I want to take a shot at advocating for a new song in modern Christian worship. I’m committed to confessional theology, worship, and life as a Christian. That means my understanding of what we are to do and how we are to do what we do stems from historically accepted traditions in reading scripture, including the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW). The RPW essentially claims that only what God has said we must do is allowable in public worship.
Some of this may appear to be a bit intramural. I don’t think so, but I’m not here to convince more mainstream “evangelical” Christians of my position. I’m aiming for those who do not consider hymns (songs which are not recorded explicitly in the Bible, or are extracted literally from scripture) appropriate for stated worship in the congregation. That said, it should be a conversation for all Christians to consider. What goes into public worship and how it’s conducted is of vital importance to the church in the world. “I believe in the holy catholic church…”
Of primary note, this discussion is intended to argue for form, not substance. Where churches commit to confessions, they do not do the same with hymns, even if those hymns might be clear correlation in meaning with a confessional or inspired scriptural reference. I’m trying to demonstrate here that there is no reasonable way to say that hymns which correctly reflect Christian doctrine are not appropriate for singing in public worship. Where I use scripture, creeds and confessions, prayer and singing in correlation, this not a one-to-one, rather a form correlation. Basically, subscribe to confessions, receive scripture, write and use hymns and forms.
Terms:
- Stated Service: Divine Services, Public Worship – those congregational events most commonly occurring on the Lord’s Day (Sunday), though infrequently held at the discretion of the elders of the church on other significant days such as Good Friday, Christmas, and Ascension day. Specifically, a stated service is called by the government of the church (elders, pastor, consistory, session) and members are expected to attend
- Exclusive Psalmody: Only Canonical Psalms are to be used in Divine Services
- Exclusive Inspired Hymnody: Only Canonical Scripture (including Psalms) are to be used in stated service
- Expositional Hymnody: Canonical Scripture and faithfully exegeted songs are to be used in stated service
- Adiaphora: That which is not directed or prohibited in the Bible. Accidental, circumstantial, or incidental. Related to form rather than substance or essence
In opening, I think this is a very serious assessment from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church:
“It is also unthinkable, in all of our corporate singing in the church, that we would never sing anything that has the explicit name of our Lord Jesus Christ in it. Unconvincing attempts have been made to assert that the Psalms explicitly name or invoke Christ; however, Scripture simply does not do so explicitly until the New Testament. The thrust of redemptive history, particularly as set forth in the Pauline epistles and the book of Hebrews, is that the complete has come, and the provisional has given way, and so we are to proclaim to all the world that Jesus Christ is Lord. Hence, we are to worship with maximal explicitness, all shadows that typified the Old having given way to the bright light of the New, in the unveiled gospel of Jesus Christ. The hymns recorded in the last book of the Bible, Revelation, especially furnish us with a clear pattern of hymnic praise to the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, to whom all glory is due.”
New Horizons 2017 Volume 38, Number 6 “Why We Also Sing Hymns”
Prayer – The argument for exclusive inspired hymnody or exclusive Psalmody is rendered questionable unless the same argument is made for prayer. Congregational and intercessory prayer in the stated service is rarely literal inspired scripture (though it is a beautiful thing when praying a prayer of confession of sin via Psalm, for instance). Prayer should always be exegetical, applicable to the tradition of the church in which it’s prayed, and even in context with the Lord’s Prayer, but it is not limited to inspired scripture in any traditional practice. Additionally, if hymns (Psalms included) are prayers (intercession, confession, Confession, doxology), both singing and prayer should be governed by the same standard. Psalms, All of Scripture, for the inspired view. Reverent, faithful summary, for the expositional hymnody view.
Confessions/creeds – these are officially recognized as man-made documents that are accepted by the orthodox churches as faithful summaries of the essentials of the Christian faith. They are never considered inspired yet are used in worship in many Reformed churches to confess faith. An important example can be found in the United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA), which prescribes a formally stated catechism service with the purpose of using the creeds and standards as teaching tools, to be confessed and as exposition of the Bible.
When recited in the stated service, creeds and confessions have two values. First is the vertical confession of our beliefs before God as a statement of faith, as doxology, and as petition that “thy will be done.” Second is the horizontal confession and exhortation between members of the congregation that “this is what is true” and “this is what you must believe.” Both values might be true of singing. It is important to emphasize here that the horizontal aspect of worship should be considered incidental (or accidental) to the whole – the people are gathered by God to worship him, and it is secondary that there is benefit between the worshipers. This lower priority does have validity, however small. I think Ephesians 5:19 could speak to this, as Paul exhorts the congregation to “be speaking to one another…” in context with “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your hearts to the Lord.”
Creeds and confessions need not be limited to expositional documents – there is nothing wrong with reciting literal inspired scripture in either case, however the Reformed have concluded that it is positively acceptable (commended) to recite man-made, or derivative, faithful summaries, of the scriptures.
The sermon – while clear, plain scripture is read and used as the source material for the sermon, the preacher is required (formally as well as functionally) to exposit using common language, idiom, analogy, and literary tools to purely administer the Word of God to the congregation. Is there a church or denomination that exclusively reads only Scripture in a stated service? Has this been a practice in history? The Bible does not restrict nor command how preaching is accomplished except that it is always based on the inspired Word. Response to this expositional work could reasonably reflect it in kind – expositional singing is as legitimate as singing inspired scripture.
Aside: Tunes and musical accompaniment – a wooden interpretation of available texts in Scripture would call for multiple instruments in the stated service. This is generally a consequence or adiaphora based on reaction to historic abuse and personal aesthetic.
Forms – Forms and prayers of the church are used in many cases. Most famously, perhaps would be the Anglican Church, which has codified just about everything, and these things are used in the stated service (see the Book of Common Prayer). Lutherans also do this. The Reformed churches (and many evangelical churches as well to some extent) are no exception, and the pastor is required to recite the appropriate forms for the sacraments, membership, ordination, all of which are part of the liturgy of stated services. These documents are not inspired, and hold a place of lesser importance than the creeds and confessions. If an exegetically obtained prayer or form may be used in liturgy as a faithful representation of inspired scripture, exegetical singing not also be considered of similar value.
It should be noted that Anglican and Lutheran traditions (general evangelicals as well) either do not recognize the RPW or do not agree with the Reformed interpretation of the RPW. They’re not part of this argument as equal examples of the same church culture, however they are still a part of the rich history of the Reformation, and in many ways still maintain some practices in a way that, in my thinking here, do not conflict with the RPW as I see it.
While holy scripture prescribes singing, where does it specify psalms, or, more loosely, limit hymnody to inspired passages? I do not believe the cases presented to date are helpful, often arguing from silence (Baptism debate, anyone?). Attempts to make a case for or against a particular stance on singing in public worship are all questionable. The burden of proof for this would lie in the realm of the proponents of one or the other of the exclusive positions. Failure to defend would result in success of expositional hymnody.
- Mark 14 – most likely a Psalm, considering the context. Not prescriptive, but anecdotal. If anything, this verse is prescriptive of singing after the Supper in response to the elements.
- Ephesians 5 – easily made to support either argument. Not prescriptive of type, but of order. This verse is constraining singing in public worship.
- Revelation 14 – not clear enough to prescribe either position. Better exegesis here is the spiritualization (since it’s apocryphal text) and consider this confessional recognition of Glory, consummated new life in the new heavens and earth
- Psalm 96 – not clear enough to prescribe either position. I might think of this as supportive of the Revelation text.
Though history has but a few, what about the ancient hymns? Are they opposed to Scripture?
- O Emmanuel 1000 ce
- Be Thou My Vision 700 ce
- Of the Father’s Love Begotten 405 ce
- Shepherd of Tender Youth 200 ce
In the case of these four, can it be said they are substantial, or (in confessional terms) faithful summaries of scripture? I think it is appropriate to consider that, in hindsight as always, God may well have permitted some (few) hymns that are not inspired, while allowing many to fade into antiquity that either were not suitable for singing (subjective, creature-focused, or erroneously misrepresenting scripture). Note Hezekiah, indicating in Isaiah 38:20, that there is more than just the personally recorded song we see on the pages of inspired scripture. Though the actual age of a hymn is not of any intrinsic value, the Reformed consistently value theological products that have “withstood the test of time” in translations, creeds, confessions, and theological interpretation (think Augustine, Irenaeus).
Where in the modern church are components of the liturgy absolutely restricted to the inspired word of God?
- Exposition of passages? AKA preaching
- Public and corporate prayer? Also not, by church order, required to be faithful summary of scripture
- Confessions? Include creeds. “Faithful summary of scripture”
- Forms for membership, baptism, the Lord’s Supper? Also not, by church order, required to be faithful summary of scripture
Would stated services function if limited to explicit use of only scripture? This is possible, however the Reformed, confessional churches do not maintain this in their church order, and there does not seem to be any indication of such in the past two millennia. The worship of Christians appears to have consistently been a blend of wooden scripture and exegetical elements. It seems to be modeled for us in the New Testament, with Paul interchangeably quoting directly, modifying his quotations beyond the originals, and exposition in the vernacular. In this, he also at least hints at early non-canonical poetic and confessional material. This can be found in Peter as well.
It makes much more sense, in analyzing Paul, to assume we are not limited to inspired scripture in our communication. A valid question is whether his method is acceptable in public worship. It should be obvious that Paul’s epistles are not transcripts of liturgy. Rather than this creating an argument that shuts down the whole scheme I’m trying to present, I think this incidentally supports public worship in general as a construct of adiaphoric order around an essential set of elements.
In other words, we must have: preaching, singing, confession, prayer, sacraments. That’s it. The adiaphoric how-ness (order and appearance) has generally been assumed to be a decision of the church all along (since the termination of the Hebrew Ceremonial Law).
If we claim holy scripture as supportive of polity, creeds and confessions, expository preaching, and contextual presentation of concepts, why are hymns (ONLY) restricted to literal scripture passages? If exclusive psalmody or exclusive inspired hymnody are legitimate biblical constraints, this would be a gross inconsistency in the strictest of Reformed communities.
If anything, exegetical hymnody might be worthy of elevation closer to the status of creeds and confessions – as another form of fence that constrains the system of beliefs in the congregation and as restraint against those things which should not be maintained. Good hymnody in this case is like good confession or theology in general – it produces a standard that is a faithful summary of what scripture gives us in the creedal and hymnodic forms that exist on the inspired page. It should be clarified here, again, that this discussion is over form, not substance, and the intent is not to argue for a one-to-one correlation of hymns and creeds or confessions. The latter are binding for a church or communion of churches, the former are good theology, still functional, but not implemented as constraint/restraint for Christian confession and conscience.
Pragmatically, a defense can certainly be raised in support of exclusive Psalmody or exclusive inspired hymnody. As a defense against the glut of a-scriptural and anti-scriptural “Christian music” today and throughout history, one could certainly limit worship singing to pure Biblical texts. This decision should be considered adiaphora as much as use of instruments, incense, stained glass, pews, and ministerial costume. One must submit to the government of the church in their decision on how things should be conducted, but the government of the church should be transparent in their rationale for decisions. Both parties should understand the importance and meaning of all of their church’s liturgy.
Additional thinking in support of song as more than praise:
Diagram the Psalms. They have multiple elements, including praise, supplication, intercession, confession (both of faith and of sin), exhortation. Essentially, they could be (and regularly are) used in confession of sin, of the law, and praise. They could easily be used in confession of faith as well. Hebrews used them in context with sacraments (and Jesus at the last supper with the disciples). But it’s not just that they may be used as such, and shouldn’t be considered for replacement of the more common elements of the liturgy – they’re equivalent, and in the sense that they’re inspired they are superior. This is true of any inspired scripture which can be used for singing or reciting.
Recognition of superiority of scripture is not sufficient to argue for removal of historic confessions or creeds or forms, it’s just that a view of scripture as absolutely exemplary of what can (or should) be done, the entire concept of singing, prayer, and confession are far deeper and meaningful. one can sing any of the vocal elements of the liturgy. one can also recite any of the vocal elements of the liturgy. The question now becomes a matter of practicality.
Is it helpful to sing a creed or recite a hymn? This depends on careful thinking about structure and flow of public worship. It is now an aesthetic and practical problem, and should be a decision of the consistory (or session) of the local church. While there are guidances in official church orders, they would not be right to restrict vocal elements of worship to unrealistic ideas such as exclusive psalmody or exclusive inspired hymnody except if categorized as “best practice” and “for preservation of the peace, good order, and discipline of the church”.
Links for further reading
Orthodox Presbyterian Committee on Song in Worship- https://opc.org/GA/song.html
R. Scott Clark – https://heidelblog.net/2021/07/the-principles-of-reformed-worship/
R. Scott Clark – https://heidelblog.net/2007/09/more-on-worship-and-the-rpw
Article on EP – https://kingandkirk.com/kings-songs/objections/prayer-psalms-being-as-the-element-of/
T. David Gordon on EP –https://opc.org/os.html?article_id=404
Response to TDG on EP – https://beta.sermonaudio.com/sermons/715141914390/
Discussing the RPW – https://purelypresbyterian.com/2017/01/31/what-is-the-regulative-principle-of-worship/
A debate and commentary on EP – https://ruberad.wordpress.com/2007/12/02/hoagies-stogies-exclusive-psalmody/
Cold Coffee and Flannel 