But what matters to me is that we can all agree that there are principled convictions we should all share. We can appreciate diversity while we also strive to remain faithful to what God’s Word says regarding how we should worship God. Four of the Ten Commandments directly relate to how we worship God, and yet we have no set of guidelines for how that should be done? This should not be. I speak in favor of a PCA Directory for Worship.

I have a radical proposal. I know that many will believe this goes against the precepts of “grassroots” Presbyterianism (a term I’ve never heard defined, but one that sure gets thrown around a lot when someone wants to checkmate their opponent in the PCA).[1] I know that “The Founders”[2] would disagree with me (depending on which ones you cite). I know that this proposal will lead to “the end of the denomination as we know it,”[3] yet I still believe it to be true. Here’s my radical proposal: the PCA should have a Directory for Worship.
There’s a saying that, over the centuries, has been proven true many times over: Lex orandi, lex credenda, “The law of prayer is the law of belief.” Or put in more colloquial language, “the way you worship will necessarily shape what you believe.” But I would argue that we could just as easily flip that saying around so that it’s lex credendi, lex orandi:[4] “What we believe informs how we should worship.” Our beliefs require that we order our worship in a certain way so that we are faithful in practice to what we confess to believe. The way the Presbyterian Church historically, and perhaps almost all confessional Presbyterian bodies, has seen fit to assure that worship is ordered rightly is to have a Directory for Worship.
The Westminster Standards and Worship

A church that believes “man’s chief and highest end is to glorify God and fully enjoy him forever,”[5] should have a Directory for Worship.
A church that believes, “Under the New Testament, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the same covenant of grace was and still is to be administered in the preaching of the word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper; in which grace and salvation are held forth in more fullness, evidence, and efficacy, to all nations,”[6] should have a Directory for Worship.
A church that believes, “The visible church hath the privilege of being under God’s special care and government; of being protected and preserved in all ages, notwithstanding the opposition of all enemies; and of enjoying the communion of saints, the ordinary means of salvation, and offers of grace by Christ to all the members of it in the ministry of the gospel, testifying, that whosoever believes in him shall be saved, and excluding none that will come unto him,”[7] should have a Directory for Worship.
A church that believes, “The sabbath or Lord’s day is to be sanctified by an holy resting all the day, not only from such works as are at all times sinful, but even from such worldly employments and recreations as are on other days lawful; and making it our delight to spend the whole time (except so much of it as is to be taken up in works of necessity and mercy) in the public and private exercises of God’s worship,”[8] should have a Directory for Worship.
A church that believes, “The charge of keeping the sabbath is more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors, because they are bound not only to keep it themselves, but to see that it be observed by all those that are under their charge,”[9] should have a Directory for Worship.
A church that believes, “The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to his church the benefits of his mediation, are all his ordinances; especially the word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for their salvation,”[10] should have a Directory for Worship.
A church that believes, “The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the word, an effectual means of enlightening, convincing, and humbling sinners; of driving them out of themselves, and drawing them unto Christ; of conforming them to his image, and subduing them to his will; of strengthening them against temptations and corruptions; or building them up in grace, and establishing their hearts in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation,”[11] should have a Directory for Worship.
A church that believes, “Although all are not to be permitted to read the word publicly to the congregation, yet all sorts of people are bound to read it apart by themselves, and with their families,”[12] should have a Directory for Worship (one which defines who is and who is not permitted to read the word publicly, and which also gives guidance to heads of households for how the word is to be read in families).
A church that believes, “The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered, but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they are instituted,”[13] should have a Directory for Worship (thankfully we do have a directory for the Sacraments).
A church that believes, “To pray in the name of Christ is, in obedience to his command, and in confidence on his promises, to ask mercy for his sake; not by bare mentioning of his name, but by drawing our encouragement to pray, and our boldness, strength, and hope of acceptance in prayer, from Christ and his mediation,”[14] should have a Directory for Worship.
A church that believes, “We are to pray with an awful apprehension of the majesty of God, and deep sense of our own unworthiness, necessities, and sins; with penitent, thankful, and enlarged hearts; with understanding, faith, sincerity, fervency, love, and perseverance, waiting upon him, with humble submission to his will,”[15] should have a Directory for Worship.

You’ll notice that I haven’t really been arguing in this section. This has simply been statements from the Larger Catechism, a document that is already constitutional. But lest one object, as one presbyter did on the floor of the General Assembly, and argue that “we have all we need in the Larger Catechism,” please allow me to simply point out the obvious. Those who wrote the Larger Catechism also wrote a Directory for Worship. The Larger Catechism, as well as the Confession and the Shorter Catechism, state what we believe. A good directory will put what we believe into practice.
Using a Directory for Worship
For example, the Shorter Catechism says, “The sabbath is to be sanctified by a holy resting all that day, even from such worldly employments and recreations as are lawful on other days; and spending the whole time in the public and private exercises of God’s worship, except so much as is to be taken up in the works of necessity and mercy.”[16]
That’s what we believe, but what does that mean in practice? Well, the Directory for Worship helps us in BCO 48. Much of this chapter addresses how individuals and families can sanctify the Lord’s Day, especially outside of public worship. BCO 48-7 teaches, “Let the time not used for public worship be spent in prayer, in devotional reading, and especially in the study of the Scriptures, meditation, catechising, religious conversation, the singing of psalms, hymns, or spiritual songs; visiting the sick, relieving the poor, teaching the ignorant, holy resting, and in performing such like duties of piety, charity, and mercy.”[17] Notice how the Directory gives examples of what works of necessity and mercy could be, and at the same time allows freedom by not limiting them to the examples given. The Directory serves as a helpful pastoral guide for church officers and members. It helps us to make disciples who sanctify the Lord’s Day.
Likewise, the Larger Catechism says of preaching, “The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the word, an effectual means of enlightening, convincing, and humbling sinners; of driving them out of themselves, and drawing them unto Christ; of conforming them to his image, and subduing them to his will; of strengthening them against temptations and corruptions; or building them up in grace, and establishing their hearts in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation;”[18] and the Directory for Worship shows us how we can put it into practice. BCO 50-1 says,
The public reading of the Holy Scriptures is performed by the minister as God’s servant. Through it God speaks most directly to the congregation, even more directly than through the sermon. The reading of the Scriptures by the minister is to be distinguished from the responsive reading of certain portions of Scripture by the minister and the congregation. In the former God addresses His people; in the latter God’s people give expression in the words of Scripture to their contrition, adoration, gratitude and other holy sentiments. The psalms of Scripture are especially appropriate for responsive reading.[19]
Our Directory leaves the length of the passage to be read to the discretion of the minister. Our Directory also allows freedom as to who is permitted to read Scripture in the corporate worship service.[20] Responsive readings, which are one of my favorite parts of the worship services at Trinity, are not even mandated. What is clear is that Scripture is to be read, it is to be read from a good and understandable translation, and the people are to know that, in the reading of Scripture, God Almighty is speaking to them.
Likewise, BCO 53, which the General Assembly recently declined to make constitutional, applies what we believe regarding the preached word. In this chapter we are reminded that, “The preaching of the Word is an ordinance of God for the salvation of men.”[21] We are told that, “The subject of a sermon should be some verse or verses of Scripture, and its object, to explain, defend and apply some part of the system of divine truth; or to point out the nature, and state the bounds and obligation, of some duty.”[22] To quote Marty McFly, “this is heavy.” The duty that we have as ministers of the gospel is more than we could ever bear in our own strength, and just when we think the Directory is being hard on us, it drops this bomb on us,
Preaching requires much study, meditation, and prayer, and ministers should prepare their sermons with care, and not indulge themselves in loose, extemporary harangues, nor serve God with that which costs them naught. They should, however, keep to the simplicity of the Gospel, and express themselves in language that can be understood by all. They should also by their lives adorn the Gospel which they preach, and be examples to believers in word and deed.
I have a feeling all my fellow pastors need a second to recover from that. Let me ask you, brothers, how are you doing measured up to that? How much study, meditation, and prayer are you giving your sermons? Do you find yourself at the end of the week scrambling to get something together? How often do you enter Sunday morning wondering if you put enough work into your sermon during the past week? How often are you tempted to despair when faced with the reality of your own remaining sin?
First, you’re probably doing better than you feel like you are after you read that paragraph. That’s a high standard, and it’s supposed to spur you on to applying yourself more and dedicating yourself more and working more at the task to which you’ve been called. Don’t let the weight of the calling crush you. Toil and struggle with all his energy that he powerfully works within you.
Second, don’t forget that “the simplicity of the Gospel” applies to you, too. Don’t get so caught up in the magnitude of the task that you forget the great treasure we have in the gospel. Yes, you need to be giving this gift to your people, but it’s yours too. Your sins are forgiven in Christ so that you can teach transgressors his ways. Don’t forget that.
Finally, one esteemed presbyter said on the GA floor that this chapter was “unenforceable” because the verb “shall” is never used. Well, quite frankly, the tenth commandment is unenforceable even when the verb “shall” is used. Just because it’s unenforceable doesn’t mean it’s useless; however, this chapter is most useful. I think I’m going to start reading it every Monday morning.
Unity (Not Uniformity)
There are two primary objections raised by those who oppose a constitutional Directory for Worship in the PCA.  (1) Those advocating a constitutional Directory want uniformity of practice (insert “grassroots” speech here). (2) “The Founders,” in their wisdom, chose not to adopt the Directory as Constitutional. Since I’m running out of space in this article, the second objection will have to wait, but what of this first objection? Would a constitutional Directory for Worship really mandate uniformity of practice? The answer must be a resounding “NO!” I offer two reasons.
First, a Directory for Worship is simply the application of the regulative principle to the specific denomination that adopts it. Once again, there is the overarching principle followed by the application of that principle. So, the question must be asked: Does the regulative principle mandate uniformity? Well, don’t take my word for it, here’s what Dr. Ligon Duncan has to say,
Reformed theologians argue that the whole substance of worship must be biblical. Not that only words from the Bible can be used, but that all that is done and said in worship is in accordance with sound biblical theology. The content of each component must convey God’s truth as revealed in his word. They also assert that God specifically commanded the elements he desired in worship (reading the word, preaching the word, singing, prayer, administration of the sacraments, oaths and vows, etc.). To and from these, we may neither add nor take away. As for the form of the elements, there will be some variations: different prayers will be prayed, different songs sung, different Scriptures read and preached, the components of worship rearranged from time to time, the occasional elements (like the sacraments, oaths, and vows) performed at various chosen times, and the like. There will be, of necessity, some human discretion exercised in these matters. So here, Christian common sense under the direction of general scriptural principles, patterns, and proportions must make a determination. Finally – as to circumstances – whether we sit or stand, have pews or chairs, meet in a church building or storefront, sing from a hymnal or from memory,[23] what time on the Lord’s Day services are to be held, and more – these things must be decided upon in the absence of specific biblical direction, and hence they must be done (as with the case of the forms above) in accordance with “the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word.”[24]
Did you notice how many things Dr. Duncan said were subject to discretion? In my estimation, the only things that would be uniform would be that the word is read, the word is preached, the congregation sings (I would politely add that Paul seems to think they should at least sing Psalms in addition to other hymns and songs), and that the sacraments, oaths, and vows are administered occasionally. Literally everything else is subject to variation including how often you administer the Lord’s Supper.
Now, that’s not to say that there are not those who would like to see uniformity in worship practice, but Dr. Duncan argues against their methods in another essay in the same book. He writes,
There is, of course, a small but intelligent and literate movement advocating formal liturgical renewal in Reformed evangelicalism. Usually emphasizing the contributions of the early church and the early Reformed liturgies of Strasbourg and Geneva and unwittingly adopting a late-nineteenth-century Scoto-Catholic interpretation of their significance, this movement…generally scathing in its estimation of the Westminster Directory and Puritan worship, is working to “liturgicalize” Reformed and evangelical corporate worship. This group propounds what Old calls “Liturgical Romanticism” – the view that, if we could just get back to Bucer’s liturgy all would be put right in the church today! This reform effort seems to have captured the imagination of many fine young conservative Reformed ordinands and shares a kinship with “the great tradition” movement evident in broader evangelicalism. This is not our call however. Our call is to something both simpler and more profound. We are not harkening the church to fixed forms from the past, however elegant or even consonant with Reformed worship they may be. We are, instead, calling the church to the Bible – to its simple principles and patterns.[25]
This is all a Directory for Worship would do, call the church to the Bible. I don’t know if Dr. Duncan agrees with me or not regarding the propriety of having a constitutional Directory for Worship in the PCA, but his writing on the regulative principle is what brought me to this conclusion. We must have our worship ordered according to God’s Word, and “The key benefit of the regulative principle is that it helps to assure that God – not man – is the supreme authority for how corporate worship is to be conducted.”[26]
In an article by Michael Khandjian posted to Presbyterian Polity, he stated,
Many of us have ministered and worshipped outside the US, in countries where the styles of worship are very different, yet where God’s Word is preached, taught – revered. When have any come home to say, ‘We need to change how that church worships in Zimbabwe!’ We don’t, because in those churches, by God’s grace and through His Spirit, we meet Jesus afresh – and rather than criticize, we celebrate – and we should.
We should here, too. We should celebrate that church whose worship is highly liturgical, and that church that weaves the Confession throughout its service, and that church that uses modern worship music, as well as the historic, the churches where men wear suits, and the women dresses, as well as the ones where there are as many short pants flip-flops, as there are long.[27]
With respect to TE Khandjian, everything he described in these two paragraphs were things that the regulative principle (and thus a good Directory for Worship) leaves subject to change based on local circumstances. My internship in Central Carolina Presbytery was at Cross Covenant Chinese Church. I led the music in this church. We sang some hymns and some Chinese worship songs. I led while playing my guitar, and we were in the process of adding a piano when COVID hit. Then I took a job as worship leader at Starmount ARP. There we sang hymns, psalms, and modern worship music in English, Portuguese, and Spanish. Now I’m in a traditional Southern Presbyterian congregation where we sing from The Trinity Psalter Hymnal. All of these congregations worshipped according to the regulative principle.
And we can see this in another denomination that has a Directory for Worship, the ARP. If you go to Starmount ARP in Charlotte, NC, you’ll find a band on the platform, words on the screen, and a willingness to sing any song that’s not doctrinally errant. If you go to Bethany ARP in Clover, SC, I’m told you’ll find a church that sings the latest cutting-edge worship music of the 1930s from Bible Songs.[28] If you go to Ballantyne ARP, you’ll find a more or less typical Southern Presbyterian worship service, where they use The Trinity Hymnal and also occasionally The ARP Psalter. The ARP’s Directory of Public Worship has not stopped any of these congregations from having a distinct and immediately recognizable worship style.
Neither would uniformity be imposed in the PCA. I definitely have my preferences, and I definitely have my convictions. But what matters to me is that we can all agree that there are principled convictions we should all share. We can appreciate diversity while we also strive to remain faithful to what God’s Word says regarding how we should worship God. Four of the Ten Commandments directly relate to how we worship God, and yet we have no set of guidelines for how that should be done? This should not be. I speak in favor of a PCA Directory for Worship.
Jonathan Brooks is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and serves as Pastor of Trinity PCA in Maryville, Tenn.

[1] The best definition of “grass-roots” Presbyterianism I’ve heard came from Dr. C.N. Willborn, who pointed out that American Presbyterianism began with local congregations, who then joined to form the First Presbytery in Philadelphia, finally culminating in a General Assembly. This differs from the way Presbyterianism came to Scotland, where the General Assembly came first, then the Presbyteries, and so on. That being said, my point about the use of this term stands. Those who want more strident, Old School Presbyterianism say “grass-roots” principles support this. Those who want a church that looks more like the vision laid out in Center Church by Tim Keller will likewise point to so-called “grass-roots” principles. The term is often an empty vessel into which different people can put whatever meaning they wish.
[2] This is not intended, in any way, to show disrespect to the men who gathered in Birmingham in 1973 to found the National Presbyterian Church, later renamed the Presbyterian Church in America. I have, however, noticed in recent years that what “the founders” would or wouldn’t do is often thrown around in such a way as to end debate.
[3] Michael Khandjian, “Do We Need a Directory for Worship? No.” https://pcapolity.com/2024/01/16/do-we-need-a-directory-for-worship-no/. Accessed July 2, 2024.
[4] Please forgive me if my Latin isn’t grammatically correct.
[5] WLC 1.
[6] WLC 35.
[7] WLC 63.
[8] WLC 117.
[9] WLC 118. Italics mine.
[10] WLC 154.
[11] WLC 155.
[12] WLC 156.
[13] WLC 161.
[14] WLC 180.
[15] WLC 185.
[16] WSC 60.
[17] BCO 48-7
[18] WLC 155.
[19] BCO 50-1
[20] BCO 50-2, “The reading of the Holy Scriptures in the congregation is part of the public worship of God and should be done by the minister or some other person.” “Other person” is never defined.
[21] BCO 53-1
[22] BCO 53-2
[23] I don’t know how familiar Dr. Duncan was with screens in 2003, but you can throw that in there as well.
[24] J. Ligon Duncan III, “Does God Care How We Worship?” in Give Praise to God: A Vision for Reforming Worship Celebrating the Legacy of James Montgomery Boice, ed. Philip Graham Ryken, Derek W.H. Thomas, and J. Ligon Duncan III (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2003), 23-24. Italics mine.
[25] J. Ligon Duncan III, “Foundations for Biblically Directed Worship,” in Give Praise to God: A Vision for Reforming Worship Celebrating the Legacy of James Montgomery Boice, ed. Philip Graham Ryken, Derek W.H. Thomas, and J. Ligon Duncan III (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2003), 69. Italics mine.
[26] Duncan, “Does God Care How We Worship?” 24.
[27] Michael Khandjian, “Do We Need a Directory for Worship? No.” https://pcapolity.com/2024/01/16/do-we-need-a-directory-for-worship-no/. Accessed July 3, 2024.
[28] “Also in 1931, the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church compiled, printed and made extensive use of Bible Songs, a somewhat freer translation of the psalms, many of them set to the melodies of popular ‘Gospel’ songs that were used in other denominations. Many sources were used for Bible Songs with the greatest number coming from various United Presbyterian publications.” C. Earl Linderman and Robert J. Cara, “Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church History of Psalm Singing,” in The ARP Psalter: With Bible Songs (Pittsburgh: Crown & Covenant, 2011), vii. As I understand it, Bible Songs was an attempt to keep Psalm singing by making it more palatable to the young people of the time. It’s setting of Psalm 148, “Hallelujah Praise Jehovah,” is one that I have to stop myself from selecting each and every week.
Related Posts:

That’s what M’Cheyne was: a God-besotted man, a God-enthralled man. What I found so captivating about him was how captivated he was by Jesus. He was on fire, but not with mere zeal. His heart burned with holy divine love, the kind that is ignited only when one is truly near the holy Fire that burns but doesn’t consume. We can debate for decades over apologetic arguments and textual criticism. We can doubt and wrestle with endless questions. But we can often discern in minutes when we encounter someone who has encountered the Real Thing.

On an overcast day in August 2013, I stood in the churchyard of St. Peter’s Free Church in Dundee, Scotland, staring at the gravestone of Robert Murray M’Cheyne. As I did, I felt a surge of emotion that transported me 24 years into the past and 3,700 miles west, back to the moment I first met the godly young man whose remains lay buried beneath my feet.
The moment occurred in a makeshift bookstore when I was 23 years old. The church my wife and I had begun attending had just hosted a pastors’ conference and had kindly left the book tables up to give us regular folk a chance to pick through the literary leftovers.
As I was browsing, I came upon a small greenish book titled Robert Murray M’Cheyne. It was authored by a nineteenth-century Scottish pastor I had never heard of (Andrew Bonar) and recorded the life of another nineteenth-century Scottish pastor I had never heard of. I knew next to nothing about Scottish history, let alone Scottish Christian history, so I don’t remember what moved me to buy that book. But I did.
And I am profoundly grateful that I did. Because the godly young man I came to know in the pages of that book shaped me in ways few others have. I even named our first dog after him.
Death to Remember
Robert Murray M’Cheyne was born on May 21, 1813. But like many who lived before the advancements in medicine we now take for granted, M’Cheyne wasn’t long for this world. He died of typhus on March 25, 1843, before reaching his thirtieth birthday.
The day his frail body was laid to rest in St. Peter’s churchyard — the church he had pastored for a mere six and a half years — seven thousand people showed up to honor his memory, grieve their sense of profound loss, and thank God for the grace they received through him. That alone speaks volumes of the kind of man M’Cheyne was.
It is remarkable how God so often uses a death to stop his people in their tracks and force them to think seriously about what life and death truly mean. In fact, that’s precisely what he did with M’Cheyne twelve years earlier.
Life-Changing Death
At age eighteen, M’Cheyne was a bright honor student of classic literature at the University of Edinburgh who fully enjoyed the partying scene of his day. Having been raised attending church, M’Cheyne considered himself a Christian, but he was a Christian of the nineteenth-century Scottish “Bible Belt” variety. He professed faith in Christ, but his heart really loved the worldly delights of his intellectual pursuits and active social life. That is, until he was throttled by a death.
In the summer of 1831, his beloved older brother David succumbed to a deep depression that quickly wore him down in body and soul. His body didn’t survive the ordeal, but by God’s grace, his soul did. In the days before his death, David found profound peace in Jesus’s atoning death for him. His face seemed to shine with an inner radiance.
Robert was gripped both by the grief of his devastating loss and by his brother’s spiritual transformation. And God used this terrible event to bring about Robert’s own spiritual transformation.
Read More
Related Posts:

There’s only one imperative in the transfiguration narrative. The voice from the heavens tells the disciples, “Listen to him” (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As many have rightly pointed out, this alludes to something told to Moses in Deuteronomy 18:15: “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him” (CSB). The transfiguration account affirms a new prophet like Moses has arisen. It shows that Jesus mediates the new covenant and faithfully delivers God’s Word.

“Who is Jesus?”
Early Christians hammered out several statements about the identity of Jesus and affirmed we mustn’t merely say one thing about him but two things: Jesus is truly man and truly God. Even well-intentioned approaches can emphasize one of the truths and implicitly downplay the other.
For example, biblical theology helps us see Christ in the whole storyline of Scripture. Many characters from the Old Testament serve as types that help us understand the Messiah that was to come. Jesus is the new and better Adam, the new and better David, and the new and better Moses. But if we aren’t careful, we can fail to recognize the fundamental distinctions between those men and the much greater man their lives pointed toward.
In some ways, Jesus is a new Moses—there are parallel aspects in their lives. For example, in the transfiguration Jesus, like Moses, goes up a mountain after six days, a cloud descends, his face shines, and a voice speaks from the cloud. However, to see Jesus as merely the new Moses misses something important. The transfiguration narrative (Matt. 17:1–13; Mark 9:2–13; Luke 9:28–35) reveals three key differences that help us see the radical distinctions between Moses and Jesus.
1. Their Shining Faces
Both Moses and Jesus ascend a mountain and have their faces shine. After Moses met with the Lord, he had to veil his radiant face because it was too bright for the Israelites to bear (Ex. 34:35). The light of the glory of God was so powerful it altered his appearance. Similarly, when Jesus goes up on the mountain, Matthew says Jesus’s face shone like the sun (Matt. 17:2).
However, Jesus’s glory is of a different nature than Moses’s. Moses’s face shone because he was reflecting another’s glory; Jesus’s face shone because of his own glory. Moses’s face was radiant because of his proximity to Yahweh; Jesus’s face was radiant because he is Yahweh. Jesus is the “radiance of the glory of God” (Heb. 1:3).
To put this in other terms, Moses is transfigured when he ascends Mount Sinai. And while Jesus as a human is transfigured, Jesus as God doesn’t receive anything, nor is he changed in any way. This glory was and always is his. Jesus is like Moses. But he’s also unlike him. Moses ascended to meet with Yahweh; Jesus is Yahweh not only ascended on the mountain but descended to the mountain.
Read More
Related Posts: