The argument that I have found most compelling when it comes to the regulative principle of worship (more on which in a minute) is that God is the one who must determine how he is to be worshipped and we simply do not have the right to decide that for ourselves. At heart, this is why I find some form of the regulative principle persuasive. God has determined how he is to be worshipped and told us so in scripture, we do not have the right to innovate beyond what he has commanded.

Of course, the regulative principle is often stated as something close to this: if scripture does not overtly command something, it is forbidden in worship. This I find less compelling for lots of reasons, chief amongst which is that lots of things are not commanded in scripture for worship but nor are they evidently forbidden. Regulative principle advocates have historically got round this by differentiating elements and circumstances. The problem is, the bible itself simply doesn’t divide worship up this way.

Sam Storms makes some arguments here as to why (as he judges it) reformed people remain wedded to the regulative principle on that basis. Whilst some of his suggestions might explain why some reformed people are quick to label certain things verboten without express biblical warrant, I suspect (as I alluded at the start) there is a simpler explanation here.

The regulative principle comes in many forms. Various adherents draw their boundaries in different places. But at heart, I think the point comes back to what was said in my opening paragraph. Reformed people believe that God must set the terms of our worship and we do not have the right to innovate beyond his commands.

This doesn’t get us around the issue Storms highlights in his article and that I mention in the second paragraph. But it seems to me the answer is not a normative principles that essentially says all things not forbidden are permissible (or, minimally, beneficial). Rather, those things God has expressly said are necessary for worship must be done, those things he has expressly forbidden must not be done and those things that are not mentioned must be weighed as to whether they are, indeed, beneficial and serve those things that God has expressly said he wants us to do.

In this sense, it seems to me the ‘elements’ of worship are those things God has expressly commanded us to do. The things that are not mentioned must be weighed against a) what God tells us worship is for, and b) whether it serves and supports those elements that God commands or whether they push us towards those things that he forbids. It is not that God grants us no freedom or any room for wisdom when it comes to worship, but he does set some fairly clear boundaries and expressly wants us to do certain things in worship. As a general rule, he doesn’t seem to want us to guess and innovate; he wants us to do the things he has told us he wants us to do.

This is what lies at the heart of the regulative principles. Who gets to decide how God is to be worshipped? Does he set the terms of worship himself or does he leave it to us to make up? Most reformed people come to the conclusion that it is the Lord who decides and we worship him on his terms. If that is our starting point, the only question left is how do we determine what the Lord wants? It seems to me, what is ‘normative’ among the churches is less sure and certain than what is ‘regulated’ by the scripture.