directed, beginning with creation’s obedience to His Word.

[31] Genesis 3:15—God’s first promise to redeem fallen creation—is often called the “protoevangelium,” the “first gospel.”

[32] By trusting the serpent’s lie and seizing the fruit, they subverted God’s design for worship: instead of submitting to God’s command, they made their own desire the measure of truth. At heart, idolatry is misplaced worship—exchanging the glory of God for created things (Romans 1:25). Their sin was the disobedience of false worship, for they honored the serpent’s word over the Lord’s. This misdirected allegiance fractured humanity’s worship and explains why worship must be regulated by God’s word.

[33] Reisinger, Ernest C., and D. Matthew Allen. Worship: The Regulative Principle and the Biblical Practice of Accommodation. Founders Press, 2001, p. 15. This is the most important of three books I’d recommend re the RPW. The other two are Duncan, Ligon. Does God Care How We Worship? P&R Publishing, 2020; and Chapell, Bryan. Christ-Centered Worship: Letting the Gospel Shape Our Practice. Baker Academic, 2009.

[34] Duncan, 72.

[35] The Jews called the 10 Commandments the “10 Words” because they came directly from God Himself (“God spoke all these words,” v 1), were written by His hand on tablets of stone that symbolized their permanence, were kept in a sacred place, and are a shortened codifying of moral principles that apply to all people for all time because they come from the character of God Himself.

[36] Duncan, 20–21.

[37] Duncan, 32-37.

[38] The Lord’s verdict in v. 3 uses the verbs qādash (“to be sanctified”) and kābēd (“to be glorified”). Here “glorified” is not merely the passive reality that God receives glory from all things (cf. Psalm 19:1), but the active, worshipful honor due Him in the liturgical context of His dwelling place and priestly service (cf. Exodus 29:43–44; Isaiah 8:13). As Gordon Wenham notes, “the whole incident underlines that worship is holy business: it must be conducted on God’s terms, not man’s” (The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, 1979, p. 156). Jacob Milgrom similarly stresses that God’s glory here is bound to the cultic sphere—Israel must sanctify Him by strict obedience in worship (Leviticus 1-16, AB, 1991, pp. 603-604). Thus, the passage underscores that God’s holiness and glory must be treated as weighty precisely in the formal acts of worship He commands.

[39] The “new cart” of 2 Samuel 6:3 represents improper human innovation, directly contravening God’s command that the ark be carried by the Kohathites on poles through the rings (Exodus 25:14-15; Numbers 4:15; 7:9). Scholars note that this method imitated Philistine practice (1 Samuel 6:7) rather than God’s ordinance. Robert Gordon comments that “the new cart, though seemingly respectful, was a Philistine method, not the Lord’s” (1 & 2 Samuel, Word Biblical Commentary, 1986, p. 220). Dale Ralph Davis stresses, “Good intentions are no excuse for ignoring God’s revealed will. The ark was never to ride but to be borne” (2 Samuel: Out of Every Adversity, Christian Focus, 1999, p. 73). David Firth observes that “even innovation meant to honor God is disobedience when it substitutes human initiative for divine command” (1 & 2 Samuel, Apollos Old Testament Commentary, 2009, p. 399). This explains David’s later confession: “the LORD our God broke out against us, because we did not seek him according to the rule” (1 Chronicles 15:13), which commentators widely recognize as an explicit acknowledgment that the ark’s earlier transport by “new cart” had violated God’s instructions.

[40] Duncan, 42-45.

[41] Duncan, 47-48.

[42] (The following is a repeat of a previous footnote.) With the exceptions of Anglicans and Lutherans, who ironically held to the NPW as warrant for holding to pre-Reformation worship practices and maintaining ‘high church liturgy,’ almost everyone held to the RPW before 19th-century revivalism and the Second Great Awakening. Pentecostals are also an exception that has always held to NPW, but only because they came a bit after and were born in the stream of revivalism. On how revivalism shifted worship toward normative-principle reasoning, see Frank Lambert, Inventing the “Great Awakening” (Princeton University Press, 1999); Charles G. Finney, Lectures on Revivals of Religion (1835); and Michael A. Farley, “What Is ‘Biblical’ Worship? Biblical Hermeneutics and Evangelical Theologies of Worship,” JETS 51.3 (2008): 591-613. These works together illustrate how the Second Great Awakening and Finney’s “new measures” loosened older regulative instincts and made pragmatic freedom the evangelical norm.

[43] Duncan, p. 77.

[44] Both the Old and New Testaments place the weight of gathered worship squarely on the voices of God’s people, not on musical display. In the OT, instruments certainly appear, but their liturgical use is never commanded for the congregation—only for the Levitical musicians by explicit divine instruction (1 Chronicles 15:16-24; 25:1-7; 2 Chronicles 29:25; Ezra 3:10). What is universally commanded of all God’s people is vocal praise: they are told to sing (Psalm 96:1; 98:1; 149:1), shout (Psalm 98:4; 47:1), and declare His works (Psalm 105:1-2). The NT intensifies this trajectory: Christians are commanded to “address one another” with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16), to pray and sing with both spirit and mind (1 Corinthians 14:15), and to offer the “fruit of lips” as their continual sacrifice of praise (Hebrews 13:15). Jesus and His disciples sang a hymn (Matthew 26:30; Mark 14:26), and the earliest Christians are depicted singing—not playing—in their corporate devotion (Acts 16:25). Strikingly, the NT gives neither a single command for instrumental worship nor even a descriptive instance of instruments used by the gathered church, a silence impossible to ignore in any hermeneutic that claims Scripture regulates worship. This is not a prohibition of instruments but a rebuke of allowing them to dominate or define worship. In Scripture, instruments never lead the people of God; the people of God lead with their voices. Instruments may assist this praise, but they must never replace, overshadow, or drown out the very means Scripture everywhere prioritizes.

[45] The term “ordinances” refers to practices instituted by Christ as binding commands for His church. Scripture presents both baptism and the Lord’s Supper as direct mandates from Jesus. In Matthew 28:19, baptism is commanded with the aorist imperative baptísate (“baptize”), marking it as an authoritative charge. Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, Paul states that he “received from the Lord” the institution of the Supper, transmitting it to the church as a parádosis (tradition handed down, cf. 1 Corinthians 11:2), showing that it is rooted in Christ’s own directive. The language of command (entolḗ) also surrounds the church’s obedience to Christ in the gathered assembly (John 14:15; Matthew 28:20), reinforcing that these practices are not optional rituals but Christ-given institutions. Additionally, the covenantal framing of the Supper (“this cup is the new covenant [diathḗkē] in my blood,” Matthew 26:28) further identifies it as a divine appointment tied to Christ’s redemptive authority. Together these texts show that baptism and the Lord’s Supper function as binding ordinances—commanded by Christ, delivered through the apostles, and practiced by the church as acts of obedience and gospel proclamation.

[46] The phrase “signs and seals” reflects the biblical pattern of covenantal ordinances functioning as visible confirmations of God’s promises. Paul describes circumcision as “a sign (sēmeion) and seal (sphragis) of the righteousness that comes by faith” (Romans 4:11), establishing a category in which God appoints outward actions to signify and confirm inward gospel realities. In the New Covenant, baptism and the Lord’s Supper serve this same confirmatory function for believers: baptism as a sign of union with Christ in His death and resurrection (Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:12), and the Supper as a visible proclamation and covenantal confirmation of His atoning death (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). These ordinances do not convey grace automatically, but as Christ-instituted commands (entolē, Matthew 28:19-20; Luke 22:19) and apostolic traditions delivered to the church (paradosis, 1 Corinthians 11:2, 23), they function as God-appointed signs that portray and seal to believers the gospel they signify.

[47] Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 14:26 are descriptive of Corinth’s disorder, not prescriptive for Christian worship. The rhetorical pivot “What then, brothers?” (v 26) functions—as in 1 Corinthians 11:20—not to endorse their practices but to expose them. The actual apostolic instructions come in the corrections that follow (vv 27-40), which impose limits, sequence, intelligibility, and order. To use v 26 as a model for free-form or chaotic worship reverses Paul’s intent; the verse that names the problem cannot be used to justify the problem.