Normative: In church services, what God commands is to be be done, but as long as something is not forbidden by scripture it can, by the discernment of the leadership, be practiced in gathered church services.
Many debates have been made on this issue, with the question being which should we follow? My personal answer to the question of whether I agree with the Regulative or Normative principle is: Yes.
Not A or B.
Yes.
Why? Because I think they are the two halves of one answer and are much closer together than the extremists on either side will often recognize or admit. At least if defined properly. One defines the means and the other the methods. The Bible holds both commands and principles to follow in regards to how a service, and life in general, is to be conducted. Are we to sing in celebration? Yes. (Ps. 96:1) Are we to pray? Yes. (Eph. 6:18) Is there to be preaching of the word? Yes. (2 Tim. 4:1-2) There are many things that, in principle and by command, we are to incorporate into the service. Likewise, there are things which are forbidden in worship to God, such as copying specific religious rituals from other religions (Deuteronomy 12:30-31). In this way, we hold to the Regulative Principle of worship.
However, while we do get many principles and commands from scripture, many of the commands are not very specific as to their practice, and the principles do not give specific methods. Those who adhere to a strict Regulative Principle say that if the Bible doesn't explicitly say what to do, we shouldn't do it. But this presents a few problems. For example, we do not have a fully detailed, practical example of a New Testament temple meeting by which to measure our own meetings by. And while we are told to sing, what do we sing? What instruments do we use? Exactly how long should the preaching be? What time should services start? How many people make a most effective community setting? In the example of singing, we are told to sing to God psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Col. 3:16) while told elsewhere to sing to the Lord a "new song". (Ps 96:1) So how do we decide which, how long, and with what? If we hold to a strict form of the principle, we're stuck. Also, consider the following: the Bible does not mention anywhere chairs, organs, greeters, suits, ties, or children's care/nurseries. So, by that definition, any church that contains any of the above things is unbiblical.
So how do we get these cultural adaptations to scriptural principles?
The Normative Principle. The faithful applying of a biblical command or principle culturally adapted to the situation at hand. If we realize we have the freedom to apply the scriptures faithfully within different cultures so long as scripture does not forbid it, we have the new space available to move around as would best suit the forward movement of the Gospel. We have the opportunity to contextualize within culture to reach as many as possible, as Paul did upon Mars Hill, while still remain faithful to the scriptures. Like with the other principle, some take it too far and begin filling their services with meaningless forms of entertainment (is there a way to justify a mime in a service?), or confusing the priorities as to which should hold more ground in a service (i.e. the church that shortens its sermons to make room for a drama).
In saying all of this, I believe there are things we can remember in order to remain faithful and relevant at the same time.
1. Worship is God-focused, not people-focused.
Our worship is not about what gives us the most pleasure or what we would necessarily enjoy or be entertained by. It is our response to the realization of the gospel, of our forgiveness of sins by Christ dying on the cross, and the expression of the joy that is brought with the realization and fruitition of this amazing truth. Therefore, our decisions must always be dictated by the question, "what will glorify God the most," then diving into Scripture and prayer to find what God has said will do so most effectively. This realization is, I believe, what will mainly help avoid a misunderstanding of cultural contextualization, and will keep us from sacrificing faithfulness for being "hip", which is the common over-reaction of the Normative Principle. Like Deuteronomy 12:8 says, worship is not "everyone doing whatever is right in his own eyes."
2. Worship is a life-consuming responsibility and activity.
What we do in a service is simply a continuation of what has occurred during the rest of the week. To quote a well-known pastor, worship is a lifestyle. Therefore, we cannot live by one set of rules during the week and another set on Sunday. The problem with strict Regulative Principle adherents is that they betray their own philosophy by misunderstanding the principle of worship itself. What we do on Sunday should not differ from our lives the other 6 days of the week, and during the rest of the week these people, at least I'd hope, brush their teeth, drive a car, use a computer, wear socks and pants, and use deodorant, none of which is even mentioned in scripture. We cannot be hypocrites, living one way during the week and another on Sunday. All of life is worship, regardless of what day it is on. Therefore, we should treat all worship with the same reverence and guidelines, no matter whether we are with the church singing on Sundays or home alone taking a shower.
3. Just because a freedom is abused does not mean we should abandon it, but rather redeem it and use it as God intended.
In a world filled with sinful human beings, everything, whether it is neutral or good on its own, will be abused in some form. All the freedoms we are given in Christ, be it worship style, alcohol, sex, or money, will be abused in some sense by someone. Often times, these abuses are made popular and many fall in line, believing they are just "exercising their freedom in Christ" even when their actions are explicitly forbidden by scripture. But that does not mean we should villify and/or abandon them. For hyper-liberals, scriptural principles are abused and abandoned, including biblical male eldership, church discipline, sound theology, and even the authority of Scripture itself. For hyper-Conservatives, the cultural contextualization of the gospel is often abused and abandoned, including such things as the use of alcohol, music style and taste, clothing, the entertainment industry, and even dialect.* Just because something, including a freedom, is abused does not mean we abandon it, but rather we seek to do the work of the Gospel in redeeming the whole world, and take that which has been defiled and redeem it and use it as God originally intended.
*While one might say that the former is more serious than the latter, may I suggest that if God deemed the New Testament to be written in Koine Greek, the language of the common man, and to include verses from Roman mythology, it should be safe to say that God values the contextualization of His gospel. Also, both lead to equally perverse forms of religion: License, where we value culture over conviction and do whatever we want, allowing ourselves to be our own gods, and Legalism, where we begin making rules and standards not found anywhere in the Bible, and begin enforcing them, relying on things other than the cross to redeem us, and the fruit of the Spirit to identify us.
4. Our ultimate allegiance and identity must never be to a specific denomination, worship style, teacher, or church building, but to Christ first and foremost.
One of the biggest problems between theologies and denominations is the common mistake of human beings to idolize their church, their pastor, their style, or that denomination, and make it so that they alone have the ultimate connection to Christ and everyone else is either wrong, or altogether demonic, even if they agree on the foundational truths of scripture. While it is okay to identify with a specific theological group, pastor, style, or denomination, we must be defined above all as Christian, as a "mini-Christ", and have the humility to not make secondary issues primary issues in regards to theology. Far too often we have the tendency to define ourselves as "Calvinists" or "Arminians" or "Baptists" or "Catholics", and when we define ourselves primarily by that, we make it easier to demonize other Jesus-loving, Bible-believing Christians. There is always room for debate and discussion, but on the secondary issues there are no good reasons to divide and demonize. Even Paul, when asked about those preaching Christ out of selfish ambition and rivalry, said that "whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice." (Philippians 1:18)
So, do I believe the Regulative Principle is good? In the sense where it requires scripture to be our conscience when defining our worship, including our large gatherings. And I believe the Normative Principle is also good, allowing us the freedom to contextualize in order to reach as many peoples as possible. In fact, it would be safe to say that when properly understood, these positions are much more parallel than either side might think. Whaddya think Mark? :P