What Is the Regulative Principle of Worship?
The Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) is a doctrine commonly held in Reformed traditions (such as Presbyterian, some Baptist, and Continental Reformed churches). It states that in corporate worship, only those elements explicitly commanded or clearly exemplified in Scripture are permitted. Anything not expressly authorized by the Bible is forbidden.
This principle is often summarized as: “Whatever is not commanded in Scripture for worship is forbidden.” It is rooted in the belief that God, being holy, must be approached in worship exactly as He has prescribed.
The RPW is typically contrasted with the Normative Principle of Worship (NPW), which holds that anything not expressly forbidden by Scripture is permitted in worship, provided it aligns with general biblical principles and promotes peace and unity in the church.
Why I Reject the Regulative Principle of Worship
While the RPW aims to honor God’s authority in worship, I find its biblical foundation and practical implications unconvincing. Below are my primary reasons.
1. The Biblical Basis Is Weak
The main scriptural support cited for the RPW is Leviticus 10:1–2, where Nadab and Abihu offer “unauthorized fire” (or “strange fire”) before the Lord, which He had not commanded, and are consumed by fire from God.
Proponents argue this shows that doing something not commanded in worship is sinful. However, the text indicates they offered something explicitly contrary to God’s instructions. For example, Exodus 30:9 prohibits “strange incense” on the altar. Their act was a deliberate deviation from clear commands in an area where God had given detailed guidance—not merely an addition of something unmentioned.
This is faulty logic: punishing a violation of specific rules does not prove that all uncommanded actions are forbidden.
Analogy: If I instruct my children to set the Thanksgiving table with a blue tablecloth (and explicitly say not to use red), I would be upset if they used red. But if they add candles (something I never mentioned), there is no issue—assuming no sinful intent. Silence on candles does not imply prohibition.
2. Biblical Examples Appear to Contradict It
Scripture records instances where God’s people incorporate uncommanded elements into worship without divine disapproval—unlike cases of direct violation, which provoke judgment.
Consider 2 Samuel 6:
- Initially, David transports the Ark on a cart (against God’s command to use poles carried by Levites), and Uzzah is struck dead for touching it—clear disobedience brings judgment.
- Later, David corrects this and brings the Ark properly. During this procession, he “danced before the Lord with all his might” (v. 14), possibly in partial undress (wearing a linen ephod). Dancing is nowhere commanded in worship prescriptions.
Yet God shows no displeasure. Instead, Michal despises David for it and is made barren—a narrative indication that David’s expressive worship was acceptable.
Additionally, David appoints singers and musicians (detailed in 1 Chronicles 15–16), creating new roles and structures not previously commanded for tabernacle worship. Again, no divine rebuke follows.
These examples suggest God accepts sincere additions that do not violate His commands.
3. It Relies on a False Dichotomy
The RPW is almost always presented as the only alternative to the NPW: either “only what is commanded” or “anything not forbidden” (which critics caricature as allowing absurdity).
This is a false either/or. A third approach exists: Elements not expressly commanded are not automatically forbidden, but must be evaluated against broader biblical principles, godly wisdom, and edification—without requiring church-wide uniformity as the sole criterion.
Using the table-setting analogy again: The strict NPW might technically allow absurdities (like live chickens on the table), but no reasonable person applies it that way. Suggesting that rejecting the RPW leads to chaos is uncharitable and inaccurate.
4. It Is Unhelpful for the Church and Requires Too Little
Even if the above points did not undermine the RPW’s claims, it remains practically unhelpful.
Adherents must sharply distinguish “corporate worship” from everyday life. If only commanded elements are allowed in worship, those rules cannot fully govern daily living—or we could not function (e.g., no commands for modern technology or cultural expressions).
A better view sees all of life as worship (Romans 12:1: “Present your bodies as a living sacrifice… which is your spiritual worship”). The high standard of holiness and acceptability to God applies everywhere, not just in formal gatherings.
This elevates the call: Every moment is to honor God, guided by Scripture’s principles and the Holy Spirit’s wisdom where specifics are unclear.
Conclusion: A Preferred Approach
Rather than a rigid RPW for congregational meetings (which does not fully reflect New Testament gatherings), I advocate holding ourselves to a lifelong standard of obedience and honor to God in all things. We fall short, but this is the biblical calling—trusting the Spirit for guidance in unclear areas.
