The Regulative Principle: All Churches Must Be Painted Green

freedom_authority.jpgThe Regulative Principle is the formal name for what many in the Churches of Christ call the Law of Specific Authority.

But how do we know that we need authority? Well, it’s obvious. You see, the opposite of the Regulative Principle is the Normative Principle.

In summary, where the Bible is silent, we either have authority or we don’t. Either silence is permission or prohibition. And if silence is permission, all sorts of possibilities arise, such as infant baptism.

The argument thus is —

* Worship and many other practices require authority from God.

* Where we have specific authority, alternatives are excluded.

Hence, singing is a worship practice. We have commands to sing — which certainly create authority. Therefore, all alternatives are excluded. And if this isn’t so, it’s okay to baptize babies.

Now, implicit in this argument is the idea that God actually cares which “acts of worship” we use. The argument for there being a uniform pattern of acts of worship given by God goes back to Alexander Campbell. Campbell began a series of lessons on the order of worship, “A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things No. V,” by arguing that, logically, there must be a required order of worship from two premises –

The first is, either there is divinely authorized order of Christian worship in Christian assemblies, or there is not. …

On the supposition that there is not, then the following absurdities are inevitable: There can be no disorder in the Christian assembly; there can be no error in the acts of social worship; there can be no innovation in the department of observances; there can be no transgression of the laws of the King. …

But, to make this matter evident to children as well as men, we will carry it a little farther. One society of disciples meets on the first day morning and they all dance till evening, under the pretext that this is the happiest way of expressing their joy, and when they have danced themselves down they go home. … Another society meets for worship, and they sing all day; another shouts all day; another runs as in a race all day; another lies prostrate on the ground all day; another reads all day; another hears one man speak all day; another sits silent all day; another waves palm branches all day; another cries in the forenoon and listens to the organ in the afternoon … .

Now, for those paying close attention, the two arguments I’ve referenced are both flawed for several reasons, but one reason is that they are both a false dichotomy. A “false dichotomy” is a false choice, that is, fooling one’s opponent into picking between only two options when there are in fact many other options. (This is not to suggest that Campbell or others are dishonest. False dichotomies are so tricky we sometimes fool ourselves.)

Husbands, imagine that your wife comes home in a $10,000 designer dress. You are shocked! You bluster, “How much did that cost?”

She says, “$10,000. But that’s what dresses cost today. You don’t want me in rags, do you? You don’t want your friends laughing at me, do you?”

Your wife is attempting a false dichotomy — rags or 10 grand. And you are not an idiot, and you are not fooled. There are lots of choices between the two options.

In the Regulative Principle argument above, the dichotomy is either —

* ALL silences are prohibitions or

* ALL silences are permissions.

But perhaps authority isn’t even the issue. Perhaps it’s not about prohibition vs. permission. Perhaps SOME silences are prohibitions and SOME are permissions. Maybe there are LOTS of in-between positions.

Next, we look at Campbell’s argument. He says either there is an order of worship or there is not. If there is no order of worship, then all sorts of ridiculous things are allowed. Therefore, there is an order of worship.

Again, perhaps there’s not an order of worship but there are principles that prevent the ridiculous possibilities Campbell argues from.

Always be wary of either/or arguments. Often there’s another choice — or hundreds.

Now, to make the point, I will now prove beyond all reasonable doubt that all church buildings must be painted green. It’s obvious, you know. All right thinking Christians know this. Indeed, one of the earliest chapels ever built was green. (It really helps sell a false dichotomy if you are condescending and absurdly self-assured. Many churchgoers are easily intimidated. And since God is on your side, you can even stretch the evidence a bit — you’re saving souls!)

You see, either God wants buildings painted green or he doesn’t. Either the rule is green or else the church building can be any color you want. For that matter, if it doesn’t have to be green, it could be several colors, in any combination at all. Why not? God doesn’t care.

To follow Campbell, “But, to make this matter evident to children as well as men, we will carry it a little farther. One society of disciples meets” in a building painted black, and therefore very unattractive and hard to cool in August. But another church actually allows a local beer distributor to paint its logo on the building. Why not? God hasn’t made a rule! And a third has erotic images painted on the building. Again, as God allows any color or combination of colors, why not colors that just happen to look like a naked woman? We live in a Postmodern age. Who are we to judge? The liberals are fine with pornography. Maybe attendance will go up! Who are we to judge?

And so, you see, by plain and sound logic, we have shown that Christian leaders who love God and respect the inspiration of God’s word and haven’t ever once questioned inerrancy paint their buildings green.

My tract titled “IS YOUR BUILDING GREEN — OR ARE YOU GOING TO HELL?” is available in lots of 100 at 50 cents per tract. Many sound and faithful churches have already ordered these. A good friend has given generously so that the tract can be mailed to all non-green churches. We pray that God will be patient with these God-hating, pornography-loving, beer-swilling churches. (Insert references to “straight and narrow” verses from last week’s sermon.)

If you bought that, then you should buy your wife a $10,000 designer dress. But do you see the flaw? Why is my logic wrong?

Okay. Here’s the answer.

There are, of course, many choices that God will approve other than green. Sherwin-Williams sells 1,500 choices. If you use two colors, the options are over two million.

But what will keep us from painting beer logos and erotica on our buildings?

Well, do you have beer logos and erotica on your non-green buildings now?


Why not?

Because we are opposed to those things.

Because they aren’t green?

No, because they aren’t godly.

So the real test is whether something is godly, not whether it’s green?

I guess so. But wouldn’t green be safer?

No. Imposing rules God didn’t make isn’t even a little safe. In fact, it’s dangerous.  We should be silent where the Bible is silent, and the Bible says nothing about the color of the building. We cannot be safe by adding rules to the Bible. Indeed, it’s easier to find condemnations of added rules than ignored rules. For example,

(Matt. 15:8-9 ESV)  8 “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;  9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'”

This is a condemnation, not of acting outside authority, but adding commandments that God did not command.

So what does this have to do with the Regulative Principle?

Why are we opposed to infant baptism?

Because it lacks authority.

No. See if you can say it in different terms. What else is wrong with infant baptism?

Well, baptism is for believers.

Exactly. Not every mistake is about exceeding authority. You see, baptism has a purpose — several purposes — and none of them are suited for infants. It’s about forgiveness, and babies haven’t sinned. It’s a pledge toward God. And babies can’t pledge. It’s about repentance. And babies don’t need to repent and can’t repent.

It’s not about authority but purpose.

But what about Nadab and Abihu?

They were struck dead for offering strange fire, but God had provided the fire to be used in the altar and they violated God’s command. It wasn’t lack of authority. It wasn’t about God’s silence. It was about violating a command (Lev 16:12-13; 3:5, for example). (There are other distinctions.)

What about Uzzah?

He violated the Torah’s commands for how to transport the ark (Exod 25:12–15; Num 3:29–31; 7:9; Deut 10:8). He didn’t violate a silence. He didn’t act without authority. He violated very plain commands about who should transport the ark and how. Uzzah was not an innocent bystander. He’d been charged with the transport of the ark, which had been kept at his father’s house (2 Sam 6:3), but he’d not bothered to see what God had commanded regarding his duties.

(1 Chr. 15:11-15 ESV)  11 Then David summoned the priests Zadok and Abiathar, and the Levites Uriel, Asaiah, Joel, Shemaiah, Eliel, and Amminadab,  12 and said to them, “You are the heads of the fathers’ houses of the Levites. Consecrate yourselves, you and your brothers, so that you may bring up the ark of the LORD, the God of Israel, to the place that I have prepared for it.  13 Because you did not carry it the first time, the LORD our God broke out against us, because we did not seek him according to the rule.”  14 So the priests and the Levites consecrated themselves to bring up the ark of the LORD, the God of Israel.  15 And the Levites carried the ark of God on their shoulders with the poles, as Moses had commanded according to the word of the LORD.

And Ananias and Sapphira?

They lied, which breaks one of the Ten Commandments

Don’t you see that there’s a huge difference between violating a command and doing something not commanded which doesn’t violate a command?

Are you saying all silences are permissions?

NO!! Oh, please, pay attention. The Bible is silent as to the color of the building, right? Does that permit pornography? No. Why not? Because there are other principles of godliness, not just this fictitious silence. You see, there is no silence when a proposed act violates some other command or principle, such as love for God or love for our neighbors.

So what about instrumental music?

Some music honors God and some doesn’t. Some a cappella music is lewd or teaches contrary to God or worships Satan. Some instrumental music does the same. The question isn’t: is it authorized? But rather: is it godly? Does it serve God’s purposes? Does it magnify the name of Jesus? Does it honor his name? Does it edify? Does it encourage? Will it bring unbelievers to their knees in the presence of God?

Those are actually tougher standards. They aren’t as concrete, but they point the church in the right direction. Rather than worrying about being damned because we got an authority question wrong, we instead focus on serving God — in everything.

Rather than learning about specific and generic authority and regulative and normative whatevers, we study to learn God’s nature, his character, and his purposes. And we strive to be like God by being like Jesus — and this means sharing in those purposes.

And when we do this, we are led by God’s Spirit and we are not under law (Gal 5:18).

About Jay F Guin

My name is Jay Guin, and I’m a retired elder. I wrote The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace about 18 years ago. I’ve spoken at the Pepperdine, Lipscomb, ACU, Harding, and Tulsa lectureships and at ElderLink. My wife’s name is Denise, and I have four sons, Chris, Jonathan, Tyler, and Philip. I have two grandchildren. And I practice law.
This entry was posted in Regulative Principle, Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to The Regulative Principle: All Churches Must Be Painted Green

  1. Being guided by principles requires making decisions often. Living by specific, written rules is much easier in that it doesn't require many decisions.

    Look at public schools in America today. Look at the "rule books." They are very thick. Compare them to what was used 50 years ago. Long ago, the rule books were thin and teachers and principals were authorized to make many judgments every day. Now, the rule books are thick and teachers and principals recite the rules to parents and shrug, "I cannot do anything. You have to appeal to the school board."

  2. Vicki says:

    "(It really helps sell a false dischotomy if you are condescending and absurdly self-assured. Many churchgoers are easily intimidated. And since God is on your side, you can even stretch the evidence a bit — you’re saving souls!)"

    ….this would be funny if it wasn't painfully true. We all know people like this…tragic.

  3. Nick Gill says:

    "Some music honors God and some doesn’t. Some a cappella music is lewd or teaches contrary to God or worships Satan. Some instrumental music does the same. The question isn’t: is it authorized? But rather is it Godly?"

    This is an interesting idea to run with — when this dilemma first reared its head in the churches, was a cappella a hedge against bawdier styles of music? Rap, hip-hop, beat-boxing (all the things our Acapella-type groups do to simulate the sounds of instruments) certainly hadn't been invented yet. Now that there's a whole genre of a cappella music out there that is incredibly pagan, this is an interesting line of argument.

  4. Wh … wh … what if just the trim on my church is painted green? Is it still okay to worship there?

    – Fearful

  5. Jay Guin says:

    Some of the Patristics certainly speak in terms of wanting to avoid any association with the sin instrumental music was associated with at the time — the military and idolatry.

  6. Jay Guin says:

    Many beer companies have green in their logos. Green trim does not prevent the painting of erotic picture. You are going straight to hell.

    You should write your elders a letter. If they don't repent, you must leave your congregation. But don't join a denomination — they are all known to violate God's green will. If there are no green churches in your town, take communion in your home alone. But paint it green first.

    I know the rule seems arbitrary, but God's wisdom is greater than ours, and we must obey God's will rather than our own. Your faith in being tested, and I know you won't fail the Almighty.

  7. I'm headed to Sherwin-Williams!

    (Jay, it seems I agreed with many of your conclusions about Nadab and Abihu when I posted on the subject! I hadn't read your post before today.)

  8. Rich says:

    Interesting diversion to associate green buildings with a plausible hermeneutic.

    Until you have evidence of many groups believing in green painted buildings due to the regulative principle, then please stick with the facts.

  9. Jay Guin says:


    As the medieval adage says, quod nimis probat, nihil probat: "what proves too much, proves nothing." If the Regulative Principle is built on arguments that prove all buildings must be green, the Regulative Principle is invalid. When we consider the question of the validity of an argument, it's quite enough to show that it proves something absurd.

    If you want an example from the facts, well, I know of churches that rely on the Regulative Principle —

    * To fire ministers who let students listen to instrumental Christian music
    * To refuse to provide support for non-Christians — even denying help to unbaptized orphans of Christians
    * To damn over fellowship halls
    * To damn over supporting orphans using the church treasury
    * To damn over taking communion on a Saturday night
    * To damn over using female translators in missions work
    * To damn over using females to "sign" for the deaf

    There are plenty of other equally absurd factual examples. You see, the Regulative Principle proves too much. A clever person can prove whatever they want. Therefore, it proves nothing.

  10. Rich says:


    Misuse of a hermeneutic principle does not make it invalid. Actually, requiring baptism seems inconsistent with what I understand is the hermeneutic being proposed here. It certainly means we need more than just a good heart.

    By the way, I'm only uncomfortable with two on your list. And since I probably can't prove those I place them in the Romans 14 category. I believe there are biblical examples justifying many of the others.


  11. Scott says:

    I think that the “Roman’s 14 Category” is one of principle flaws of our hermeneutic. We relegate important passages, even chapters, of Scripture like Romans 14-15, 1 Cor. 1-8-10, and other “food” passages to the “matters of opinion” status, or “expedient” realm based the Regulative Principle and especially our “physical” and “spiritual” dualism. We opt to “enforce” individual passages like singing by taking them out of their context of 1st century banquet/symposium (Matt. 26_26-30; Luke 22:14-30; cf. 1 Cor. 11:17-34) and put them into the early 4th century “public building worship” setting. Eating meals was a fundamental part of “spiritual” life in the OT and NT. I think that our hermeneutic of primarily conforming “matters of faith” into “going to church and performing the 5 acts of worship” (our 19th century modified Catholic/Protestant liturgy) is a mistake, because I have found that it serves as a mask for our ignorance of first century Greco-Roman culture, and especially when we base our interpretation(s)–if we even admit we interpret the Bible–on a few “great, sound men” of the 19th-20 century. Usually, Americans see “all truth” as “self-evident” which contradicts the need to study. Contrary to the status quo opinion, the preceding “does” matter, because we claim to do first century things in first century ways. Churches of Christ have integrity and personal responsibility issues they won’t deal with that border on the realm of dishonesty. This will become increasing clearer as digital media continues to make the Catholic supper and Protestant pulpit obsolete by providing more access to the truth of what the first century church really practiced.

  12. Pingback: An Email about Authority and Mathematics | One In Jesus

Comments are closed.