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. [↩]

In Defense of Musical Diversity by Kevin DeYoung

Posted by deangonzales on September 30, 2009
20 Comments

Kevin DeYoung, one of the pastors of University Reformed Church, East Lansing Michigan, is no fan of the shallow entertainment-oriented worship promoted and practiced in some evangelical churches today. He’s the co-author of Why We’re Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be, and he’s an avid promoter of solid theology, good preaching, and biblical churchmanship. Nevertheless, DeYoung is not an exclusive traditionalist when it comes to the style of music he deems appropriate for corporate worship. In the article below, he’s offers some balanced reasoning on why the church should allow for a biblically informed diversity in her worship music. I commend it to you.

In Defense of Musical Diversity

I am not a fan of the word diversity. It’s not that I am against experiencing different cultures, tastes, and personalities. It’s that I don’t know what people mean when they say “diversity.” Depending on whom you talk to, diversity includes everything from relativism to racial harmony to unrestrained personal expression. Diversity is a buzz word that embraces many good ideas, but has become synonymous with a lot of silly ideas too.

So I am not enamored with the (overused) word “diversity.” Nevertheless, I want to defend diversity in one important area: the songs that we sing in church. I believe it very good for our churches to sing songs from different eras, traditions, and styles.

Before I highlight four types of songs in particular, let me make four general comments. First, the songs that we sing in corporate worship must be biblically and theologically sound. No song gets a free pass just because its “diverse.” No matter how brilliant or moving or catchy the music, if the words stink, we shouldn’t sing it.

This leads to a second related comment. While we want to sing deep, theologically rich songs in our worship–songs about election, the Trinity, the atonement, God’s sovereignty–we don’t need to sing all of our theology in every song. To be sure, we don’t want lyrics to be misleading or present half-truths, but we can sing simple truths. If all we sing are the most basic biblical truths, we are not doing justice to the whole counsel of God, but even a meal with roast and mashed potatoes needs a side salad and some jello. In other words, there’s nothing wrong with singing “Jesus Loves Me” or “We Love You Lord” or “God is Good All the Time.” These may not plumb the theological depths, but they do speak biblical truths and do so with childlike trust. Songs with 101-level truths should not be the staple of our musical diet, but they should be on our plate.

Third, the quest for musical diversity should not remove the particularity of a church’s worship. That is, it’s ok for Oakdale Community Church to be Oakdale Community, for First Baptist to be First Baptist, for worshipers in a remote Indian village to worship like, well, Indians. One of the problems with diversity as it’s sometimes construed is that it actually works against genuine diversity. Instead of people groups or churches enjoying their distinctiveness, they dabble (superficially usually) in every other culture. The result is that, in the name of diversity, every church or people ends up looking like the same multicultural experiment.

But let me hasten to add a final general comment. While it is wholly appropriate for a church to have a musical “center,” this does not mean we should only sing from that “center.” As I heard a speaker say recently, it’s fine (and inevitable) for a church to have a culture and tradition, but we must recognize that we have a culture lest we become enslaved to it. What I am arguing for is something in between the cutting edge and the status quo. On the one hand, churches need to sing familiar songs if the congregational singing is to be hearty and engaged. On the other hand, churches need to be pushed to learn new songs outside their “center.” As D. A. Carson puts it, “The importance of intelligibility (in music, let us say) must therefore be juxtaposed with the responsibility to expand the limited horizons of one narrow tradition.”

With that in mind, and in pursuit of a right kind of diversity, let me mention four different “traditions” of songs that we should be (and are, I think) singing.

Psalms
The Psalms have been the church’s songbook for two thousand years. They are also inspired by God and intended to be sung. It is sad, therefore, that so few churches in North America regularly sing Psalms. Some Christians groups sing only Psalms. That goes too far in my opinion, but inclusive Psalmnody is a grand idea. Singing the Psalms keeps us real as they give expression to the full range of human emotion–lament, joy, anguish, doubt, hope, longing, confusion, jubilation, contrition, and fear. The words of Carl Trueman, in his delightful essay “What Can Miserable Christians Sing?” are worth pondering: “By excluding the cries of loneliness, dispossession, and desolation from its worship, the church has effectively silenced and excluded the voices of those who are themselves lonely, dispossessed, and desolate, both inside and outside the church.” The Psalms are what miserable Christians can sing.

Hymns
“Hymns” is a broad category in which are dozens of different styles and traditions. I use the term loosely to refer to the songs we find in hymnals–songs from Wesley, Watts, and Winkworth (look her up; she may be in your hymnal a lot); songs from the early church, the Reformation, and the Great Awakening; songs from monks, Puritans, and evangelists. Hymns are not perfect (e.g., “my faith has found a resting place not in device nor creed”), but they have at least three advantages over newer songs.

One, hymns, because hymnals have notes on a page and because their melodies are more geared for keys on a piano as opposed to a note in a guitar chord, are often more singable by large groups.

Two, hymns, because they have been around for decades and usually centuries, have undergone more weeding out. The chaff has been sifted and the wheat has remained. If Christians have sung a song for 1500 years, chances are there’s something good about it. Most hymns are simply better musically, lyrically, and theologically than most newer songs.

Third, hymns link us with the past and the communion of the saints from all generations. Hymns guard us against our cultural blindspots and historical idiosyncrasies.

Contemporary Songs
Like “hymns,” “contemporary songs” is a term so broad as to be almost meaningless. By contemporary music I mean chronologically, songs written since I’ve been alive; stylistically, songs you might hear on the radio; and musically, songs that probably use guitar, drums, keyboard or some combination thereof. Many conservative Christians, including some I really respect, can be very hard on contemporary music–calling it happy clappy music, or 7-11 songs (7 words sung 11 times), or me-centered theology. Undoubtedly, you can find new songs to fit all those put-downs. But there are good reasons for singing new contemporary songs (which are sometimes just old hymns put to newer music–like some of the Passion songs and the entire RUF movement). Not only do newer songs sometimes give voice to a younger generation’s way of expression, they can be powerfully true and theologically rich. One thinks of songs like Matt Redman’s “Blessed be Your Name,” or Townsend and Getty’s “In Christ Alone,” or Graham Kendrick’s “Knowing You” or the stuff from Sovereign Grace. In fact, some of the contemporary songs are actually quite hymnic.

No generation of Christians has the right to stop including new songs. Imagine if the church stopped singing new songs after the Reformation just because the songs were new. No “And Can it Be,” no “Amazing Grace,” no “Holy, Holy, Holy.” What a pity! Thankfully, the last meaty, good song for corporate worship has not yet been written. And thankfully, the worship music today is more mature, more God-centered, and more singable than it was a decade or two ago.

Non-Anglo Songs
This category is completely artificial I admit. There is no “non-Anglo” tradition of music. There are Spanish songs and Zulu chants and African-American spirituals, but these are traditions all their own, deserving of a name that is much more than just a description of what they are not–non-Anglo. But even using this clumsy category I think you can understand my point. We should be singing songs that aren’t from the majority culture at our churches (writing from my perspective as a white man from a majority white church).

Singing non-Anglo songs (with translation if necessary) is good for us not only because it broadens our horizons, but because we are not all white Anglo-Saxons! We may not ever sing “just like the black church downtown,” or “just like my church back in Nigeria.” That’s not the point. I am not embarrassed that I like Isaac Watts, but neither should I be embarrassed to clap along with a spiritual or stumble my way through a Spanish chorus. Singing these songs has many benefits. It guards us against resting smugly in our own tradition or preferences; it reminds us that God is a God of all peoples; and it gives voice to other traditions in our midst.

I am not arguing for a mechanical implementation of Psalms, hymns, contemporary songs, and non-Anglo songs. We should not make one week Psalms and another week non-Anglo songs, and we don’t have to get all four categories in every service. But singing from these four traditions, as we often do, is good for our church, not least of all because no one can claim absolutely “they use my kind of music here.” Then, Christ–sung in our songs, called up in our prayers, and heralded in the preaching–will be the glue that holds us together, and not music. That’s the kind of unity in diversity worth celebrating.

(HT: “In Defense of Musical Diversity” from DeYoung, Restless, and Reformed).

“O Church Arise”: Preparing Our Hearts for the Lord’s Day with Keith & Kristyn Getty

Posted by deangonzales on September 5, 2009
4 Comments

For the last several years, Keith and Kristyn Getty have been producing many quality hymns for the modern church. (For more information about Getty Music, click here.) In the song below, they call the church of Christ to engage the kingdom of darkness and advance the kingdom of light by keeping her eyes fixed on the cross and resurrection of Christ, which are the guarantee of our ultimate victory.

Enjoy!
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary