Should I Stay Home from Church When Life Gets Hard?

Posted on by
Reply

Article: by Eric Davis (original source here)

A wise man once said, “Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22 ). The “many,” “tribulations,” and “must” combine to make life really, really hard at times. Pain seems to crash upon its victims with inhumane force. It comes in all forms—physical, spiritual, relational, some excruciating combination. There are times when it just seems impossible to continue another moment.

Thankfully however, we have a loving God who is sovereign over suffering. He’s not pushing buttons from a distance, but intimately walking through it with us. What a great thing it is to have the Lord as our shepherd. He cares for us, not by always sparing us from sorrow, but leading us through it. He binds us up through various means; the word of God, prayer, corporate worship.
But, what about when a trial reaches a new level of difficulty? What about when the spiritual and emotional pain seems too crippling to be at church? Certainly there are situations like this. What should we do?

Beth Moore, a highly influential evangelical, said this on mother’s day:

Beth Moore
✔@BethMooreLPM
If you feel like sobbing, do. If you feel like going to church on Mother’s Day would crush your heart, don’t. You won’t lose your salvation because you don’t want to go to church on Mother’s Day. Grab pen and paper and get alone with God and pour out your heart to Him in full…

On the one hand, the advice is understandable. In some seasons of suffering, it seems impossible to do anything. There are certain things which feel as if doing them would only plunge the knife deeper.

But on the other hand, this kind of thinking backfires. It’s hazardous. It can create damage and propagate error. I assume that the intention of the advice was to help and bless. But the stay-home suggestion can communicate several consequential errors. Here are a few for consideration:

1. God’s means of grace are insufficient for certain struggles.

The corporate gathering is to be a time of worship to the glory of God. As we worship together with gifted saints, we are fed, strengthened, transformed, encouraged, and equipped. That’s why the gathering exists. As the word of God is read, sang, prayed, pondered, and preached, God administers his care. So, to suggest avoiding the gathering because of a trial is counter-productive. Corporate worship is intended to bring care in suffering. It might feel impossible to gather; too painful. But our God knows. And he desires to care for us precisely through corporate worship. So, to avoid church due to the pain of a trial is akin to avoiding eating due to the pain of hunger. Continue reading →

Charles Finney vs. the Westminster Confession by Michael S. Horton

Posted on by
Reply

Article source here.

The most famous evangelist of the nineteenth century declared that The Westminster Divines had created ‘a paper pope’ and had ‘elevated their confession and catechism to the Papal throne and into the place of the Holy Ghost.’ ‘It is better,’ he declared, ‘to have a living than a dead Pope,’ dismissing the Standards as casually as the boldest Enlightenment rationalist: ‘That the instrument framed by that assembly should in the nineteenth century be recognized as the standard of the church, or of any intelligent branch of it, is not only amazing, but I must say that it is highly ridiculous. It is as absurd in theology as it would be in any other branch of science.’1

Given the unpopularity of Calvinism in particular and confessionalism in general, all of this might not have raised the slightest hint of impropriety except for the fact that the evangelist was Charles G. Finney, an ordained Presbyterian minister. In his introduction to Finney’s Lectures on Revivals of Religion, William McLoughlin wrote the following:

The first thing that strikes the reader of the Lectures on Revival is the virulence of Finney’s hostility toward traditional Calvinism and all it stood for. He denounced its doctrinal dogmas (which, as embodied in the Westminster Confession of Faith, he referred to elsewhere as ‘this wonderful theological fiction’); he rejected its concept of nature and the structure of the universe…; he scorned its pessimistic attitude toward human nature and progress…; and he thoroughly deplored its hierarchical and legalistic polity (as embodied in the ecclesiastical system of the Presbyterian Church). Or to put it more succinctly, John Calvin’s philosophy was theocentric and organic; Charles Finney’s was anthropocentric and individualistic….As one one prominent Calvinist editor wrote in 1838 of Finney’s revivals, ‘Who is not aware that the Church has been almost revolutionized within four or five years by means of such excitements?’

In this brief survey, our purpose will be two-fold: first, to understand the factors that shaped Finney’s theology and practice and, second, to appreciate the legacy of both for contemporary evangelicalism and especially Reformed faith and practice in the United States.

I. The Man: His Life & Times

We must remember that the period just prior to the Great Awakening was not congenial to an undiluted Calvinism: Jonathan Edwards lost his pulpit in 1750 in large part because he would not moderate his belief in total depravity; Solomon Stoddard, Edwards’ grandfather, had softened the Puritan emphasis on conversion in the interests of civil order with his ‘Half-Way Covenant,’ and the Enlightenment, having practically extinguished the remnants of orthodox Calvinism in English nonconformity, was threatening the citadels of American learning.

It was in reaction to the spiritual state of New England, ranging in general from nominal to skeptical, that a handfull of preachers–Anglican, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, and Dutch Reformed, but Calvinists all, began to recover the evangelical emphasis of the Protestant Reformers, summoning men and women to a confrontation with God through the Law and the Gospel. A cursory glance at the most popular sermon titles illustrates the dependence on classical biblical categories of sin and grace, judgment and justification, Law and Gospel, despair and hope, and these gifted evangelists were convinced that the success of their mission rested in the hands of God and faithfulness to the apostolic proclamation.

In spite of such biblical rigor, matched with evangelistic zeal, the Great Awakening (1739-43) itself was not without its excesses of enthusiastic religion, as Edwards himself was painfully aware. The Princeton divine labored to distinguish between true and false religious emotions. A man of towering presence and celebrated oratory, George Whitefield proved a valuable colleague in awakening sinners to God, and yet, as Harry S. Stout has argued in a controversial work, Whitefield himself may have contributed to some of the seminal features of mass evangelism that would manifest themselves in the revivalism to follow.2 The Tennent brothers, along with James Davenport, were also accused by some of their brethren as sowing seeds of unwholesome enthusiasm and a host of questions could be raised concerning the Awakening in terms of its ecclesiology and the prominence given to radical individual conversion over and against the more traditional covenantal motifs of Reformed theology. While the ‘New Light’ and ‘Old Light’ factions do not directly parallel the ‘New School’ and ‘Old School’ divisions to follow, they do reflect the controversial innovations introduced by those who sought to wed a pietistic impulse to Reformed orthodoxy, leading to a secession of Gilbert Tennent’s ‘New Light’ Presbyterians from the more traditional Philadelphia presbytery in 1741.

However essential it may be to raise those questions within the Reformed family, it is not within the scope of this brief survey to explore. It is sufficient for our purposes to at least recognize the fundamental Reformed consensus of the Great Awakening on anthropological and soteriological grounds. Revival was ‘a surprising work of God,’ as Edwards expressed it, and depended entirely on divine freedom.

The revivals associated with the Great Awakening created a rift in New England Congregationalism, encouraging many who were offended on grounds of taste and style (as well as the resurgent Calvinism) to embrace Unitarianism, while Edwards provided the intellectual resources for a courageous defense of Calvinism in conversation with, not merely in reaction to, the Enlightenment. Perhaps no other movement has had such a profound hand in shaping the religious character of Revolutionary America and the evangelicalism that is its heir–with the possible exception of the Second Great Awakening. Continue reading →

The Genesis and Future of Worship

Posted on by
Reply

Article by Jonathan Gibson (original source here)

“Missions is not the ultimate goal of the church. Worship is. Missions exists because worship doesn’t. Worship is ultimate, not missions, because God is ultimate, not man. When this age is over, and the countless millions of the redeemed fall on their faces before the throne of God, missions will be no more. It is a temporary necessity. But worship abides forever. Worship, therefore, is the fuel and goal of missions.” — John Piper

The story of human history is a story of worship. In Eden, God called his son Adam to worship him alone as Father and King—by not eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. At Sinai, God called his son Israel to worship him alone as Father and King—by not putting other gods before him. In Jerusalem, God called his son David (and David’s sons) to worship him alone as Father and King—by walking before him in faithfulness with all their heart.

But Adam, Israel, David, and his sons all rejected God’s call to worship. They chose to worship created things instead of the Creator. In each case, they were led astray by women: Adam through Eve, Israel through marrying foreign women, Solomon through his many wives. The Old Testament develops in such a way that we are left hoping for a son of God who will be devoted to one woman whom he will lead in pure worship of the one God. And that expectation is met in Jesus Christ—the last Adam, the true Israel, David’s greater son.

Perfect Worship
At Jesus’s baptism the Father affirmed him as his beloved Son, with whom he was well pleased. But that affirmation had never truly been tested.

So the Spirit drove the Son into the wilderness. The ancient serpent, Satan himself, was allowed to test him to see what was in his heart—to see if he’d continue worshiping God as Father and King.

Where Adam, Israel, and David (and his sons) all failed, God’s final Son succeeded. Where the first Adam remained silent and bowed before the serpent, the last Adam rebuked the serpent and refused to bow: “You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve” (Matt. 4:10; cf. Deut. 6:13). Where Israel and David (and his sons) promised they’d worship God with heart and soul and mind and strength, but didn’t, Jesus as the true Israel and David’s greater son worshiped wholeheartedly: “Zeal for your house will consume me” (John 2:17; cf. Ps. 69:9). Jesus was no idolater; he was no hypocrite. God finally had a Son who worshiped him alone.

Now all the Son needed was a bride.

This is why God’s Son left heaven: to woo for himself a bride who would worship the Father. We see glimpses of this in Jesus’s ministry. At a well in Samaria, Jesus met a woman—one who hadn’t able to find the right kind of husband all her life—and called her to worship the Father in spirit and truth. But such a woman was not fit for such worship—she first needed to be cleansed, along with all who would become part of Jesus’s bride.

Jesus died to present the church to himself “in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, so that she might be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:25–26). He then rose and ascended and sat down at the right hand of the throne of the majesty on high. He became a minister of worship (Heb. 8:1–2), so that the worship of his bride might be acceptable to his Father.

Future Worship
Around the world today, God’s Spirit—through God’s people—is calling sinners to renounce idolatrous worship and join the bride of God’s Son. One day, the bride’s evangelism will cease, but her worship will not. In the new heavens and new earth, an innumerable multiethnic multitude will declare, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb” (Rev. 7:10).

On that day, the bride will be ready, the marriage will commence, and the processional hymn will begin:

Hallelujah! For the Lord our God the omnipotent reigns. (Rev. 19:6)

Is It Necessary to Preach Divine Wrath?

Posted on by
Reply

Article by Dr. Steve Lawson (original source here)

The Genevan Reformer John Calvin said, “Preaching is the public exposition of Scripture by the man sent from God, in which God Himself is present in judgment and in grace.” Faithful pulpit ministry requires the declaration of both judgment and grace. The Word of God is a sharp, two-edged sword that softens and hardens, comforts and afflicts, saves and damns.

The preaching of divine wrath serves as a black velvet backdrop that causes the diamond of God’s mercy to shine brighter than ten thousand suns. It is upon the dark canvas of divine wrath that the splendor of His saving grace most fully radiates. Preaching the wrath of God most brilliantly showcases His gracious mercy toward sinners.

Like trumpeters on the castle wall warning of coming disaster, preachers must proclaim the full counsel of God. Those who stand in pulpits must preach the whole body of truth in the Scriptures, which includes both sovereign wrath and supreme love. They cannot pick and choose what they want to preach. Addressing the wrath of God is never optional for a faithful preacher—it is a divine mandate.

Tragically, preaching that deals with God’s impending judgment is absent from many contemporary pulpits. Preachers have become apologetic regarding the wrath of God, if not altogether silent. In order to magnify the love of God, many argue, the preacher must downplay His wrath. But to omit God’s wrath is to obscure His amazing love. Strangely enough, it is merciless to withhold the declaration of divine vengeance.

Why is preaching divine wrath so necessary? First, the holy character of God demands it. An essential part of God’s moral perfection is His hatred of sin. A.W. Pink asserts, “The wrath of God is the holiness of God stirred into activity against sin.” God is “a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:29) who “feels indignation every day” (Ps. 7:11) toward the wicked. God has “hated wickedness” (45:7) and is angered toward all that is contrary to His perfect character. He will, therefore, “destroy” (5:6) sinners in the Day of Judgment.

Every preacher must declare the wrath of God or marginalize His holiness, love, and righteousness. Because God is holy, He is separated from all sin and utterly opposed to every sinner. Because God is love, He delights in purity and must, of necessity, hate all that is unholy. Because God is righteous, He must punish the sin that violates His holiness.

Second, the ministry of the prophets demands it. The prophets of old frequently proclaimed that their hearers, because of their continual wickedness, were storing up for themselves the wrath of God (Jer. 4:4). In the Old Testament, more than twenty words are used to describe the wrath of God, and these words are used in their various forms a total of 580 times. Time and again, the prophets spoke with vivid imagery to describe God’s wrath unleashed upon wickedness. The last of the prophets, John the Baptist, spoke of “the wrath to come” (Matt. 3:7). From Moses to the forerunner of Christ, there was a continual strain of warning to the impenitent of the divine fury that awaits.

Third, the preaching of Christ demands it. Ironically, Jesus had more to say about divine wrath than anyone else in the Bible. Our Lord spoke about God’s wrath more than He spoke of God’s love. Jesus warned about “fiery hell” (Matt. 5:22) and eternal “destruction” (7:13) where there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (8:12). Simply put, Jesus was a hellfire and damnation preacher. Men in pulpits would do well to follow the example of Christ in their preaching.

Fourth, the glory of the cross demands it. Christ suffered the wrath of God for all who would call upon Him. If there is no divine wrath, there is no need for the cross, much less for the salvation of lost souls. From what would sinners need to be saved? It is only when we recognize the reality of God’s wrath against those deserving of judgment that we find the cross to be such glorious news. Too many pulpiteers today boast in having a cross-centered ministry but rarely, if ever, preach divine wrath. This is a violation of the cross itself.

Fifth, the teaching of the Apostles demands it. Those directly commissioned by Christ were mandated to proclaim all that He commanded (Matt. 28:20). This necessitates proclaiming God’s righteous indignation toward sinners. The Apostle Paul warns unbelievers of the “God who inflicts wrath” (Rom. 3:5) and declares that only Jesus can “deliver us from the wrath to come” (1 Thess. 1:10). Peter writes about “the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly” (2 Pet. 3:7). Jude addresses the “punishment of eternal fire” (Jude 7). John describes “the wrath of the Lamb” (Rev. 6:16). Clearly, the New Testament writers recognized the necessity of preaching God’s wrath.

Preachers must not shrink away from proclaiming the righteous anger of God toward hell-deserving sinners. God has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness (Acts 17:31). That day is looming on the horizon. Like the prophets and Apostles, and even Christ Himself, we too must warn unbelievers of this coming dreadful day and compel them to flee to Christ, who alone is mighty to save.

The Doctrines of Grace Series

Posted on by
Reply

Here is the now completed series of B.R.I.D.G.E. Ministries podcasts covering the doctrines of grace (the so called TULIP acrostic):

1. The Sovereignty of God – Dr. John Frame: (at this link)

2. Total Depravity – Pastor Jeff Durbin, Apologia Church, Tempe, AZ: (at this link)

3. Unconditional Election – Pastor John Samson, King’s Church, Peoria, AZ: (at this link)

4. Limited Atonement – Dr. James White, Alpha & Omega Ministries:
(at this link)

5. Irresistible Grace – Dr. Tim Trumper, former professor at Westminster Theological Seminary and the founder of From His Fullness Ministries (at this link)

6. Perseverance of the Saints – Dr. Joel Beeke, President of Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary and founder and editor of Reformation Heritage Books (at this link)

Sanctification: Monergistic or Synergistic?

Posted on by
Reply

Article by John Hendryx (original source here)

“so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.” – 1 Cor 1:29-31

“Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”
– ‭‭Philippians‬ ‭2:12-13‬ ‭

There is no doubt that the Bible teaches that God works in us, and we work. (Phil 2:13). And it is certainly true that good works may be described as a cooperation of sorts, but (and here is the kicker) good works are not the same thing as sanctification.

Sanctification is something God does TO you, and IN you. He is conforming you to the image of Jesus. Good works are something WE do, but they are only the result of God’s work — part of the outworking of the sanctification of the Spirit. You do not sanctify yourself (even partly): That is the work of the Spirit and His work alone. Our working and obeying is not an effectual cause of our sanctification. We don’t make ourselves Holy. If sanctification were synergistic we would literally be contributing a portion of the grace and power which sanctifies us. This would mean we would (at least partly) sanctify ourselves, while the Holy Spirit does the rest.

Consider another work of the Spirit: regeneration, Reformed theologians all agree with the Bible that when the Spirit regenerates a sinner, the fruit of His regenerating work is faith in Christ (John 6:63, 65). The sinner does not cooperate in order to be regenerated. The work is monergistic which means he is utterly passive in regeneration under the Holy Spirit through the preaching of God’s word. His faith (and his willingness to believe) exists in him only after the Spirit disarms his hostility and renews his heart. We do not consider faith to be cooperating with regeneration but the fruit of the Spirit’s regeneration.. Likewise, for sanctification, the Spirit sanctifies a sinner, and the fruit of sanctification is good works, but the sinner does NOT cooperate with God IN ORDER TO BE sanctified. Good works flow from our union with Christ, and His sanctifying work in us, but do not contribute to it in any way, since sanctification is part of our salvation – Christ’s work.

So sanctification is monergistic.

Don’t get me wrong, we cooperate in the Christian life as our regenerate, sanctified hearts yeld to God working in us. Indeed we are obligated to cooperate with God working in us and do good works. We take very seriously the divine commands to obey to do good. But the good works themselves aren’t to be confused with sanctification. Sanctification is a work that precludes all good works. We work FROM our sanctification. We don’t’ work FOR our sanctification. We are passive in sanctification, but active in good works.

The Westminster Confession says it like this:

Q. 35. What is sanctification?

A. Sanctification is the work of God’s free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness (Shorter Catechism).

Q. 75. What is sanctification?

A. Sanctification is a work of God’s grace, whereby they whom God hath, before the foundation of the world, chosen to be holy, are in time, through the powerful operation of his Spirit applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them, renewed in their whole man after the image of God; having the seeds of repentance unto life, and all other saving graces, put into their hearts, and those graces so stirred up, increased, and strengthened, as that they more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life (Larger Catechism).

…the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace. Westminster Confession of Faith 14.2

—–
NOTE: Now I know Dr. Sproul and others have taught that sanctification is synergistic. But it is pretty clear that what they mean by this is that the Christian life is not passive and we DO obey and work. We are not quietists. But a careful reading will reveal that he does not mean that we sanctify ourselves.

Related Resources:

Is Sanctification Monergistic or Synergistic? A Reformed Survey by Kevin DeYoung
Is Sanctification “Synergistic”? by William Evans
Is Sanctification Synergistic? by Jim Mclarty

But You Are Rich

Posted on by
Reply

Article by Julio Rodriguez (original source here)

Are you rich? I am not asking unbelievers but Christians. I ask because some Christians have either forgotten or adopted an unbiblical measure of what makes a person rich. This outcome is a consequence of a popular theology that has penetrated the Western church known by two names: word of faith or prosperity gospel. The doctrine essentially teaches God’s will for Christians always holds financial blessing and physical well-being. There is a dire need to purge this heretical teaching and false gospel everywhere it is proclaimed. Not only does it lead Christians into idolatry and spiritual malnourishment but also makes God a liar. I aim to shoot down this heretical doctrine with one verse and testimony in hope to redeem or remind Christians “Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich!” (1 Cor. 4:8).

Revelation 2:9

Kenneth Copeland, an adherer to the word of faith movement, said: “You get spiritually rich, and you’ll get financially rich!” In other words, once you become a Christian (spiritually rich) you will obtain an abundance of wealth (financially rich). Nowhere is Copeland’s doctrine found explicitly or implicitly in sacred Scripture. On the contrary, there is an abundance of explicit and implicit verses that attest to Christians living in persecution and poverty. For example: In Revelation 2:9, Jesus tells the Church of Smyrna, “I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich)” Here we see Christians living (spiritually rich) all the while living in tribulation and poverty. From Genesis to Revelation, you will not find God saying, “You are poor and going through tribulation because you have not accepted Christ and believed in the promises of physical well-being and financial blessing.”

But It gets worse for Copeland: Not only does Jesus know that his chosen are in tribulation and poverty but he also tells them in the next verse “Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to cast some of you (Christians) into prison, so that you will be tested, and you will have tribulation for ten days. Be faithful until death,”(Revelation 2:10). As former word of faith preacher John Samson said, “This doctrine of the word of faith cannot stand up to biblical scrutiny and biblical context.”

For Christians who follow the teaching of the word of faith movement or prosperity gospel, how do you reconcile Revelation 2:9 consistently? You cannot! One must begin mental gymnastics and twist Scripture in order to fit the heretical teaching consistently. For those who are not yet convinced by Scripture, here is some historical context that magnifies the Church of Smyrna’s exhaustive tribulation and poverty. Continue reading →

The Freedom of the Regulative Principle

Posted on by
Reply

Article: The Freedom of the Regulative Principle by Kevin DeYoung (original source here)

Even though I grew up in a Reformed church, until seminary I was one of the multitude of Christians who had never heard of the regulative principle. It’s not been at the core of my identity. But over the years I’ve come to appreciate the regulative principle more and more.

Simply put, the regulative principle states that “the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself and so limited by his own revealed will” (WCF 21.1). In other words, corporate worship should be comprised of those elements we can show to be appropriate from the Bible. The regulative principles says, “Let’s worship God as he wants to be worshiped.” At its worst, this principle leads to constant friction and suspicion between believers. Christians beat each other up trying to discern exactly where the offering should go in the service or precisely which kinds of instruments have scriptural warrant. When we expect the New Testament to give a levitical lay out of the one liturgy that pleases God, we are asking the Bible a question it didn’t mean to answer. It is possible for the regulative principle to become a religion unto itself.

But the heart of the regulative principle is not about restriction. It is about freedom.

1. Freedom from cultural captivity. When corporate worship is largely left to our own designs we quickly find ourselves scrambling to keep up with the latest trends. The most important qualities become creativity, relevance, and newness. But of course, over time (not much time these days), what was fresh grows stale. We have to retool in order to capture the next demographic. Or learn to be content with settling in as a Boomer church or Gen X church.

2. Freedom from constant battles over preferences. The regulative principles does not completely eliminate the role of opinion and preference. Even within a conservative Reformed framework, worship leaders may disagree about musical style, transitions, volume, tempo, and many other factors. Conflict over preferences will remain even with the regulative principle. But it should be mitigated. I remember years ago at a different church sitting in a worship planning session where people were really good at coming up with new ideas for the worship service. Too good in fact. We opened one service with the theme song from Cheers. Another service on Labor Day had people come up in their work outfits and talk about what they do. Everyone had an idea that seemed meaningful to them. The regulative principle wouldn’t have solved all our problems, but it would have been a nice strainer to catch some well-intentioned, but goofy ideas.

3. Freedom of conscience. Coming out of the Catholic church with its host of extra biblical rituals, newly established Protestant churches had to figure out how to worship in their own way. Some were comfortable keeping many of the elements of the Catholic Mass. Others associated those elements with a false religious system. They didn’t want to go back to the mess of rites they left behind, even if by themselves some rites didn’t seem all that harmful.

This was the dynamic that made the regulative principle so important. Reformed Christians said in effect, “We don’t want to ask our church members to do anything that would violate their consciences.” Maybe bowing here or a kiss there could be justified by some in their hearts, but what about those who found it idolatrous? Should they be asked to do something as an act of worship that Scripture never commands and their consciences won’t allow? This doesn’t mean Christians will like every song or appreciate every musical choice. But at least with the regulative principle we can come to worship knowing that nothing will be asked of us except that which can be shown to be true according to the Word of God.

4. Freedom to be cross cultural. It’s unfortunate most people probably think worship according to the regulative principle is the hardest to transport to other cultures. And this may be true if the regulative principle is mistakenly seen to dictate style as well as substance. But at its best, the regulative principle means we have simple services with singing, praying, reading, preaching, and sacraments–the kinds of services whose basic outline can “work” anywhere in the world.

5. Freedom to focus on the center. Usually when talking about corporate worship I don’t even bring up the regulative principle. It is unknown to many and scary to others. So I try to get at the same big idea from a different angle. I’ll say something like this: “What do we know they did in their Christian worship services in the Bible? We know they sang the Bible. We know that preached the Bible. We know they prayed the Bible. We know they read the Bible. We know they saw the Bible in the sacraments. We don’t see dramas or pet blessings or liturgical dance numbers. So why wouldn’t we want to focus on everything we know they did in their services? Why try to improve on the elements we know were pleasing to God and practiced in the early church?” In other words, the regulative principle gives us the freedom to unapologetically to go back to basics. And stay there.