Color me an impulse buyer if you must, but I simply couldn't help myself. I was web surfing for some executive pens and I ran across a set that had the Geneva College logo on them. I'd been meaning to get down to the campus for a while as it is. So I jumped in the car and drove the forty plus minutes and there I was. It was here that the first college basketball game took place- Geneva defeated New Brighton YMCA by a score of 3-0, on Saturday April 8, 1893.
At any rate, it was a warm sunny day and I made my way across campus to the bookstore. It was there in the bookstore that I had an awesome encounter with the manager(who was RP) and two other patrons who were ARP.
Now I distinctly remember the Rev Billy Graham making reference to the ARP as the "real Presbyterians". That statement alone, particularly from a Baptist, could threaten to open the proverbial floodgates of tumultuous conjecture in the doctrinal circle I run in. Yet my point is that I learned at that chance encounter not only that the ARP is unilaterally not exclusive psalmist, but it's been that way since the mid 1940's. The couple proceeded to tell me of an ARP church in nearby Grove City, Pa. During the school year (as it is college town) the worship services draw in upwards of 200 people. As exciting as that sounds, I left the bookstore less than 100 % sure if some of the liturgical architecture of their services wasn't intentionally designed to "attract" young people. Such tactics lead to the enshrinement of a "feel good" liturgy, after all.
Now to its credit, the ARP has done much in the way of "checking and balancing" its ecumenical relations and there have been some positive results. Yet much needs to be done. My purpose here is neither to exalt nor diminish the Seceder tradition. The conversation I had in the bookstore, on the other hand, dealt with the issue of exclusive psalmody and certain misnomers triggered by it that I find irksome:
- The idea that exclusive psalmody is some sort of "thumb in the dyke" which protects a church or Reformed denomination from the ravages of modernism.
- The Regulative Principle, devoid of exclusive psalmody, is the Normative.
- That exclusive psalmody was expressly by Calvin, Knox and the early reformers.
- And that the Psalms of David is the only book that contains that which we are required by God to sing in church.
Colossians 3:16
Let the word of Christ dwell in you plenteously in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing your own selves, in Psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with a grace in your hearts to the Lord,
Now, look at the footnotes the Geneva Bible has for this verse:
"By Psalms he meaneth all godly songs, which were written upon divers occasions, and by hymns, all such as contain the praise of God, and by spiritual songs, other more peculiar and artificious songs which were also in praise of God, but they were made fuller of music."
This does not sound like exclusive at all. Proponents of exclusive psalmody often cite this quote from Calvin to bolster their argument.
 |
| “What is there now to do? It is to have songs not only honest, but also holy, which will be like spurs to incite us to pray to and praise God, and to meditate upon his works in order to love, fear, honor and glorify him. Moreover, that which St. Augustine has said is true, that no one is able to sing things worthy of God except that which he has received from him. Therefore, when we have looked thoroughly, and searched here and there, we shall not find better songs nor more fitting for the purpose, than the Psalms of David, which the Holy Spirit spoke and made through him. And moreover, when we sing them, we are certain that God puts in our mouths these, as if he himself were singing in us to exalt his glory. Wherefore Chrysostom exhorts, as well as the men, the women and the little children to accustom themselves to singing them, in order that this may be a sort of meditation to associate themselves with the company of the angels.” |
Are we to infer there to be positively no other inspired songs at all? Certainly not. John Calvin was saying the Psalms of David enjoy first priority during the worship. Otherwise, his footnotes on Colossians 3:16 in the Geneva Bible would imply indecision on his part on the subject, now wouldn't it? Clearly, this "lapse" is a better testament to the overall maladroitness of the EP position. Try explaining the hymns and canticles in the Genevan Psalter, otherwise!
*There are those that would not directly attribute the notes to Calvin. Bear in mind that had they not enjoyed his imprimatur, they never would have made it in. Nor would those extra-psalmodic songs have ever been included in the Genevan Psalter.
*There are those that would not directly attribute the notes to Calvin. Bear in mind that had they not enjoyed his imprimatur, they never would have made it in. Nor would those extra-psalmodic songs have ever been included in the Genevan Psalter.
Were the English Puritans and Westminster Divines opposed to hymnody in worship??
Look at Rev Thomas Manton's commentary on James 5:13 and you tell me...
Look at Rev Thomas Manton's commentary on James 5:13 and you tell me...
 |
| “Others question whether we may sing scripture psalms, the psalms of David, which to me seemeth to look like the cavil of a profane spirit. But to clear this also. I confess we do not forbid other songs; if grave and pious, after good advice they may be received into the church. Tertullian, in his Apology, showth that in the primitive times they used this liberty, either to sing scripture psalms or such as were of a private composure.” |
I refer the elect to the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 Chapter 21, Section 5
V. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching, and conscionable hearing of the word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith and reverence; singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: beside religious oaths and vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions,a which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in a holy and religious manner.
Dr John Kennedy of Dingwall, in his address to the Free Church of Scotland in 1872 said the following.
 |
| “Some desire them (that is, hymns) because of an experience of enjoy- ment in using them, in private or in social Christian conference, to express their feeling of sorrow, hope, or gladness. Let these continue so to use them; I will yield to none in my desire to have them as a vehicle of any strong spiritual feeling that stirs my heart; but to use them in the worship of God in the sanctuary is quite another thing.” |
Now, this assertion hits on another problem I have with exclusive psalmists arguments. The latently vaticanist idea that, while it may be alright to employ hymns in private worship, their use is a no-no during public worship. Shall we eat fish only on Friday with scapulars around our necks, while we're at it?
This, admittedly, is an issue that even John Calvin wrestled with at one point. I couldn't have responded to this flagrant soteriological breach any better than The Rev Ivan Foster, a retired senior minister in the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster
 |
| It is popish to suggest that there is one level of worship for the home and a higher level for the church building. Just what level of worship would a Covenanting Conventicle be ex- pected to engage in, when meeting in a glen or on a mountainside during those years of trial? In truth there is only one level of worship acceptable to God and it is that which the Saviour indicated to the woman of Samaria. “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth,” John 4:24. If hymns and paraphrases are accept- able when worshipping the Lord in the home then they are acceptable when offered in praise within the assembly of the saints. |
Neither prayer, nor any other part of religious worship, is now, under the Gospel, either tied unto, or made more acceptable by any place in which it is performed, or towards which it is directed: but God is to be worshipped everywhere in spirit and truth; as, in private families daily,and in secret, each one by himself; so, more solemnly in the public assemblies, which are not carelessly or wilfully to be neglected, or forsaken, when God, by His Word or providence, calls thereunto.
Norma Normans Non Normata
Richard Albert Mohler, the great Calvinist theologian who presides over the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, used this Latin Phrase not long ago. It means "the norm of norms which cannot be normed". What Mohler was referencing was the reformers' conviction that it is the Word of God which dictates the proper course and cadence for the elect, not vice- versa.
To this end
Ephesians 5:19
Speaking unto yourselves in Psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord in your hearts,
Look at the footnotes for this verse in the Geneva Bible
With an earnest affection of the heart, and not with the tongue only
Earnest affection is doubtlessly the fruit of God's effectual calling/ regeneration. Clearly the reformers saw regeneration as no less Divinely ordained than the Psalms of David. It's a no-brainer; as the imputation of righteousness into the heart of King David quite necessarily preceded the Psalms of David.
Paul says in his letter to the church at Corinth: 1Corinthians 14:26
What is to be done then, brethren? when ye come together, according as every one of you hath a Psalm, or hath doctrine, or hath a tongue, or hath revelation, or hath interpretation, let all things be done unto edifying.
The footnotes of that verse in the Geneva Bible
The conclusion: The edifying of the Congregation is a rule and square of the right use of all spiritual gifts.
Spiritual gifts. Notice in that verse the "P" in Psalms is upper case; clearly revealing that there is much in the way of song that is not only warranted-but commanded- outside the Psalms of David! Every one of us has a Psalm...Hence, the 'priesthood of all believers'. How would one go about arguing this wasn't what the reformers contended?
What about the Song of Solomon?
Oft interpreted it has been as a parable for the bond of love between Christ and the Kirk. Is this improper to expound on in song during the worship service?
What of the inspired songs outside the Psalms of David?
If we hold the Bible to be inerrant, we egregiously err by flatly ignoring other inspired songs of holy writ, such as those found in Deuteronomy 32; Habakkuk 3; Luke 1:46-55, 67-79; Revelation 4:8,11; 5:9-10, 12-13....the list goes on and I intentionally put this in bold!!
The Scriptural command for the elect to sing hymns is no less binding than that to sing the Psalms of David. Secondly, what's decadently inconsistent is that the majority of exclusive psalmists I've encountered would be lost golf tees in thick shrubbery without the accompaniment of a piano. Secondly, many have proven quick to dismiss parts of the Psalms of David; as they tell of customs, rituals and so forth that were part of the "Old Covenant". Mind you, the idea of one eternal decree of election being the harbinger of a covenantal duality is, on its face, anathema to my eschatological sensibilities as a Calvinist, as it is. Yet many of my exclusive psalmist brethren, in an attempt to galvanize their position, come across as latently dispensational; which is just as patently repulsive. Amidst the spoliation of argument, they seem to obfuscate (albeit-not deliberately) the vital distinctions between sacrament, rite, ritual; as though the terms are interchangeable. Even if they were, the WCF is clear in its 27th Chapter, Sec 5:
The sacraments of the Old Testament in regard to the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new
I then look at the glaring inconsistencies of some of the great "champions" of exclusive psalmody.
- James Henley Thornwell- Who was so preoccupied with distancing himself from Solomon Stoddard's latitudinarianism, he ran aground of WCF 3:3 and the Canons of Dordrecht 1 Head, Article 6.
- RL Dabney- Who in 1849,during an interview for the Watchman and Observer in Virginia, made an analogy regarding our worship using the poetry of Robert Burns as an example.
- John Girardeau- Who held that the murder of Abel by Cain was the harbinger of sin's entry into the world. As opposed to the fall of the race from its free will and seamless rectitude via the temptations of the serpent.
A rather bizarre 'compromise'.
Endeavoring to partition the hymns to prior to the worship service fails the proverbial smell test, as well. First of all, it tacitly promotes the idea of "differing levels of worship". Secondly, it's still the utterances of hymns in the public forum within the confines of God's House! Thirdly, it serves as a fundamental insult to the godly bequests by example of those Puritans, Westminster Divines, Covenanters and Seceders who diligently labored, with God's help and grace, to ensure the vitality and continuity of the rich, vibrant and abiding faith tradition we enjoy today. Finally, it's a slap in the face to the godly men who prayed and were led to exactitude and purpose; in the creation of the Trinity Hymnal in 1961. And...(drum roll, please)..... here's the main reason.
We are commanded to sing to the Lord a new song, as per the 96th Psalm, see also Isaiah 42:10.
It's uncanny how the exclusive psalmists conveniently neglect the 96th and 150th chapters of the Psalms of David. Again, they doubtlessly believe (at least subconsciously-many of them) the practice serves as some sort of a prophylactic against theological modernism and the cancer of moral relativism that invariably works in tandem. Now, having been in the mainline for over a fifth of a century, I more than applaud that resolve. Yet, the belief in exclusive psalmody and all the maladroitness it engenders in its defense threatens certain polarizations, itself. More importantly, it misrepresents our history and casts aside a very potent milieu through which Christ alone is praised!
PSALMS HYMNS AND SCRIPTURAL SONGS
No comments:
Post a Comment