At this moment in my American context, I think it is wise for Christians not to prematurely separate from each other based on different political theologies. The reason is that the orcs are not just at the gates; they are infiltrating the city as citizens and magistrates. While a sexual revolution is rapidly transforming our culture, I don’t think fellow Christians should divide right now over the hypothetical scenario—which might occur decades in the future—of how to govern a nation if the vast majority of its citizens are Christians. There are more pressing matters to band together to address—evils such as abortion and wokeness and LGBT ideology and socialism.[69] The strategy for faithful Christians right now involves basics that we should be able to agree on—such as be a good egg, love your wife, stay in fellowship, worship every week, teach your kids, work patiently, and keep politics in perspective.[70]

Christians have increasingly discussed political theology over the past several years—at least in my conservative evangelical circles. A lot of Christians are both interested and confused. They are fascinated by the topic, but they are having trouble thinking clearly about it because it is so complicated. This article is my attempt to add some clarity by framing a debated topic. I proceed in three parts: (1) I start by briefly defining religion, politics, and political theology; (2) then I propose seven views on religion and government; (3) and I conclude with seven reflections.[1]
Part 1. Starting with Definitions: Religion, Politics, and Political Theology
Let’s start by defining three basic terms: religion, politics, and political theology.

Religion is “an organized system of beliefs that answers ultimate questions and commends certain actions or behaviors based on the answers to those questions.”[2] Those questions concern ultimate reality (i.e., God), the nature of the universe, the nature of mankind, what happens to a man at death, and how we know right and wrong.[3] As a Christian, I believe that the religious institution God has ordained is Christ’s church.
Politics is the science and art of governing men (to paraphrase Aristotle).[4] In this article I’m referring specifically to politics at the civil level of the government or the governing authorities or the state.[5]
Political theology is a theology of politics—particularly how religion and politics should relate. So a particular view of political theology is a philosophy or system of ideas that attempts to explain how religion and politics should relate.[6]

Throughout this article I typically refer to the broader categories of religion and government instead of the narrower categories of church and state.

I use the label religion instead of church because religion is broader than the Christian church. Religion encompasses organized institutions like Islam. In a sense, religion also includes less formal belief systems like secularism (i.e., the view that the state must be separate from religious institutions), but secularism is not an organized religion.
I use the label government instead of state because government can be broader than state. For many people the word state refers to a modern nation-state, but the term government broadly encompasses all sorts of civic rule.[7]

It is challenging to use terms for political theology that apply equally well in all historical settings. In the ancient world, religion and politics are fitting terms. In the Middle Ages and magisterial Protestantism (which includes Christendom), ecclesiastical government and civil government are fitting terms. In early modern political thought, church and state (and the separation of church of state) are fitting terms.
Part 2. Seven Views on Religion and Government
In this article I propose a taxonomy of seven views on religion and government. In other words, people have held at least seven distinct major views on political theology. (I am including both Christians and non-Christians for breadth.) I am proposing a taxonomy in the form of a spectrum that moves from views that separate religion from the government to views that combine religion and the government. I concisely describe each view and then conclude with some reflections.[9]
Introductory Qualification
My concluding reflections include some qualifications, but I should mention one upfront: The people and groups I list to illustrate a view—both historic examples and modern examples—do not necessarily share the exact same political theology. There is a spectrum of views within each view, and those I list within a particular view may be different in significant ways. But they share some similarities given the criteria I lay out. This article is simply my attempt to sketch a spectrum of views on political theology—both historically and currently—in order to gain clarity on a complicated topic so that we better understand before we evaluate.
View 1. Secular Suppression: The secular government suppresses religion.

Position: The government and religion should be totally separate in the sense that the government should be secular because God does not exist. The government should not merely separate from religion but should suppress religion. (A militantly atheist government does not consider its belief system to be a religion.)
Historic example: Karl Marx[10]
Modern examples: the former Soviet Union (Marxist-Leninist atheism), North Korea (officially an atheist government); secular progressivism

For view 1, the government affirms secularism in a way that I would call religious, but I contrast secularism with religion in the heading because secularism is not an organized religion in the same sense as Christianity or Judaism or Islam.[11] In the headings for views 1–7, the term religion refers to organized religion.
For view 1, the government protects itself from being contaminated by religion. For view 2, religion protects itself from being contaminated by the government.
View 2. Religious Separation: Religion must radically separate from the government.

Position: The government and religion should be totally separate in the sense that they are distinct spheres that must not overlap because the government is worldly. Consequently, individual Christians must separate from the government by not wielding the sword as combatants or as magistrates because to do so would be to cooperate with a sinful institution.
Historic example: Anabaptists[12]
Modern examples: traditional Mennonites,[13] Stanley Hauerwas,[14] Greg Boyd[15]

Views 1 and 2 see hostility between the government and religion. View 3 envisions neutrality with no intermingling.
View 3. Religious Neutrality: The government must be religiously neutral.

Position: The government and religion should be separate in the sense that the government should be religiously neutral and particular religions should not influence the government. The government may be religiously neutral in one of two ways: (1) by promoting no religion—that is, a pluralistic secularism that does not necessarily deny God’s existence but wants to keep the peace between opposing religions—or (2) by promoting a civil religion, which is “a set of practices, symbols and beliefs distinct from traditional religion, yet providing a universal values paradigm around which the citizenry can unite.”[16] Either way, the public square should be religiously neutral; religious people should publicly argue based on natural law and not their particular religion.
Historic examples: classical liberalism (John Locke, John Stuart Mill, etc.; emphasis on a free market; to some degree America had a Protestant civil religion until the 1950s),[17] libertarianism (emphasis on individual autonomy),[18] progressive liberalism (emphasis on the welfare state and freedom from traditional sexual ethics)[19]
Modern examples: John Rawls, who emphasizes religious neutrality in the government;[20] Darryl Hart, who emphasizes political neutrality in the church[21]

For view 4 (in contrast to view 3), the public square should not be religiously neutral.
View 4. Religious Influence: The government should not promote only one particular religion, yet religion may influence the government within limited parameters.

Position: The government and the church are separate in the sense that they have distinct God-authorized jurisdictions. God authorizes the government to wield the sword (which a government may justly do against an individual Christian who has broken the law), and God authorizes the church to exercise the keys (which a church may rightly do by refusing to affirm that an individual person with governmental authority is a Christian). The government should not exclusively promote a particular religion (e.g., the government recognizes religious freedom and does not institute a state church or spread doctrine that is explicitly Christian), and the government should not restrict the spread of false religious beliefs (e.g., the government should not refuse to allow a Mosque to be built in the town square).[22] But religion may influence the government. An individual governmental authority (like a United States senator) may argue for a political position based on religion, and the government may adopt that position—but not on the basis of religion. The public square cannot be religiously neutral; it is a religious battleground. For Christians, the church’s mission is to make disciples; individual Christians should significantly influence the government; and the government should not institutionalize Christianity (e.g., the government should not put the Apostle’s Creed in the constitution).
Historic examples: most Baptists[23]—e.g., the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689),[24] Isaac Backus;[25] English non-conformists/Separatists such as Congregationalists and Quakers
Modern examples: Wayne Grudem,[26] Jonathan Leeman,[27] John Piper,[28] Andrew Walker,[29] Scott Aniol,[30] David VanDrunen,[31] Robert George[32]

For view 5, religion should not merely influence the government. The government should identify as a Christian government.
View 5. Christian Government: The government and religion overlap.
By labeling view 5 as “Christian government,” I am using the specific adjective Christian instead of the more general adjective religious because this view is peculiar to Protestant Christianity.

Position: The government and the Christian church are two God-ordained institutions that have distinct and overlapping God-authorized jurisdictions, and they should work together under God’s ultimate authority. For Christians, the church’s mission is to make disciples of all nations; individual Christians should significantly influence the government; and the government may institutionalize Christianity to some degree (e.g., by putting God in the constitution and by having a religious test for office). The government should identify as a Christian government in the sense that the laws and customs it promotes derive from the ultimate authority of God. The governing authorities should know that they are accountable to God for how they rule (cf. Daniel 4:26), and it is fitting for the government to exhort citizens to fear the living God (cf. Daniel 6:26). The government should pursue justice by promoting the natural law (which the Ten Commandments summarize) as much as prudently possible. The government should (along with the church and society) help create cultural conditions conducive for conversion and for the common good.[33] While the government should promote and to some degree enforce a just social order based on a right understanding of God and man (e.g., the government should promote marriage and the family and demote no-fault divorce, adultery, homosexuality, transgenderism, and pornography), the government should not force citizens to follow Christianity since only the Spirit’s regeneration produces a heart change; the church’s weapon is not the sword but instead the word, water, bread, and wine. This model is not feasible long-term if many of the citizens are not genuine Christians.
Historic examples: magisterial Reformers (e.g., Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, John Knox, Richard Hooker, Johannes Althusius),[34] the Reformed scholastics, the church of England,[35] John Gill,[36] American Puritans (e.g., John Winthrop, William Bradford, John Cotton, Cotton Mather, Jonathan Edwards), the basic approach in various colonies and states at the time of America’s founding[37]
Modern examples: Brad Littlejohn,[38] Doug Wilson,[39] Joe Rigney,[40] Daniel Strand,[41] some versions of “Christian nationalism” (though many who hold this position do not prefer that label)[42]

For view 5, the government enforces a particular ethic that is tied to a religion. For view 6, religion controls the government to such a degree that the government enforces the religion itself.
View 6. Religion over Government: Religion governs the government and directs the government to enforce religion.

Position: A particular religion governs the government and directs the government to enforce that religion. Some call this view the doctrine of the two swords in which the sword of religion trumps the sword of the government. (For medieval Roman Catholics, both swords belong to the Pope, and the Pope directly wields the spiritual sword and indirectly wields the temporal sword by commanding government authorities.) God ordains the government to ensure peace in society, which includes to some extent governing church assemblies, ensuring that the church maintains orthodoxy, and punishing people who refuse to comply. The magistrate might say, “The Pope is telling me that John Doe is a heretic, so the government must punish him.”
Historic example: the two-swords view of medieval Roman Catholicism[43]
Modern example: I’m not sure what to suggest as a good modern example. Some might classify Rousas J. Rushdoony in this view, but Andrew Sandlin, a former colleague of Rushdoony, disagrees in his Christ Over All interview. Sandlin argues that Rushdoony, the basic architect of Christian reconstructionism (i.e., reconstruct America as a Christian republic by rebuilding it on the foundation of the Mosaic law’s moral and civil aspects), does not include governmental coercion of Christian religion in his political theology. Rather, Rushdoony advocates a principled application of the Mosaic law—something closer to what I propose as view 5 above. [44]

Read More
Related Posts:

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:

If the “follow your heart” religion is indeed the dominant religion of our cultural moment, as Williams has argued, Christians, for the love of God and the love of our neighbors, will need to commit cultural heresy. We only find our “true selves” in right relationship with God. Reject the death spiral of self-worship. Embrace the abundant life Christ offers.  

“Follow your heart” is a slogan popularized by Disney movies, pop psychology, and social media. Ultimately, it is just another version of the oldest lie in the world: That you and I can be our own god.  
In his new book Don’t Follow Your Heart: Boldly Breaking the Ten Commandments of Self-Worship, Professor Thaddeus Williams of Biola University has exposed “the cult of self” behind these mantras. The cult of self is, in a sense, the largest religion in the world and promises to elevate adherents to the place and prerogative of God. In the end, however, like all bad ideas about God and self, this lie dehumanizes us, leaving us empty, unsatisfied, and isolated.  
Don’t Follow Your Heart is a must-read today, wise in its analysis and practical in its application. Today is the last day to receive a copy as our thank-you for a gift of any amount to the Colson Center this month. Just visit colsoncenter.org/January. 
Williams shared more about the “the cult of self” in a recent conversation with Shane Morris on the Colson Center’s Upstream podcast. As he noted, everyone worships something.  
For Paul, it’s never a question of the theist versus the atheist. For Paul, everybody worships. Everybody’s a worshipper. Everybody’s on their knees to someone or something, either the Creator or the creation. 
The key is right worship. In today’s version of the world’s oldest idolatry, voices across our culture urge us always to put ourselves first, ultimately in the place of God and as the object of our devotion, allegiance, and obedience. At one point, Williams lamented: “Who isn’t telling us to follow our hearts?” This idea, however, has consequences:   
Now when you erase the creator-creature distinction, which has happened in the mainstream culture, that attribute of simplicity, or even we might say impassibility, a lot of the divine attributes, sovereignty, we now start attributing to ourselves.
Read More
Related Posts: