Some Reasons Why We Shouldn’t Sing Exclusively From the Psalms in New Covenant Worship

Posted by deangonzales on October 10, 2009
16 Comments

Sadly, the question of what the church should sing in corporate worship has been a source of controversy among those churches that were birthed in the Protestant Reformation. The controversy revolves around the issue of exclusive psalm singing. Some argue that the church should only sing from the Psalms of the Old Testament. In other words, the church should sing exclusively from (a translation of) God’s “inspired hymnbook.” Some good men have held this position. The Reformed theologian John Murray defended this position. William Romaine, who lived in the wake of the great revivals of Whitefield and Wesley, held this position and sharply criticized the use of “uninspired” hymns. In 1796, he wrote:

I lack a name for that man who should pretend that he can make better hymns than the Holy Ghost. It is just the same as if he was to write a new Bible; not only better than the old, but so much better that the old may be thrown aside. What a blasphemous attempt!  And yet our hymnmongers, inadvertedly I hope, have come very near to this blasphemy.¹.

Though in the minority, there are Reformed Christians today that still promote exclusive psalmody. In a book entitled The Psalms in Worship, the publisher, Still Waters Revival Books, adds the following disclaimer:

Still Waters Revival Books reprobates any statements contained herein which speak favorably of the Crusades, Romanism, Church choirs, emotionalism, neutrality in worship, and the use of instrumental music (or any implied endorsement for the use of ‘hymns’ of human composition) in public worship.²

Before we consider the arguments for and against exclusive psalmody (EP), let me briefly clarify what is meant by term “inspired,” as opposed to “uninspired” hymns. Webster’s Dictionary gives this definition for the very “to inspire”: to guide, affect, or arouse by divine influence. When we apply this term to the Bible, we are referring to that process in which God guided the very thoughts of the authors of Scripture in order to insure that what they wrote was the very word of God. Thus, when we refer to the Bible as inspired, we are calling attention to the divine origin and quality of the Scripture. As Paul explains in 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is inspired of God.” The words of the Bible are uniquely the words of God. On the other hand, the term “inspired” may be used in a lesser sense. For example, someone might claim that he was “inspired by God” to write a hymn or to preach a sermon or to write a book. In such a case, the person is probably not claiming that his hymn or sermon or book is inspired in the same sense as the Bible. He would not claim that it is infallible or inerrant. Perhaps, instead of saying that he was inspired, he might say that God “illumined” his mind to understand a certain scriptural theme and to write or speak about that theme. This is a more ordinary experience; whereas inspiration is an extraordinary experience. When we apply this distinction of inspired vs. uninspired to hymns, we are contrasting the hymns contained in our infallible and inerrant Bibles with the hymns contained in fallible and sometimes errant hymnbooks.

1. The Basic NT Argument for Exclusive Psalmody in New Covenant Worship

Those who argue for this position depend heavily upon the language structure of the text of Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16.  They argue that the words “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” are just three ways of referring to the same thing. The apostle is just repeating himself for emphasis. Proponents of this argument often point out that in the Greek version of the OT (LXX), the title of 67 of the psalms has “hymn” instead of psalm and 35 of the psalms have “song.” Thus, they argue, Paul is instructing Christians to sing from the Psalter. It is also argued that the term “spiritual,” at the end of the phrase, really modifies all three terms and is predicating these lyrical compositions as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

2. Some Arguments Against Exclusive Psalmody in New Covenant Worship

Below are a few reasons why I can’t accept the argument for the exclusive use of the OT Psalter in NT corporate worship. For a fuller development of the argument against exclusive psalmody, see John Frame, Worship in Spirit and Truth (P&R, 1996), 123-27.

(1) We are to sing about the Lord Jesus Christ and we are to employ the content of New Testament revelation in our singing (Col. 3:16).

The Psalms never mention the name of Jesus and when they do speak of him it is in the form of type or shadow. Accordingly, we need to supplement the promissory content of revelation found in the OT Psalter with the fulfillment content of revelation found in the NT corpora. This is how we comply with Paul’s command, “Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you” (Col. 3:16). As John Frame remarks,

The completeness of redemption in Christ requires a whole new language of praise: about Jesus the God-man, his once-for-all finished atonement, his resurrection for our justification, and our union with him by faith as the new people of God. Doubtless there are anticipations of these doctrines in the Psalter, but Christian worship demands more than the language of anticipation. It demands the language of fulfillment and completeness, for that is what is distinctive about New Testament faith. It is precisely the accomplishment of God’s mighty works that evokes praise in Scripture.³

(2) There are worship songs in the Bible written both before and after the book of Psalms.

See the following passages: Exodus 15; Numbers 21:17; Deuteronomy 32; Judges 5; Luke 1, 2; 1 Corinthians 14:15, 26; Revelation 5, 14, 19. The songs found in these texts were not incorporated into the book of Psalms. Yet they formed a part of genuine worship.

(3) The three words used in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 are the primary Greek words available to Paul to describe singing.

If Paul wanted to describe different kinds of songs, other than the Old Testament Psalms, what other terms could he use? On the other hand, if he did want to refer to exclusive psalmody, he could have simply used the term for “psalms.” But Paul uses the three terms available to him in the Greek language to express a variety of types of songs.

(4) The Scripture never says that the OT Psalter is to be our only source of Christian praise.

On the contrary, the Scripture indicates that new redemptive acts of God call for new songs. Throughout the Scripture and in the Psalms themselves we find commands to sing new songs!⁴ Observes Frame,

The picture is not one of a static hymnal given by God for all time; rather, it is the dynamic picture of God continually doing wonderful deeds and his people responding to them with shouts of praise. Just as god’s deliverances elicit new prayers of thanksgiving and new subject matter for preaching, so they elicit new songs. In this regard, is it even remotely possible that the greatest divine deliverance of all, the redemptive work of Christ, should not evoke new songs?⁵

(5) If it is wrong to sing “uninspired” hymns in worship, it is wrong to preach “uninspired” sermons and to pray “uninspired” prayers in worship.

If we take exclusive psalmody to its logical extreme, there is no place for extemporaneous prayer or preaching. But just as Scripture authorizes us to preach uninspired sermons and to pray uninspired prayers, so it authorizes us to sing uninspired songs. And though we do not believe in ongoing revelation, we do believe in ongoing Spirit-illumination. Under the influence of the Spirit men can preach and pray  in such a way that pleases God and edifies God’s people and not merely with direct quotations from Scripture. In the same way and under the same influence, God’s people may sing. The very context of Ephesians 5:19 indicates that this is the case—the singing is Spirit-filled singing, not necessarily Spirit-inspired singing. In fact, the term “spiritual” does not always mean “from the Spirit,” i.e., inspired. Sometimes it simply refers to something that has spiritual qualities, i.e., sacred vs. secular.

(6) What is known about the worship in the early post-apostolic church confirms the view that allows for songs other than the book of Psalm.

Pliny, in a report to the Roman Emperor Trajan, says of the early Christians, “They met on a fixed day before dawn and cited a hymn antiphonally to Christ as God” (emphasis added).⁶ Tertullian (ca 160), referring to the love feast, says, “After washing the hands and the bringing in of lights, each [brother] is asked to stand forth and sing as he can, a hymn to God–either one from the Holy Scriptures or one of his own composing” (emphasis added).⁷ Eusebius alludes to humanly composed Christian hymns when he cites Caius who writes, “For who is ignorant of the books of Irenaeus and Melito, and the rest, which declare Christ to be God and man? All the psalms, too, and hymns of the brethren–which have been written from the beginning by the faithful–celebrating Christ as the Word of God, ascribing divinity to him” (emphasis added).⁸

Concluding Remarks

While it’s appropriate and good to sing from the Psalter, it’s also appropriate to sing uninspired hymns in worship provided that they are doctrinal sound and meet the other criteria for God-honoring song. We want to avoid two extremes. One extreme completely ignores using hymns of the Bible. The other extreme limits our songs to the Psalter. The one extreme deprives us of much scriptural truth and imagery from the OT, and the other extreme deprives us of much scripture truth and imagery from the NT and also from Christ’s gifts to the church throughout the centuries of church history. We must not be guilty of quenching the Holy Spirit. The NT calls for a variety of Christian songs for worship. Let us avail ourselves of all our rich heritage. Let us also compose and avail ourselves of “new songs” of praise. There’s no reason why good hymns and songs cannot be written today.

Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary

1. Cited in The Psalms for Worship, ed. John McNaughter (1907; reprint, Still Waters Revival Books, 1992), 4. [↩]
2. Ibid., 6. [↩]
3. Worship in Spirit and Truth, 126. [↩]
4. See, for example, Exodus 15; Numbers 21:17; Deuteronomy 32; Psalm 33:3; 40:3; 96:1; 98:1; 144:9; 149:1; Isaiah 42:10; Mary’s magnificat, Luke 1:46-55; Zachariah’s song, Luke 1:67-79; Revelation 5:9; 14:3. [↩]
5. Ibid., 125. [↩]
6. Pliny, Letters 10.96. [↩]
7. Cited in A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, ed. David W. Bercot (Hendrickson Publishers, 1998), 348. [↩]
8. Ibid. [↩]

Spiritual Declension: Lessons from Early 18th Century Particular Baptists, Part 2-Controversies over More or Less Minor Issues

Posted by jsmitheasley on January 13, 2009
22 Comments

In the interests of survival, theological debate was relatively rare among Particular Baptists during the time of persecution.[1] But once the Act of Toleration was in place and major persecution ceased, theological and personal differences came to the forefront. The problem was not so much that there were disagreements among Baptists on some issues. It was the divisive, mean-spirited attitude in which these disputes were sometimes engaged.

The first issue was the matter of singing in worship services. This debate actually began before the Act of Toleration, but it heated up in the decade immediately after it. There may have been exceptions, but the singing of “uninspired” hymns was not practiced in any of the English churches in general in the 17th century.[2] However beyond that, among Baptists, there were many who did not practice congregational singing at all. There is evidence that some churches did, but many were against it and didn’t sing at all.[3] In some cases, the omission of singing may have originated from fear that their secret meetings would be discovered by the authorities during the days of persecution.[4] But this expedient seems to have become a cherished tradition among some Baptists.[5] So even after religious liberty came many did not sing in worship.

In 1673, the Particular Baptist Benjamin Keach persuaded his church to sing a hymn at the close of the Lord’s Supper. He allowed those who objected to leave before the hymn. Fourteen years later, “At a church meeting on March 1, 1691, a large majority of the members” of Keach’s church “voted to have a hymn sung following the service every Sunday.”[6] Twenty-two of Keach’s members left. They felt this practice was an unscriptural innovation. For a number of years they attended the church pastored by Hanserd Knollys. Then they formed themselves into a new church that met at a place called Maze Pond. In the articles of faith that they drew up in 1694, they explicitly state their opposition to congregational singing. They stated that it was “a gross error equall with common nationall Sett forme Prayer.”[7] In other words, they put it in the same category as using the Church of England prayer book. Michael Haykin notes, “The convictions of these people were shared by a number of leading London Baptists, including William Kiffin, Robert Steed and Isaac Marlow.”[8] Steed preached against congregational singing and encouraged Marlow to publish a book against it. Others wrote against it as well, but Marlowe was the main antagonist writing eleven books that dealt with the issue.[9] Haykin further remarks,

The heat generated by this controversy may be discerned by the terms the two sides tossed at each other. Marlow tells us that he was labeled a ‘Ridiculous Scribbler’, ‘Brasen-Forehead’, ‘Enthusiast’, and “Quaker’. But Marlowe could give as good as he got. He viewed his opponents as ‘a coterie of book burning papists’ who were seeking to undermine the Reformation, for, as far as he was concerned, they were endorsing a practice that had no scriptural warrant at all”[10]

This division over hymn singing became quite a controversy. It split the Particular Baptist churches and was marked by a lot of grievous unchristian behavior and attitudes.

The second issue was the matter of closed versus open membership and open communion. This was a debate that also began early before the Act of Toleration. However the compilers of the 1677 confession (which is also the 1689 confession) charitably decided not to insist on either side of the issue. They explained, “We…are not in full accord among ourselves.”[11] So they were content not to insist on one position or the other in the confession. But again this debate was reopened in the 18th century and became quite heated.

So these two issues, congregational singing, including the singing of “uninspired” hymns, and open versus closed communion became matters of serious division among the churches. Lots of energy and time was taken up debating and fussing over these issues, all of which tended to distract from more important things. Also, no doubt, the spirit in which these debates were sometimes carried on did much to grieve the Holy Spirit. Mention was made in an earlier post of Howell Harris and the impression that he had of the Nonconformist churches. Apparently he knew many nonconformist pastors well, including Particular Baptists. David Martyn Lloyd-Jones commenting on this says that Harris even felt that the Nonconformists had the truth. In fact, he agonized for a long time over whether or not he should stay in the Church of England. Finally he chose to stay and one of several reasons he did was his impression that the nonconformists were constantly entangled in doctrinal disputes. Quoting Lloyd-Jones, “They were learned men, they were able men, and they were well versed in doctrine; but they spent most of their time in arguments and disputations with one another.”[12] It’s also interesting to read John Newton’s explanation of why he never became a Baptist. He considered doing so but one of the things that put him off was that while they were so strongly against other groups who agreed with them on every point but one, baptism, they were so divided among themselves.[13]

The lesson for us is clear as Reformed Baptists. In our relationships with one another as pastors and sister churches, we must guard against becoming embroiled in heated controversies over relatively minor issues. We must not allow such things to distract us from the higher priorities of the kingdom. Furthermore, when we do have disagreements we must be careful not to grieve the Holy Spirit by a mean-spirited attitude. Of course, there is the opposite danger of neglecting and minimizing the importance of sound doctrine. This too must be avoided. We must uphold our confessional standard when it comes to our closest inter-church relationships and ties. However, there are relatively minor issues that we can legitimately disagree about as Reformed Baptists that are not confessional issues. If we agree on the doctrines set forth in 32 detailed chapters of a confession of faith that’s a lot of agreement!! There’s no need to fight or divide over matters our confession never takes a dogmatic position about. There are, indeed, some differences among us of this nature. There are differences related to music and singing in our churches; whether we sing out of a hymn book all the time, or sometimes sing more modern songs, or even use power point, or whether and how we use musical accompaniment. There are differences regarding the best ways to engage in ministerial training and interchurch association. There are even differences regarding the nature of plurality, parity and diversity in an eldership. There are other things that could be mentioned. But if we can agree on all 32 chapters of our confession of faith, differences in other areas ought not to divide us. There’s a proper place for debating finer points, but it shouldn’t consume our best energies. Surely we should strive to maintain a strong bond of unity between churches that can agree on so much. Even with brethren who don’t agree with everything in our confession, there’s a unity of the Spirit that we ought to pursue and seek to express with all who hold to the essential fundamental doctrines of evangelical Christianity. According to Paul in Ephesians four there is a unity of the Spirit to be maintained with all who know and love Christ and hold to gospel essentials (4:3). While there is also a unity of the faith to be attained (4:13) through faithful, patient, ongoing instruction of the churches by their pastors and teachers. The implication is that our duty to keep the unity of the Spirit is not negated by the present lack of a perfect unity of the faith in every particular. If that is true in our relationships to all true gospel believing churches of Christ, how much more in our relationships to one another as Reformed Baptists who hold to the same confession of faith. In the next entry we’ll consider a third major factor in the decline among Particular Baptists in the early 18th century.

Jeffery Smith
Covenant Reformed Baptist Church
Easley, SC

[1] David Merck, “Modern Church History”; manuscript of lectures given for Reformed Baptist Seminary, 261.
[2] Thomas Ross, “English Particular Baptist Singing and Congregational Worship Practices,” accessed on Internet January 2009 here.
[3] Merck, 261.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Michael Haykin, Kiffin, Knollys and Keach (Leeds, England: Reformation Today Trust, 1996), 92.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid. 93.
[9] Ibid.