As fallen creatures, worship is a struggle for us. We do not, by our nature, seek to worship God, but even when He draws us to Himself, our worship is still tainted by sin, and in particular, pride. We may still be tempted to worship Him as a side note to worshiping ourselves. This manifests in two ways. The first is to assume that God is completely irrelevant in our worship. We just do our own thing and tape His name to that. The second, and one that I am sure many of my readers will struggle to understand me on, is to assume that we are completely irrelevant. The former, of course, puts man at the center. The latter, however, creates the illusion of piety.
To help us sort this out, there exist two principles of worship: The Regulative Principle, and the Normative Principle. The Normative Principle suggests that we should stay within the realm of Scripture, but that if the Bible does not condemn a thing, we ought not either. The Regulative Principle, likewise, places Scripture in high regard, suggesting (correctly) that God alone is wise enough to dictate how we worship Him, and therefore concluding that we should only do what Scripture tells us to.
Both principles have their merits, and are good in that they emphasise Scripture in particular. According to Paul, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17). In other words, Scripture is God's direct communication with man. When we read it, we hear His thoughts, and in particular, we receive His guidance on how to worship Him. Thus, when we disobey Scripture, we disobey God, and when we go beyond Scripture, we go beyond God. Both of these attitudes are condemned in Scripture.
But of course, both Principles have their shortcomings. The Normative Principle, in particular, falls short in that it does not forbid "soft" additions to God's word. That is, there are things one might add to Scripture without claiming divine authority. We may, for example, start calling God "mother nature". Although Scripture consistently identifies God as male, it never condemns applying female pronouns to Him. And of course, although God is "male", He did not take on the biological traits of a male until the Incarnation. In eternity past, God did not have male chromosomes, or male anatomy, nor is there even a complementary "female" God. And indeed, God does have attributes we would associate with femininity. He is nurturing, He is gentle, He is intimately present in all creation processes, not merely delivering His "seed", then being able to flee, as a man can impregnate a woman and be done with it.
The Regulative Principle, however, falls short in that Scripture is not entirely explicit in all things. It tells us not to forsake the gathering, but it doesn't tell us where or when to meet. It tells us to take communion in remembrance of Christ, but it doesn't tell us how often to do it, or what specific form the host should take. It tells us a number of things, but without specifics. So, can one church meet on a Saturday and another on a Sunday? We would have to fall back on the Normative Principle to answer these questions.
The good thing about these principles is that both are God-centric. They do not allow us to just do what we feel like. If we try to worship God our way, we better hope our way is His way. If it isn't? Well, that didn't go so well for Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron (Leviticus 10:1-3). God plainly tells us, using them as an example, "‘By those who come near Me I must be regarded as holy; And before all the people I must be glorified.’ ”" They failed, offering profane fire before the Lord, and so God actually killed them.
Thus, we see how irrelevant we actually are when it comes to worship. We don't get to just make things up as we go along, nor do we get to do what we feel like. A phrase that particularly makes my eye twitch is "I don't think God would...", of course followed up by one's personal desires for what God should be. "I don't think God would want me to be lonely just because I'm gay". Well, you're right that He doesn't want you lonely, but He doesn't want you to be gay either. "I don't think God would send innocent people to Hell forever". Well, you're right, but all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and the wages of sin is death. Basically, "I don't think God would want, think, say, do, or believe anything the Bible says about Him".
But He does. That's the entire point of the Bible. It's God telling us about Himself, how He relates to us, and how He expects us to relate to Him. If we fail to conform to this, there are spiritual, and often even physical consequences. We end up with denominations, we fail to control and rebuke heresies, we stunt our own growth, we may receive discipline, and ultimately, when we are judged, we may suffer loss (1 Corinthians 3:12-15).
But this is where things get particularly interesting, because although worship is, inherently, God-centric, Scripture makes it very clear that this is not a one way street. Worship is a relationship, and in particular a relationship not only between King and servant, but between Father and children. God does not care so much about us that He is willing to compromise, but He does care so much about us that He, beyond all imagination, serves us.
When the disciples bickered over which of them would be the greatest in Heaven, Jesus redirects their attention, not rebuking them for having lofty desires, but instead telling them how to become greater in Heaven: "But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”" (Matthew 20:25-28).
Now, if Christ came to serve us, it's obvious that He is not going to completely disregard everything that matters to us. So, what are we to think of those who, for example, so value the illusion of piety that they rebuke churches for serving coffee in the morning? Or who rebuke certain music styles, insisting that anything written after the invention of the telephone is "new age", and therefore demonic? Basically, what of those who are so Pharisaical that their religion is their personality, but not for sake of God; for sake of themselves, and their own personal appearance?
The most ironic example I can think of that sums up this entire principle is a meme a friend sent me a short while ago. It was a Spongebob Squarepants meme, in which Patrick the starfish tells Spongebob the sponge that infant baptism is unbiblical, then runs away with a cart containing grape juice. I asked what it meant, and he said it's supposed to show the hypocrisy of condemning infant baptism while using grape juice in communion.
Baptism and communion are two key rituals in the Christian faith, and so naturally, they are hotly debated on a regular basis, though they certainly should not be. In this case, rather than the meme showing the hypocrisy of his critics, the meme illustrates the hypocrisy of the one who made it. Why? Simply because the clarity of Scripture is reversed.
See, under the Normative Principle, there is technically no problem with infant baptism, because the Bible never condemns it. But by the same token, it also never says the wine used in communion must be alcoholic. But the Regulative Principle would condemn infant baptism, while leaving non-alcoholic communion wine legitimate, and actually encouraged.
Although the Bible never says "thou shalt not baptise infants", it does go into great detail about the meaning of, and even conditions for, baptism. Philip says it best: "Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” (Acts 8:36-37). We see, then, that the condition for baptism is "if you believe with all your heart, you may". This precludes infants, because infants cannot believe. Thus, those who do baptise infants are adding the traditions of man to the word of God, making their worship man-centric.
By contrast, Scripture does not prescribe alcoholic wine, nor preclude non-alcoholic wine. It does, however, prescribe liberty in food and drink. Romans 14 addresses this topic in great detail, telling us not to judge each other in food and drink, but also not to drink that which offends our conscience, "...for whatever is not from faith is sin." (v23). "Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak." (v19-21).
Now, if it is good not to drink wine, lest we make our brother stumble, or offend him, or make him weak, or otherwise destroy the work of God, by what logic do we make communion the exception? It would seem wise to make communion wine non-alcoholic, first of all for sake of ensuring underage believers are able to practice their faith, but also for sake of, for example, ex-alcoholics, or teetotalers, in the congregation. Thus, grape juice is acceptable for communion under both principles, not being condemned by Scripture, but even being encouraged. One might say by making such an act of worship human-centric, it is made God-centric, because God tells us we should regard our brother.
Ultimately, when we worship God, we should remember how Christ summed up the law. "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40). When love for our neighbor conflicts with our love for God, we should choose God, for as Christ says, "“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:26). But our love for God should absolutely compel us to love all of these people, for God also loves them.
The conclusion of this matter, then, is that although God is so great as to make us irrelevant, we should not assume we are completely irrelevant, simply because God did not design us to be irrelevant. The balance is provided by God Himself. He is weightier than we are, enough to completely tip the scale, but when we place Him on both sides of the scale, it levels out in a way that is pleasing to Him.