Is There a Regulative Principle of Worship

The National Center for Family Integrated Churches welcomes Sam Waldron with the following message entitled, Is There a Regulative Principle of Worship? Thank you, Scott. It's a delight to be here, and a delight to speak on this subject. And it is one that I care deeply about, and I think you should care deeply about and should know about. Your programs give the subject of this breakout session as, is there a regulative principle of worship?

And I think that name, that title needs a little bit of explanation so I'm going to give it to you. The redefiners and rejectors of the Regulative Principle of Worship in our day have rightly sensed that it requires a different standard of conduct for worship than for the rest of life. Mark Driscoll has a good time making fun of the so-called red light view of the church's worship, that is to say the regulative principle, and the so-called green light view of the rest of life. Here's what he says, what I don't understand is why we treat one hour a week by a certain set of rules and the other 167 hours of the week by a different set of rules. When you were scattered for Mars Hills Church, you lived by the Green Light Normative Principle.

You don't wake up in the morning acting like a Regulativist. You don't wake up in the morning and say, okay, I need to brush my teeth. Where is that in the Bible? It's not in there. Golly, I was hoping I could brush my teeth, but I can't.

Well, I guess I'll have breakfast. Well, the Bible doesn't say breakfast. It says to eat, but it doesn't say when. Is it okay to eat in the morning? I better pray about this, okay?

I gotta put pants. Uh-oh, pants aren't in the Bible. Oh no, this is going to be a bad day. Why is it that we live by normative green light principle until we get to church, then we have to live by the regulative red light principle just for an hour a week as if there's not a blur in between the lines. We also have other church gatherings, meetings, Wednesday night classes, community groups, do they count red light, green light?

The whole thing gets very confusing. I think we live our whole life by the same principles whether we're scattered or gathered for worship. It's green light. We're free until we see something that is sinful and forbidden, then it's red light and we stop. So Mark Driscoll.

Similarly, though claiming to defend the regulative principle, John Frame denies that the Regulative Principle assumes a difference between worship and the rest of life. He says, I therefore reject the limitation of the Regulative Principle to official worship services. In my view, the Regulative Principle in Scripture is not about church power and officially sanctioned worship services. It is a doctrine about worship, about all forms of worship, and governs all worship, whether formal or informal, individual or corporate, public or private, family or church, broad or narrow. Limiting the doctrine to officially sanctioned worship robs it of its biblical force.

Now I have quoted Driscoll and Frame so that you might have some context for the name of this breakout session. It is entitled, Is there a regulative principle? What that question intends may be summarized in another question. Does God govern the church and its worship differently than the rest of life? Historically the regulative principle of the Reformed and the Puritans was developed in contrast to the normative principle of the Lutherans and Anglicans.

But if Frame and Driscoll are right, there is no such contrast. Frame's denial of such a contrast is then out of sync with the Reformed tradition and understanding of the Regulative Principle and of course so is Driscoll's. The great Reformed confessions define the Regulative Principle as follows. The acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself and so limited by his own revealed will that he may not be worshiped according to the imagination and devices of men nor the suggestions of Satan under any visible representations or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures. The mere reading of this definition suggests a different idea than that of frame and driscoll.

It suggests that we have a rule for worship different from the rule for the rest of human life. And the standard expositions of this principle confirm this difference. G.I. Williamson helpfully summarizes it by saying, what is commanded is right and what is not commanded is wrong. James Banaman in his The Church of Christ provides this helpful contrast between the Puritan doctrine on this matter contained in the Confession of Faith and the Anglican doctrine.

He says, in the case of the Church of England, its doctrine in regard to church power in the worship of God is that it has a right to decree everything except what is forbidden in the Word of God. In the case of our own church, its doctrine in reference to church power in the worship of God is that it has the right to decree nothing except what expressly or by implication is enjoined by the Word of God. Now if Williamson and Bannerman are right, then we have a patent difference between worship and the rest of life. It is not true of the rest of life that what is commanded is right and what is not commanded is wrong. Driscoll's right about that.

We do live by the green light principle in the rest of human life, but not in the worship of God. We do not say of either family or of the state or even of our personal lives outside of the corporate worship of the church that we have a right to decree nothing except what expressly or by implication is enjoined by the Word of God. But we do say this of the church and its worship. Now assuming all this, the question I want to answer in this hour is simply this. And I think it's the most pressing question about this whole matter of is there a regulative principle?

There is a different regulative principle according to the Reformed tradition for the church and its worship, but the great question is Why? Why? Why is there a difference between the regulative principle of worship and the way God regulates the rest of life? As I have shown to many today, this distinction is counter-intuitive and in fact downright wrong. My purpose in this session is to show you that there's a very good reason for this distinction between worship and the rest of life.

It is the, and the answer to those who think that the regulative principle is counterintuitive is contained in at least two clear New Testament texts to which I want to turn you during this hour. The first is Matthew 1820. Matthew 1820, if you would please turn there. Here I want to show you God's special presence in the church in Matthew 18, 20. Follow as I read beginning at verse 15.

If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private. If He listens to you, you have won your brother. But if He does not listen to you, take one or two more with you so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. If He refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by my Father who is in heaven, for where two or three have gathered together in my name, I am there in their midst. I want you to consider this promise in Matthew 18, 20 under two headings as we look at it. First of all, I want you to look at the character of this promise, and then we'll look at the consequences of this promise. First of all, the character of this promise.

Now, to many, this promise seems to be nothing more than a general promise of God's presence to any informal gathering of Christians to pray. I'm certain that God is present wherever Christians gather to pray informally, But nothing could be further from the truth in terms of what this text actually says and means. The promise of verse 20 comes attached to a very plain condition or limitation For where two or three have gathered together in my name, I am there in the midst of them. These words limit this promise to the formal public gathering of the people of God, and I want to set out four grounds for this assertion, which may be, perhaps, a little surprising to you. I want you to notice the context, connection, condition, and correspondence of this promise.

The first thing I want you to think about, if you've never thought about it before, is the context of verse 20. This passage and the context of the promise in verse 20 is plainly about the local church. Verse 17 is just said, if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." And it is in that context that the promise of verse 20 is given. It is this significant context, I think, that must control our interpretation of this promise.

Notice secondly the connection of verse 20. Notice that verse 19 begins with the words, again I say to you. This word again bears the meaning here of furthermore. It clearly connects the preceding context to the interpretation of this promise. Alfred Plummer in his commentary on this verse says, by his again, Matthew couples the second, I say unto you, and one in verse 19, with the former one, the one in verse 18.

The connection is that God is sure to ratify the decision of the congregation. And what Plumber says is confirmed by a web of parallels between verses 19 and 20 and verses 15 to 18. Lenski points out one of them where he says that the two or three of verse 20 echoes the two or three of verse 16. He remarks, since he is thus in the assembly of the church or present when two or three are convicting a brother of sin it is he himself who acts with his church and its members when they carry out his word by invoking his presence and help. And then verse 19 repeats the reference of verse 18, you notice, to the heaven and earth mentioned in verse 18, which speaks of the discipline of the church on earth being confirmed in heaven.

William Hendrickson remarks, note, anything that they may ask relates especially to prayer for wisdom in dealing with matters of discipline. The promise of the special presence of Christ is given pursuant to the promise of verse 18 that church discipline finds a heavenly or divine confirmation. And then there are also conceptual connections between verses 19 and 20 and verses 15 to 18. A church or Christian synagogue is, according to the Hebrew word, a kahal. Kahal is the Hebrew word for assembly.

God's kahal is an assembly that gathers around Himself as Israel gathered around Mount Sinai in the Old Testament. That was the day of the assembly. Now the same Old Testament imagery of God's people gathering around Him is there in verse 20, don't you see, where two or three are gathered together in Christ's name. Well we've seen the context and the connection of verse 20, now consider the condition of verse 20. You notice that the promise is conditioned on these words where two or three are gathered together in my name.

Now Matthew 10 41 provides a helpful and interesting parallel use of this phrase. Matthew 10 41 reads, He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward. What does it mean to receive a prophet in the name of a prophet, or a righteous man in the name of a righteous man? Well to receive a prophet in the name of a prophet means to receive him in his official character as a prophet.

You're not receiving him because he's your friend. You're receiving him not because he's your buddy. You're receiving him because he's a prophet. That's what it means to receive a prophet in the name of a prophet, is to receive Him because He is a prophet. Similarly, in Matthew 18-20, it is not any gathering of men or even any gathering of Christians which forms the specified condition of this promise.

It is the gathering in Christ's name. This phrase has reference to the gathering of Christ's people in their official character as Christ people, as His church and as under his authority. It designates the gathering in view as one which is officially and formally and intentionally a gathering of Christ's people under his authority. One commentator has clearly seen the significance of this phrase when he says that gathering in Christ's name is a synonym for the new society. The ecclesia is a body of men gathered together by a common relation to the name of Christ, a Christian synagogue." Now let me illustrate the significance of this phrase.

A number of years ago, in fact for about six years early in my life after college, I worked in a large warehouse in the Grand Rapids, Michigan area with a number of other Christians. The warehouse was owned and operated by Amway Corporation. At lunch, we would eat together, and we often opened lunch with prayer and spent the whole time at lunch discussing biblical issues. And there were more than two or three of us. There were five or six of us.

That lunch gathering was, however, not a gathering in Christ's name in the meaning of the text here in Matthew 18-20. It was a gathering of Christians, true enough, but it was a gathering of Christians in the name of Amway and because of hunger, not in the name of Christ. We were gathered as Amway employees and not as Christ's official people. We could not by any biblical right claim the promise of Matthew 18.20. The specified limitation of this promise is the assembling of the local church officially in Christ's name because they are a church and in their character as a church.

That is the condition which must be met for the claiming of this promise. So we have seen context, connection, condition. Now notice finally, and I hope this bends the nail over for you, the correspondence of verse 20. The Bible is to be read in terms of itself, Scripture interpreting Scripture. The theological word for that in our day is this to be read canonically, it's to be read intertextually.

And in fact, there is a Pauline interpretation of Matthew 18-20. We don't have to guess at the proper interpretation of Matthew 18-20 and you don't have to take my word for it. Paul interprets Matthew 18-20. He said, where does he do that? In 1 Corinthians 5, 4.

Please keep your finger in Matthew 18-20 and turn to 1 Corinthians 5. And I'll simply read verses 3-5, but our attention will be focused on verse 4. For I on my part, though absent in body, but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this as though I were present. In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." Now the parallels between 1 Corinthians 5, 4 and Matthew 18, 20 are striking and interesting and unavoidable and numerous. What are they?

Both of these passages, you notice, are dealing with the subject of church discipline, right? Both call for this discipline to be enacted by a formal gathering of the church. Both use the exact same word in the Greek, sunago, to describe this gathering. 1 Corinthians 5, 4 uses it when it talks about being gathered together. And Matthew 18, 20 uses it when it says, talks about being gathered in Christ's name.

Both describe this gathering as taking place in the name of the Lord Jesus. Did you see that? In the name of our Lord Jesus when you're gathered together. This is a gathering in Christ's name. And both speak of the authority of this gathering to exercise church discipline as consisting in the special presence, what 1 Corinthians 5, 4 calls the power of our Lord Jesus Christ.

If Christ's power is especially present, then of course He Himself is especially present. So at least these five illusions and connections between 1 Corinthians 5, 4 and Matthew 18, 20. What we have here then is a Pauline interpretation of Matthew 18, 20. And the way Paul takes Matthew 18-20 is as a reference to the formal gathering of the church in the context of church discipline. Here is my simple point.

The Apostle Paul supports the interpretation of Matthew 18 which I have offered here. Boy, it's nice to be able to say that. John Owen in his brief introduction to the worship of God, It's also nice to be able to wrap yourself in the authority of John Owen. John Owen in his brief instruction on the worship of God reads Matthew 18, 20 exactly as I have here interpreted it. He says, quote, so the Lord Jesus Christ hath promised his presence to the same ends and purposes unto all them that assemble together in his name for the observation of the worship which in the Gospel he has appointed." Matthew 18.20.

End of quote. That is the character of the promise of Matthew 18.20. Now I want you to think with me for a moment about the consequences of this promise, or the so what of this promise. If God in Jesus Christ is especially present in the assemblies of His church in a way that He is not elsewhere, this has tremendous consequences and consequences for things that I have not even time to refer to or allude to this morning. But among those tremendous consequences of the fact that the special presence of Christ is promised to His assembled church is the regulative principle of the church.

You see, biblically it makes sense to say that if God is especially present some place, a special conduct is required in that place. This idea goes back to Jacob who said after he slept and saw the ladder leading between himself to heaven, he woke up in the morning and said, surely God was in this place and I knew it not. And he promised to build a temple there for God. When God appeared to Moses in the burning bush, what did God say to Moses? Exodus 3, five.

Then he said, do not come near here. Remove your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground. When the captain of the Lord's host, in a similar way, appeared to Joshua, What did the captain say to Joshua? Joshua 5.15, the captain of the Lord's host said to Joshua, remove your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy. Now, I'm not here to talk about taking off your shoes when you come to church.

My point is this. It was perfectly alright to wear sandals every place. So why wasn't it alright to wear their sandals by the burning bush or in the presence of the captain or the host of the Lord? Why? Because God was there.

And it was the presence of God that changed everything. Don't you see it? And this is the point that I'm making from Matthew 18-20. Even so, where the church gathers is holy ground, and we must take the unholy sandals of our creativity and our innovations off our feet when we come to the place where the church gathers. We must leave behind there the sandals of our human inventions and our human pragmatism and our human traditions and our human reasonings and worship God in the way that He has appointed.

This is the first reason why God makes a difference between the assemblies of His people and the way He regulates the rest of human life. Yes, Mark Driscoll, there is a difference, and this is the difference. God is in the assembly of His people in a way that He's not there in the rest of human life. But all of that brings me to my second text. Please turn in your Bibles to 1 Timothy 3.15.

First Timothy 3.15. We'll read here verses 14 and 15. Here I want you to consider God's special identification of the church, God's special identification of the church in 1 Timothy 3.15. These are the… this is the thematic center of 1 Timothy. Everything flows to it and out of it in the outline and in the subject matter of 1 Timothy.

And we read here Paul's purpose in writing to Timothy in this letter. "'I am writing these things to you, "'hoping to come to you before long, "'but in case I am delayed, "'I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth." Now I want you to consider this text under three headings. The first is this, forceful descriptions, forceful descriptions. The unique identity of the church is emphasized in this text by three forceful descriptions. You see them there?

The first is the phrase, the house or household of God. Now in the abstract this phrase might mean either the temple of God or the family of God. The term house is used both ways in the Scriptures and by the Apostle Paul. Either description underscores the unique identity of the church as the house or the household of God. But I'm convinced in a way that I wasn't in previous years that it's possible to choose between these two closely related meanings for the term house here.

I had one of those duh moments recently in which you say to yourself, why didn't I think of that before? Well I hadn't. What I realized is that though the term house can mean either temple or family in the Scriptures can mean either temple or household, the phrase house of God actually in almost every or perhaps every occurrence of the phrase house of God refers to God's temple. Its meaning is specified in text like Hebrews 10.21. And since we have a great priest over the house of God, Clearly the house of God there is what you have a priest over.

It's a temple. First Peter 2.5, you also as living stones are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. A spiritual house, clearly a temple. The church then has for its holy, its unique, its glorious identity that it is the house or the temple of God. It is not the house of a man.

It is not our house. It is God's house. But there is a second forceful description of the church here. It is the phrase, the church of the living God. Now much can be said about this phrase.

I can only say a few things in the time I have, but the word church here does not refer to saved people as a motley, disorganized, or informal group of individuals. A church or ekklesia, whether you appeal to its Greek background or to its Hebrew background, was a formal and organized assembly. The term church was used as a formally organized assembly of Israel in the Old Testament, the Greek Old Testament. It was also used of voting citizens of a democratic city-state and those first democracies in the history of the world. When they formally assembled together to conduct city business and devote, they were called then ekklesia, say the ekklesia of Athens and Sparta and so forth.

In both cases, both Israel and the Greek city states, the church was a definite organized assembly for which there were for instance qualifications of membership, over which definite officers were appointed, to which individuals could be added, and from which persons could be excluded. But it is the prepositional phrase that follows the word church that is of the most striking importance here. It is the church of the living God. This distinguishes the church of which Paul is speaking from those churches of the Greek city-states. The church of the living God, the church of which Paul is speaking is the church of the God who is alive." Now I think the understanding of this phrase must come out of the Old Testament, out of a passage like Psalm 115.

In verses 1 to 8 of Psalm 115 we read, not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to your name give glory because of your loving kindness, because of your truth. Why should the nations say, where now is their God? But our God is in the heavens. He does whatever He pleases. Their idols are silver and gold, the work of man's hands.

They have mouths, but they cannot speak. They have eyes, but they cannot see. They have ears but they cannot hear. They have noses but they cannot smell. They have hands but they cannot feel.

They have feet but they cannot walk. They cannot make a sound with their throat. Those who make them will become like them." What's that? Dead. Those who make them will become like them, everyone who trusts in them.

You see, if the church worshiped a dead idol, Or if the church gathered in the name of a mere mortal, men might dare to dominate or regulate its assemblies. Since however the church is the church of the living God, He demands, this God does, that His presence should be acknowledged as the central and dominant thing about its gatherings. This God is alive. He's not a dead idol. He has a mouth and he can speak.

He demands that his word be proclaimed and heard in the gatherings of his church. He has ears and thus he demands that all that is said be said in the church with the thought that God is listening. He demands as well that his people praise and pray in spirit and truth, remembering that his ears accept the praise and answer the prayers. The living God has a nose to smell the sweet incense of true appointed worship and also to sense the foul odor of levity, profanity, formalism and human invention in his worship. And this God has hands and feet which move with power and life.

He demands therefore that the gatherings of his people be characterized by both holy fear and confident trust in His power and grace. The church is the church of the living God. And then the church is also described here as the pillar and ground of the truth, the pillar and support of the truth perhaps. What do these words mean? Well the first words, word stulos, refers to the kind of pillar used to make the architecture to support the roof.

The second word, hederaoma, refers to the foundation of an entire building. And thus, William Hendrickson says, as the pillar supports, even better, note the climax, as the foundation supports the entire superstructure, so the church supports the glorious truth of the gospel. The residence of our president is the White House. It illustrates both these words. It has pillars supporting that great porch roof and the foundation which supports the entire house.

What's the point? Well the church is this with regard to the truth. The point of our text, it is the function of the church. It is the function of the church to support the truth in the world. In other words, the church is to teach, exemplify, defend, preserve and bear witness to the truth of the Word of God in the world.

Many, many texts, we don't have time to turn to them. The special and distinctive task and role of the church is that it is the institution charged with holding up and propagating the truth of God to the world. But then, having seen these three forceful descriptions, this glorious description and specification of what the church is, it's the house of God, the church of the living God, the pillar in support of the truth, there are some pressing questions, pressing questions. The first one is this, is the church here described the universal or the local church? Is Paul talking about the local church or is he talking about the universal church?

Bible scholars distinguish the use of the word church in the Bible into those two categories. And they're different. And so what's the answer? Is that the universal church, Matthew 16? Is it the local church, Matthew 18?

What's the answer to that question? Local or universal? Here's the answer. Yes. Yes, Paul is talking about the local church.

Yes, he's talking about the universal church. In other words, he's talking about both. Well, how can that be? Well, why do I say that it must be this? Well, on the one hand when Paul speaks to the church of the living God, the house of God, and the pillar and support of the truth.

He cannot be thinking merely of the church at Ephesus, can he? He must be talking about the whole worldwide church of God. On the other hand, Paul says that he's writing to Timothy that he might not have to conduct himself and how he ought to conduct the church. Clearly, Timothy was not conducting a minister in the universal church as a whole right then, but in the local church at Ephesus. So Paul was writing to tell him how he ought to behave as a minister in the church.

We need to remember that. Local churches are not just a nice idea that human beings have come up with. They're not human clubs. They're an institution of Christ himself. They're a local expression and embodiment of Christ's universal church.

Thus local churches are to be locally what Christ's church is universally, the house of God, the church of the living God, and the pillar in support of the truth. Did you know that the land upon which our country's embassies and other nations are built is literally the sovereign territory of the United States? It is. Our embassy in South Africa, Zambia, or Brazil is literally a little piece of the United States, and that is what you and every local church is, a little piece or local expression of the church of the living God. If You really grasp that, it'll change your whole idea about your church.

It is a local expression, an embodiment of Christ's universal church. Thus local churches are to be locally what Christ's church is universally, a little piece or a local expression of the church of the living God. Thus if the regulative principle applies to the whole universal church, it certainly applies to every local expression of that church. It applies to every local church. Now, here's the second question because it's been implied in a lot that Paul has been saying.

When he calls the church the church of the living God, he obviously has a contrast in his mind, doesn't he? When I say that the church is the house of God, and when Paul says that you may well wonder as opposed to what? What is not the house of God? Well, the contrast in Paul's mind is not between the church as the house of God and the kingdom of Satan. Of course Satan's kingdom is not the house of God.

But that is not I think the contrast in Paul's mind. We have a clue in the context to the contrast in Paul's mind. Look at 1 Timothy 3.5, but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, same word used by the way in 1 Timothy 3.15, how will he take care of the church of God? Here's a contrast between a man's own house and the church of God. Paul is saying that the church is God's house in a sense in which our families are not.

He is saying also that the church is God's house in a sense then that even other divine institutions are not. The family is a divine institution, a great one, an important one. And the state is a divine institution. But they are not either of them, the house of God, the church of the living God, or the pillar and ground of the truth. That is the unique position of the church as opposed to the whole rest of human life.

But having seen forceful descriptions and answered pressing questions, I come to practical conclusions. Now what is the reason here in 1 Timothy 3.15 for this tremendous emphasis on the unique identity of the church in this verse? Well Paul's stated concern in this verse provides the clear answer. He writes to Timothy why. What does the text say?

That Timothy might know how to conduct himself in the church of the living God. How one ought to conduct himself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. Now what is Paul's point then? It is that because of the unique identity of the church, there is a special conduct required of Timothy in the church. And this is just exactly our point, isn't it?

The unique identity of the church requires a unique regulation of Timothy's conduct in it and of his ordering of it. The identity of the church determines its duty. Duty is governed by identity. That's true for you individually and that's true for the church. It is because the church has for its identity the house of God that it has for its duty outlined in the special regulations that Paul gives Timothy here and the Bible gives us elsewhere in the Scripture for the church and its corporate worship.

Well, I've come to the end. I hope you see the answer to Mark Driscoll's dilemma now. Yes, there is a difference. There's a reason why we have a red light rule in the church and a green light rule in the rest of human life. It is because the church is holy ground.

The church is the place of Christ's awesome and gracious special presence. The church is the house of God in a sense that the rest of human life is not. In the language of the Nicene Creed, The church is a holy church. It has a relation to God that nothing else in this world has. The church then is not the plaything of the elders.

It is not the plaything of the pastor. It is not there, for that matter, the plaything of the congregation as a whole. The church is God's house. The church is holy ground. Within it we must take the sandals of our traditions and our pragmatism and our creative impulses off from our feet.

The first and dominant consideration must always be for us, Does this wonderful idea that we've just conceived about how our church should worship God or what we should believe or how we should run our church or what ministries our church should engage in, the first and dominant concern must be this, is it prescribed in Scripture? Is it and does it have a clear warrant in the Word of God? Because you see the church is not my house. It's not your house. It's God's house.

What would you ladies think if you invited a family to dinner next week And your husband was late getting home from work, and so you made them comfortable in the living room, and you had to go finish dinner in the kitchen. And when you came back into the living room, this family had taken upon themselves to completely rearrange your furniture, and they'd also, by the way, begun a paint job on one wall because they thought that'd be a nicer color. What would you think of them? You would think that they were impertinent and rude and they may never get invited back to your house. Well What do you think God thinks of that?

I say it again, it's not my house, it's not your house, it's God's house, and that changes everything. Amen. Let's pray. Father, we thank You for the opportunity to open up the Scriptures, to study them carefully, and to draw from them the plain teaching of Your Word. We thank You in Jesus' name.

We ask Your blessing to pursue your Holy Spirit to teach in Jesus' name, amen. On the subject of conforming the church and the family to the word of God. And for more information about the National Center for Family Integrated Churches, where you can search our online network to find family integrated churches in your area, log on to our website, ncfic.org. At C-F-I-C dot O-R-G.

It's a delight to be here, and I like to speak on this subject, and it is one that I care deeply about, and I think you should care deeply about and should know about. Your programs give the subject of this breakout session as, "Is There a Regulative Principle of Worship?" And I think that name, that title needs a little bit of explanation, so I'm going to give it to you. The redefiners and rejecters of the regulative principle of worship in our day have rightly sensed that it requires a different standard of conduct for worship than for the rest of life. Mark Driscoll has a good time making fun of the so-called "red-light view" of the church's worship, that is to say, the regulative principle, and the so-called "green-light view" of the rest of life. Here's what he says:

"What I don't understand is why we treat 1 hour a week by a certain set of rules and the other 167 hours of the week by a different set of rules. When you were scattered for Mars Hill Church, you lived by the green-light normative principle. You don't wake up in the morning acting like a regulatavist. You don't wake up in the morning and say, 'Okay. I need to brush my teeth. Where is that in the Bible? It's not in there. Golly, I was hoping I could brush my teeth, but I can't. Well, I guess I'll have breakfast. Well, the Bible doesn't say breakfast. It says to eat, but it doesn't say when. Is it okay to eat in the morning? I better pray about this. Okay. I gotta put pants. Uh-oh, pants aren't in the Bible. Oh no. This is going to be a bad day.'

"Why is it that we live by normative green-light principle until we get to church, then we have to live by the regulative red-light principle just for an hour a week as if there's not a blur in between the lines? We also have other church gatherings, meetings, Wednesday night classes, community groups. Do they count red light, green light? The whole thing gets very confusing. I think we live our whole life by the same principles, whether we're scattered or gathered for worship, it's green light. We're free until we see something that is sinful and forbidden, then it's red light. We stop." So Mark Driscoll.

Similarly, though claiming to defend the regulative principle, John Frame denies that the regulative principle assumes a difference between worship and the rest of life. He says, "I, therefore, reject the limitation of the regulative principle to official worship services. In my view, the regulative principle in Scripture is not about church power and officially sanctioned worship services. It is a doctrine about worship, about all forms of worship. It governs all worship, whether formal or informal, individual or corporate, public or private, family or church, broad or narrow. Limiting the doctrine to officially sanctioned worship robs it of its biblical force."

Now I have quoted Driscoll and Frame so that you might have some context for the name of this breakout session. It is entitled, "Is There a Regulative Principle?" What that question intends may be summarized in another question: Does God govern the church and its worship differently than the rest of life? Historically, the regulative principle of the Reformed and the Puritans was developed in contrast to the normative principle of the Lutherans and Anglicans. But if Frame and Driscoll are right, there is no such contrast. Frame's denial of such a contrast is then out of sync with the Reformed tradition and understanding of the regulative principle, and of course, so is Driscoll's. The great Reformed confessions define the regulative principle as follows:.

"The acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scriptures."

The mere reading of this definition suggests a different idea than that of Frame and Driscoll. It suggests that we have a rule for worship different from the rule for the rest of human life, and the standard expositions of this principle confirm this difference. J.I. Williamson helpfully summarizes it by saying, "What is commanded is right, and what is not commanded is wrong." James Bannerman, in his "The Church of Christ," provides this helpful contrast between the Puritan doctrine on this matter contained in the confession of faith and the Anglican doctrine. He says:

"In the case of the Church of England, its doctrine in regard to church power in the worship of God is that it has a right to decree everything except what is forbidden in the Word of God. In the case of our own church, its doctrine and reference the church power in the worship of God is that it has the right to decree nothing except what expressly or by implication is enjoined by the Word of God."

Now if Williamson and Bannerman are right, then we have a patent difference between worship and the rest of life. It is not true of the rest of life that what is commanded is right and what is not commanded is wrong. Driscoll's right about that; we do live by the green-light principle in the rest of human life, but not in the worship of God. We do not say of either family or of the state or even of our personal lives outside of the corporate worship of the church that we have a "right to decree nothing except what expressly or by implication is enjoined by the Word of God." But we do say this of the church and its worship.

Now assuming all this, the question I want to answer in this hour is simply this, and I think it's the most pressing question about this whole matter of is there a regular principle. There is a different regulative principle according to the Reformed tradition for the church and its worship, but the great question is: why? Why, why is there a difference between the regulative principle of worship and the way God regulates the rest of life? As I have shown to many today, this distinction is counter-intuitive and in fact downright wrong. My purpose in this session is to show you that there is a very good reason for this distinction between worship and the rest of life.

And the answer to those who think that the regulative principle is counter-intuitive is contained in at least two clear New Testament texts to which you want to turn you during this hour. The first is Matthew 18:20. Matthew 18:20. If you would please turn there, here I want to show you God's special presence in the church in Matthew 18:20. God's special presence in the church in Matthew 18:20. Follow as I read, beginning at verse 15:

"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that 'by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst."

I want you to consider this promise in Matthew 18:20 under two headings as we look at it. First of all, I want you to look at the character of this promise, and then we'll look at the consequences of this promise.

First of all, the character of this promise. Now to many, this promise seems to be nothing more than a general promise of God's presence to any informal gathering of Christians to pray. I'm certain that God is present wherever Christians gather to pray informally. But nothing could be further from the truth in terms of what this text actually says and means. The promise of Verse 20 comes attached to a very plain condition or limitation: "For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them." These words limit this promise to the formal public gathering of the people of God, and I want to set out four grounds for this assertion, which may be, perhaps, a little surprising to you. I want you to notice the contacts, connection, condition, and correspondence of this promise.

The first thing I want you to think about if you've never thought about it before is the context of Verse 20. This passage and the context of the promise in Verse 20 is plainly about the local church. Verse 17 has just said, "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." And it is in that context that the promise of Verse 20 is given. It is this significant context, I think, that must control our interpretation of this promise.

Notice secondly, the connection of Verse 20. Notice that Verse 19 begins with the words, "Again I say to you." This word "again" bears the meaning here of "furthermore." It clearly connects the preceding context to the interpretation of this promise. Alfred Plummer, in his commentary on this verse, says, "By his 'again,' Matthew couples the second "I say unto you" (the one in Verse 19) with the former one (the one in Verse 18). The connection is that God is sure to ratify the decision of the congregation."

And what Plummer says is confirmed by a web of parallels between Verses 19 and 20 and Verses 15-18. Lenski points out one of them, where he says that the two or three of Verse 20 echoes the two or three of Verse 16. He remarks, "Since He is thus in the assembly of the church or present when two or three are convicting a brother of sin, it is He Himself who acts with His church and its members when they carry out His word by invoking His presence and help." And then Verse 19 repeats the reference of Verse 18, you notice, to the heaven and earth mentioned in Verse 18, which speaks of the discipline of the church on earth being confirmed in heaven. William Hendriksen remarks:

"Note, 'anything that they may ask' relates especially to pray for wisdom in dealing with matters of discipline. The promise of the special presence of Christ is given pursuant to the promise of Verse 18, that church discipline finds a heavenly or divine confirmation."

And then there are also conceptual connections between Verses 19 and 20 and Verses 15-18. A church or Christian synagogue is, according to the Hebrew word, a kahal. "Kahal" is the Hebrew word for "assembly." God's kahal is an assembly that gathers around Himself as Israel gathered around Mount Sinai in the Old Testament. That was the day of the assembly. Now the same Old Testament imagery of God's people gathering around Him is there in Verse 20, don't you see, where two or three are gathered together in Christ's name.

Well, we've seen the context and the connection of Verse 20, now consider the condition of Verse 20. You notice that the promise is conditioned on these words: "Where two or three are gathered together in My name." Now Matthew 10:41 provides a helpful and interesting parallel use of this phrase. Matthew 10:41 reads, "He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward, and he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward." What does it mean to receive a prophet in the name of a prophet or a righteous man in the name of a righteous man? Well to receive a prophet in the name of a prophet means to receive him in his official character as a prophet. You're not receiving him because he's your friend, you're receiving him not because he's your buddy, you're receiving him because he's a prophet. That's what it means to receive a prophet in the name of a prophet, is to receive him because he is a prophet. Similarly, in Matthew 18:20 it is not any gathering of men or even any gathering of Christians which forms the specified condition of this promise. It is the gathering in Christ's name.

This phrase has reference to the gathering of Christ's people in their official character as Christ's people, as His church, and as under His authority. It designates the gathering in view as one which is officially and formally and intentionally a gathering of Christ's people under His authority. One commentator has clearly seen the significance of this phrase when he says that "gathering in Christ's name is a synonym for the new society. The ecclesia is a body of men gathered together by a common relation to the name of Christ — a Christian synagogue."

Now let me illustrate the significance of this phrase. A number of years ago, in fact for about six years early in my life after college, I worked in a large warehouse in the Grand Rapids, Michigan area with a number of other Christians. The warehouse was owned and operated by Amway Corporation. At lunch, we would eat together. And we often opened lunch with prayer and spent the whole time at lunch discussing biblical issues. And there were more than two or three of us — there were five or six of us. That lunch gathering was, however, not a gathering in Christ's name in the meaning of the text here in Matthew 18:20. It was a gathering of Christians, true enough, but it was a gathering of Christians in the name of Amway and because of hunger, not in the name of Christ. We were gathered as Amway employees and not as Christ's official people. We could not by any biblical right claim the promise of Matthew 18:20. The specified limitation of this promise is the assembling of the local church officially in Christ's name because they are a church and in their character as a church. That is the condition which must be met for the claiming of this promise.

So we have seen the context, connection, condition; now notice finally, and I hope this bends the nail over for you, the correspondence of Verse 20. The Bible is to be read in terms of itself — Scripture interpreting Scripture. The theological word for that in our day as it is to be read canonically, it's to be read intertextually, and in fact, there is a Pauline interpretation of Matthew 18:20. We don't have to guess at the proper interpretation of Matthew 18:20, and you don't have to take my word for it. Paul interprets Matthew 18:20. So where does he do that? In 1 Corinthians 5:4. Please keep your finger in Matthew 18:20, and turn to 1 Corinthians 5. And I'll simply read Verses 3-5, but our attention will be focused on Verse 4:.

"For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this as though I were present. In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."

Now the parallels between 1 Corinthians 5:4 and Matthew 18:20 are striking and interesting and unavoidable and numerous. What are they? Both of these passages you notice are dealing with the subject of church discipline, right? Both call for this discipline to be enacted by a formal gathering of the church. Both use the exact same word in Greek, "synago," to describe this gathering. 1 Corinthians 5:4 uses it when it talks about being gathered together and Matthew 18:20 uses it when he talks about being gathered in Christ's name. Both describe this gathering as taking place in the name of the Lord Jesus, did you see that? "In the name of our Lord Jesus when you're gathered together." This is a gathering in Christ name. And both speak of the authority of this gathering to exercise church discipline as consisting in the special presence, what 1 Corinthians 5:4 calls the power of our Lord Jesus Christ. If Christ's power is especially present, then, of course, He Himself is especially present.

So there are at least these five allusions and connections between 1 Corinthians 5:4 and Matthew 18:20. What we have here then is a Pauline interpretation of Matthew 18:20, and the way Paul takes Matthew 18:20 is as a reference to the formal gathering of the church in the context of church discipline. Here is my simple point: the apostle Paul supports the interpretation of Matthew 18 which I have offered here. Boy, it's nice to be able to say that. John Owen, in his brief introduction to the worship of God (it's also nice to be able to wrap yourself in the authority of John Owen), John Owen in his brief instruction on the worship of God, reads Matthew 18:20 exactly as I have here interpreted it. He says, quote, "So the Lord Jesus Christ hath promised His presence to the same ends and purposes unto all them that assemble together in His name for the observation of the worship which in the gospel He has appointed Matthew 18 20. End of quote.

That is the character of the promise of Matthew 18:20. Now I want you to think with me for a moment about the consequences of this promise, or the "so what" of this promise. If God, in Jesus Christ, is especially present in the assemblies of His church in a way that He is not elsewhere, this has tremendous consequences, and consequences for things that I have not even time to refer to or allude to this morning. But among those tremendous consequences of the fact that the special presence of Christ is promised to His assembled church the regulative principle of the church.

You see, biblically, it makes sense to say, that if God is especially present someplace, a special conduct is required in that place. This idea goes back to Jacob, who said after he slept and saw the ladder leading between himself to heaven, he woke up in the morning, and said, "Surely God was in this place and I knew it not." And he promised to build a temple there for God. When God appeared to Moses in the burning bush, what did God say to Moses? Exodus 3:5: "Then He said do not come near here. Remove your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.".

When the captain of the Lord's host in a similar way appeared to Joshua, what did the captain say to Joshua? Joshua 5:15: "The captain of the Lord's host said to Joshua, 'Remove your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy.' " No, I'm not here to talk about taking off your shoes when you come to church. My point is this: it was perfectly all right to wear sandals every place, so why wasn't it all right to wear their sandals by the burning bush or in the presence of the captor the host of The Lord? Why? Because God was there, and it was the presence of God that changed everything. Don't you see it? And this is the point that I'm making from Matthew 18:20.

Even so, where the church gathers is holy ground, and we must take the unholy sandals of our creativity and our innovations off our feet when we come to the place where the church gathers. We must live behind there the sandals of our human inventions, and our human pragmatism, and our human traditions, and our human reasonings, and worship God in the way that He has appointed. This is the first reason why God makes a difference between the assemblies of His people and the way He regulates the rest of human life. Yes, Mark Driscoll, there is a difference, and this is the difference: God is in the assembly of His people in a way that He's not there in the rest of human life.

But all of that brings me to my second text. Please turn in your Bibles to 1 Timothy 3:15. 1 Timothy 3:15. We'll read here Verses 14 and 15. Here I want you to consider God's special identification of the church. God's special identification of the church in 1 Timothy 3:15. This is the thematic center of 1 Timothy. Everything flows to it and out of it in the outline and in the subject matter. 1 Timothy. And we read here Paul's purpose in writing to Timothy in this letter:

"I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long. But in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the house of God which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth."

Now I want you to consider this text under three headings. The first is this: forceful descriptions, forceful descriptions. The unique identity of the church is emphasized in this text by three forceful descriptions. You see them there? The first is the phrase "the house" or "household" of God. Now in the abstract, this phrase might mean either the temple of God or the family of God. The term "house" is used both ways in the Scriptures, and by the Apostle Paul. Here the description underscores the unique identity of the church as the house or the household of God.

But I am convinced, in a way that I wasn't in previous years, that it's possible to choose between these two closely-related meanings for the term "house" here. I had one of those "duh" moments recently, in which you say to yourself, "Why didn't I think of that before?" Well, I hadn't. What I realized is that though the term "house" can mean either temple or family in the Scriptures, can mean either temple or household, the phrase "house of God" actually in almost every, or perhaps every occurrence of the phrase "house of God," refers to God's temple. Its meeting is specified in texts like Hebrews 10:21: "And since we have a great Priest over the house of God.".

Clearly, the house of God there is what you have a priest over, it's a temple. 1 Peter 2:5: "You also as living stones are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." A spiritual house, clearly a temple. The church then has for its holy, its unique, its glorious identity that it is the House or the temple of God. It is not the house of a man. It is not our house — it is God's house.

But there is a second forceful description of the church. Here it is, the phrase, "the church of the living God." Not much can be said about this phrase; I can only say a few things in the time I have. But the word "church" here does not refer to saved people as a motley, disorganized, or informal group of individuals. A church, or ekklesia, whether you appeal to its Greek background or to its Hebrew background, was a formal and organized assembly. The term "church" was used of the formally organized assembly of Israel in the Old Testament, the Greek Old Testament. It was also used of voting citizens of a democratic city-state.

Those first democracies in the history of the world, when they formally assembled together to conduct city business and to vote, they were called an ekklesia. and say, "the ekklesia of Athens, and Sparta, and so forth." In both cases, both Israel and the Greek city-states, the church was a definite, organized assembly, for which there were, for instance, qualifications of membership, over which definite officers were appointed, to which individuals could be added, and from which persons could be excluded.

But it is the prepositional phrase that follows the word "church" that is of the most striking importance here. It is the church of the living God. This distinguishes the church of which Paul is speaking from those churches of the Greek city-states. The church of the living God, the church of which Paul is speaking, is the church of the God who is alive. Now, I think the understanding of this phrase must come out of the Old Testament, out of a passage like Psalm 115, in Verses 1-8 of Psalm 115 we read:

"Not to us, Lord, not to us, but to Your name give glory, because of Your lovingkindness, because of Your truth. Why should the nation say, 'Where now is there God?' But our God is in the heavens. He does whatever He pleases. Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but they cannot speak. They have eyes, but they cannot see. They have ears, but they cannot hear. They have noses, but they cannot smell. They have hands, but they cannot feel. They have feet, but they cannot walk. They cannot make a sound with their throat. Those who make them will become like them." What's that? Dead. "Those who make them will become like them, every one who trust in them.".

You see, if the church worshiped a dead idol, or if the church gathered in the name of a mere mortal, men might dare to dominate or regulate its assemblies. Since, however, the church is the church of the living God, He demands, this God does, that His presence should be acknowledged as the central and dominant thing about its gatherings.

This God is alive. He's not a dead idol. He has a mouth, and He can speak. He demands that His word be proclaimed and heard in the gatherings of his church. He has ears, and thus He demands that all that is said be said in the church with the thought that God is listening. He demands as well that his people praise and pray in spirit and truth, remembering that His ears accept the praise and answer the prayers. The living God has a nose to smell the sweet incense of true, appointed worship, and also to sense the foul odor of levity, profanity, formalism and human invention in His worship. And this God has hands and feet, which move with power and life. He demands therefore that the gatherings of His people be characterized by both holy fear and confident trust in His power and grace. The church is the church of the living God.

And then, the church is also described here as the pillar and ground of the truth, the pillar and support of the truth, perhaps. What do these words mean? Well, the first word, a word "stylos," refers to the kind of pillar used to make in architecture to support the roof. The second word, "hedraioma," refers to the foundation of an entire building; and thus William Hendriksen says, "As the pillar supports, even better note the climax as the foundation supports the entire superstructure, so the church supports the glorious truth of the gospel." The residence of our president is the White House. It illustrates both these words. It has pillars supporting that great porch roof and the foundation which supports the entire house.

What's the point? Well, the church is this with regard to the truth. The point of our text is the function of the church. It is the function of the church to support the truth in the world. In other words, the church is to teach, exemplify, defend, preserve, and bear witness to the truth of the word of God in the world. Many, many texts — we don't have time to turn to them. The special and distinctive task and role of the church is that it is the institution charged with holding up and propagating the truth of God to the world.

But then, having seen these three forceful descriptions, this glorious description and specification of what the church is as the house of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth, there are some pressing questions, pressing questions. The first one is this: is the church here described the universal or the local church? Is Paul talking about the local church, or is he talking about the universal church? Bible scholars distinguish the use of the word "church" in the Bible into those two categories, and they're different. So what's the answer? Is it the universal church (Matthew 16)? Is it the local church (Matthew 18)? What's the answer to that question, local or universal? Here's the answer: Yes. Yes, Paul is talking about the local church, yes, he's talking about the universal church. In other words, he's talking about both. How can that be? Well, why do I say that it must be this?

Well, on the one hand, when Paul speaks of the church of the living God, the house of God, the pillar and support of the truth, he cannot be the thinking merely of the church at Ephesus, can he? He must be talking about the whole, worldwide church of God. On the other hand, Paul says that he is writing to Timothy, that he might know how he ought to conduct himself, and how he ought to conduct the church. Clearly, Timothy was not conducting a ministry in the universal church as a whole right then, but in the local church at Ephesus. So Paul was writing to tell him how he ought to behave as a minister in the church.

So Paul must be talking about the local church here, and he must be talking about the universal church here. Well, how in the world can he be talking about both? Isn't that contradictory? No, each local church is an expression of Christ's universal church. We need to remember that. Local churches are not just a nice idea that human beings have come up with. They're not human clubs. They're an institution of Christ Himself. They're a local expression and embodiment of Christ's universal church. Thus local churches are to be locally what Christ's church is universally — the house of God, the church of the living God, and the pillar and support of the truth.

Did you know that the land upon which our country's embassies in other nations are built is literally the sovereign territory of the United States? It is. Our embassy in South Africa, Zambia, or Brazil is literally a little piece of the United States. And that is what you and every local church is — a little piece or local expression of the church of the living God. If you really grasp that, it'll change your whole idea about your church.

It is a local expression, an embodiment of Christ's universal church. Thus local churches are to be locally what Christ's church is universally — a little peace or a local expression of the Church of the living God. Thus, if the regulative principle applies to the whole universal church, it certainly applies to every local expression of that church, it applies to every local church.

Now here's the second question, because it's been implied in a lot that Paul has been saying when he calls the church the church of the living God, he obviously has a contrast in his mind, doesn't he? When I say that the church is the house of God, and when Paul says that, you may well wonder, as opposed to what? What is not the house of God? Well, the contrast in Paul's mind is not between the church as the house of God and the kingdom of Satan. Of course, Satan's kingdom is not the house of God, but that is not, I think, the contrast in Paul's mind. We have a clue in the context of the contrast in Paul's mind. Look at 1 Timothy 3:5: "But if a man does not know how to manage his own household [same word used by the way in 1 Timothy 3:15] how will he take care of the Church of God?" Here's the contrast between a man's own house and the Church of God.

Paul is saying that the church is God's house in a sense in which our families are not. He is saying also, that the church is God's house in a sense then that even other divine institutions are not. The family is a divine institution, a great one, an important one, and the state is a divine institution; but they are not either of them, the house of God, the church of the living God, or the pillar and ground of the truth. That is the unique position of the church as opposed to the whole rest of human life.

But having seen forceful descriptions and answered pressing questions, I come to practical conclusions. Now, what is the reason here in 1 Timothy 3:15 for this tremendous emphasis on the unique identity of the church in this verse. Well, Paul's stated concern in this verse provides the clear answer. He writes to Timothy, why? What does the text say? That Timothy might know how to conduct himself in the church of the living God. How one ought to conduct himself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

Now, what is Paul's point then? It is that, because of the unique identity of the church, there is a special conduct required of Timothy in the church. And this is just exactly our point, isn't it? The unique identity of the church requires unique regulation of Timothy's conduct in it and of his ordering of it. The identity of the church determines its duty. Duty is governed by identity. That's true for you individually. And that's true for the church. It is because the church has, for its identity, the house of God, that it has for its duty outlined in the special regulations that Paul gives Timothy here and the Bible gives us elsewhere in the Scripture for the church and its corporate worship.

Well, I've come to the end. I hope you see the answer to Mark Driscoll's dilemma now. Yes, there is a difference. There's a reason why we have a red-light rule in the church and a green-light rule in the rest of human life. It is because the church is holy ground. The church is the place of Christ's awesome and gracious special presence. The church is the house of God in a sense that the rest of human life is not. In the language of the Nicean Creed, the church is a holy church. It has a relation to God that nothing else in this world has.

The church then is not the plaything of the elders. It is not the plaything of the pastor. It is not, for that matter, the plaything of the congregation as a whole. The church is God's house. The church is holy ground. Within it, we must take the sandals of our traditions, and our pragmatism, and our creative impulses off from our feet. The first and dominant consideration must always be for us: does this wonderful idea that we've just conceived about how our church should worship God, or what we should believe, or how we should run our church, or what ministries our church should engage in, the first and dominant concern must be this: is prescribed in Scripture? Is it, and does it have a clear warrant in the word of God? Because you see, the church is not my house. It's not your house. It's God's house.

What would you ladies think if you invited a family to dinner next week, and your husband is late getting home from work, and so you made them comfortable in the living room, and you had to go finish dinner in the kitchen, and when you came back into the living room, this family had taken it upon themselves to completely rearrange your furniture, and they'd also, by the way, begun a paint job on one wall, because they thought it'd be a nicer color. What would you think of them? You would think that they were impertinent and rude, and they may never get invited back to your house. Well, what do you think God thinks of us when we take it upon ourselves to arrange the furniture of His house, to ignore the things He said He wants in His house, and to do other things that He's never said a word about? What do you think God thinks of that? I say it again, it's not my house, it's not your house, it's God's house and that changes everything. Amen.

Let's pray. Father, we thank you for the opportunity to open up the Scriptures, to study them carefully, and to draw from them the plain teaching of our word. We thank you. In Jesus name, we ask your blessing, to pursue your Holy Spirit to teach. In Jesus name, Amen.