Exclusive Psalmody: A Reflection

To the western Pennsylvania foothills is where, by the mere grace of God, I have been led to respite following a sojourn through the apostate wilderness of mainstream Protestantism. My worship experience is indeed vital, ennobling and offers moral clarity and assurance through our Lord Jesus Christ. It has all the elements of that particular scholasticism, deliberately and consistently subordinate to the Scriptures, which has been the litmus for the Reformed faith since the early days of the Reformation. In such an environment, one may more perceptibly sense how, at times, academia has forged chasms of thought (scholastic/political/cultural) which have had a profound impact on doctrine and liturgy. I speak not of the type which has proven the bane of our faith in the mainstream.I'm referencing the "spoliation" in which those who truly believe in the Scriptures have been drawn to engage!


To this aim, I have been led to an issue thought mortally important to the liturgical vitality and continuity for those blessed with a genuine predilection to hold Christ alone as the sole way to salvation. This issue has rather appeared to transcend the words of John Knox, who made it clear what is appropriate for worship and what is not.In a rather (I'll call it "spirited") debate with a Romish priest, Knox said:

"It is not enough that man invents a ceremony and then gives it a signification, according to his pleasure. For so might the ceremonies of the Gentiles, and this day the ceremonies of Mohammed, be maintained. But if that anything proceeds from faith, it must have the word of God for the assurance. For you are not ignorant, that 'faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God'. Now, if you will prove that your ceremonies proceed from faith, and do please God, you must prove that God in expressed words has commanded them; or else you shall never prove that they proceed from faith, nor yet that they please God; but that they are sin, and do displease him, according to the words of the apostle, 'Whatsoever is not of faith is sin' "

To this aim, are the songs of King David all we are supposed to sing in church or is there more in the vain of hymns that are not only acceptable,but vital? The gravity of the issue of exclusive psalmody is practically impossible to discern in the mainstream; as the culture of catechetical declension ecclipses it. Yet, among REAL adherents to the Reformed faith, it is more hotly contested than perhaps any other quinquarticular portion.

The great Van Tillian theologian John Frame says:

"In the 1950s the church carried out a study of exclusive psalmody at the General Assembly level but did not accept that position (despite its vigorous defense by Professor John Murray of Westminster Theological Seminary), though some congregations in the denomination to this day sing only psalm versions in worship."

The Rev Dr J Gresham Machen loved hymns as well as psalms. He believed that just as much, if not more, regarding Reformed doctrine can be taught/reinforced to many in the Presbyterian laity than in depth studies of presuppositionalism. 


Why? The answer's obvious...Not all God's elect are going to be foreordained to scholastic inclinations! Let the elect never become unmindful that scholasticism is a reflection of the Father's grace, rather than an attractant for His grace! 

Frame,Machen, Steve F. Miller, Everett C. DeVelde, D James Kennedy, R C Sproul, Cornelius Van Til...the list is like a proverbial "who's who" of presuppositional powerhouses who are/were not exclusive psalmists. This applies even to Rev Jonathan Edwards! In his work " Some thoughts concerning the Present Review of Religion in New England", he wrote:  

“I am far from thinking that the book of Psalms should be thrown by in our public worship, but that it should always be used in the Christian church until the end of the world: but I know of no obligation we are under to confine ourselves to it. I can find no command or rule of God’s Word, that does any more confine us to the words of Scripture in our singing, than it does in our praying; we speak to God in both. And I can see no words, that we find in the Bible, in speaking to Him by way of praise, in metre, and with music than when we speak to Him in prose, by way of prayer and supplication. And it is really needful that we should have some other songs besides the Psalms of David. It is unreasonable to suppose that the Christian church should forever and even in times of her greatest light, in her praises of God and the Lamb, be confined only to the words of the Old Testament, wherein all the greatest and most glorious things of the gospel, that are infinitely the greatest subjects of her praise, are spoken of under a veil, and not so much as the name of our glorious Redeemer ever mentioned, but in some dark figure, or as hid under the name of some type. And as to our making use of the words of others, and not those that are conceived by ourselves, it is no more than we do in all our public prayers; the whole worshipping assembly, excepting one only, makes use of the words that are conceived by him who speaks for the rest.”

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church never directly mandated exclusive psalmody in our worship. In point of fact the Trinity Hymnal is regarded as the standard in our churches. In our most recent General Assembly, the decision was reached to create a new hymnal in collaboration with the United Reformed Churches of North America. The URCNA is decidedly of Dutch "lineage", regarding the "Three Forms of Unity" as its preeminent catechetical "arsenal". For the uninitiated, these are the Heidelberg Catechism, The Belgic Confession and the Canons of Dordrecht.

On the other hand, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church has ties which are stronger yet with the direct descendants of the Covenanters:

The Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America

The RPCNA holds fast and dear to its Scottish roots (which I love, being partly of Scottish extraction,myself). This whole situation begs a few questions, in my mind. First off, could the federationism between the OPC and the URCNA in this particular outing threaten to exacerbate the subtle divide between the English/Scottish and Dutch within the OPC ? Secondly, could the publication of this new hymnal threaten the ties we have with those of Covenanter heritage? 

.....And finally, is this debate so adorned with cultural and historical implications that the debate itself becomes "extra-Biblical" ? In other words, are we defending a cultural tradition more than a Biblical one in this matter?

The "cultural/historical" argument carries precious little weight, by itself.  After all, even the Genevan Psalter has hymns and canticles!

Lord knows I neither can speak for every "luminary" in our faith, nor am I empowered to extinguish whatever fires have been/ may be set by federated/ ecumenical undertakings. What I can do is explain why, as much as I love my Anglo/Scottish heritage, I am not an exclusive psalmist.

Let the elect be reminded in the Westminster Confession of Faith 21:1

The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.

 I take this to mean all of the Scriptures,not just the psalms,for one thing. Secondly, Psalm 150:3-5 says:

3. Praise ye Him in the sound of the trumpet: praise ye Him upon the viol and the harp. 4. Praise ye Him with the timbrel and flute: praise ye Him with virginals and organs. 5. Praise ye Him with sounding cymbals : praise ye Him with high sounding cymbals.

That's right in the Psalms, themselves. What about 2 Chronicles 5:13? And 1 Chronicles 13:8? Should we consider the hymns sung in Luke Chapters 1 and 2; as well as those in Revelation 4 and 5?


While I'm at it, the argument that hymns could tacitly flag the kind of soteriological malaise that has ransacked many fundamental quarters doesn't fly, either. I take umbrage with that idea on two grounds. First of all, the Machen influence in much of the PCA is still very discernable, to my view. Secondly, many of the hymns which are in the Trinity hymnal are centuries old; rendering their authors blameless for the brazen Scriptural dismissiveness that has envenomated our faith in the mainstream.

I'd like to close by saying how utterly refreshing this argument is. After countless engagements against factions whose apparent aim was to nullify the Word of God, it's indeed a privilege to have the opportunity to address an issue in which both sides cling fervently to the belief that the Bible is the abiding rule!