# Free Church of Scotland votes to end Exclusive Psalmody



## JonathanHunt (Nov 19, 2010)

Where it is wished, individual congregations may sing uninspired items and instruments may also be used.

Note that Psalms singing is still mandated for public worship, though.

Free Church of Scotland

Some are happy, some are sad about this.

The motion retains exclusive psalmody within the courts of the Church, however, which some regard as contradictory.


----------



## JML (Nov 19, 2010)




----------



## AThornquist (Nov 19, 2010)




----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 19, 2010)

Boo!


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Nov 19, 2010)




----------



## seajayrice (Nov 19, 2010)

Must be some kind of powerful movement afoot to provoke the Scots to buy musical instruments.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 19, 2010)

Opens the way for entertainment as worship and Psalms relegated to secondary status in those congregations that go down this route. Also moves the Free Kirk further in the direction of congregationalism.

If we weren't in a time of decline in Scotland and in numbers in the FC, I don't think the subject would have even been raised in the FC.

Some seem to think that this will help with evangelism and attract some stragglers from the CofS. That's not arguing from biblical principle.


----------



## MLCOPE2 (Nov 19, 2010)

JonathanHunt said:


> The motion retains exclusive psalmody within the courts of the Church, however, which some regard as contradictory.


 
Yep, definitely seems contradictory.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 19, 2010)

seajayrice said:


> Must be some kind of powerful movement afoot to provoke the Scots to buy musical instruments.


 
It's not a powerful movement. It's just a pointless act of desperation.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 19, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> Some seem to think that this will help with evangelism and attract some stragglers from the CofS. That's not arguing from biblical principle.



If so, it surely would have been more noble to have been motivated purely by what was perceived as the truth of the matter rather than by adopting practices to attract folk or keep 'em from leaving. Dabney has an interesting comment about such motivations in his review of Girardeau's book contra musical instruments in worship.The first organ I ever knew of in a Virginian Presbyterian church was introduced by one of the wisest and most saintly of pastors, a paragon of old school doctrinal rigor. But he avowedly introduced it on an argument the most unsound and perilous possible for a good man to adopt that it would be advantageous to prevent his young people from leaving his church to run after the Episcopal organ in the city. Of course such an argument would equally justify every other sensational and spectacular adjunct to God's ordinances, which is not criminal _per se._ Now this father's general soundness prevented his carrying out the pernicious argument to other applications. A very bad organ remained the only unscriptural feature in a church otherwise well-ordered. But after the church authorizes such policy, what guarantee remains that one and another less sound and staid will not carry the improper principle to disastrous results?... From Review: INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC IN THE PUBLIC WORSHIP OF THE CHURCH. _By John L. Girardeau, D. D., LL.D., Professor in Columbia Theological Seminary, South Carolina._ Richmond: Whittet & Shepperson. 1888. _The Presbyterian Quarterly,_ July 1889. By Robert L. Dabney​


----------



## TexanRose (Nov 19, 2010)

I'm very sad to hear this.


----------



## LeeJUk (Nov 19, 2010)

I'm very happy to hear this. Perhaps now there could be some unity between evangelicals in the CofS and FCoS.


----------



## seajayrice (Nov 19, 2010)

LeeJUk said:


> I'm very happy to hear this. Perhaps now there could be some unity between evangelicals in the CofS and FCoS.


 
Amen. 

Php 2:1 If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, 
Php 2:2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. 
Php 2:3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. 
Php 2:4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 19, 2010)

LeeJUk said:


> I'm very happy to hear this. Perhaps now there could be some unity between evangelicals in the CofS and FCoS.


 
There could be unity before, unity - and diversity on this particular issue.

Many - most? - of the evangelicals in the CofS couldn't sign the Westminster Confession. To have unity with them must the FC further reach for lowest common denominator evan - jelly - calism?


----------



## JonathanHunt (Nov 19, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> Opens the way for entertainment as worship and Psalms relegated to secondary status in those congregations that go down this route. Also moves the Free Kirk further in the direction of congregationalism.
> 
> If we weren't in a time of decline in Scotland and in numbers in the FC, I don't think the subject would have even been raised in the FC.
> 
> Some seem to think that this will help with evangelism and attract some stragglers from the CofS. That's not arguing from biblical principle.



From what I have read, it seems to be more a case of a perceived need to retain younger people who want to sing hymns and might go elsewhere. Still, again, not an argument from principle.

However, arguments from principle were made in the debate.

I don't see how it opens the way for 'entertainment as worship' unless that is the end that a congregation desires.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 19, 2010)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > Some seem to think that this will help with evangelism and attract some stragglers from the CofS. That's not arguing from biblical principle.
> ...


 
Dabney's last line is quite prescient of the what did happen in the PCUS. Causality of theological decline? Probably not. Sign of theological decline? Maybe.


----------



## T.A.G. (Nov 19, 2010)

good to hear


----------



## N. Eshelman (Nov 19, 2010)




----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 19, 2010)

I am not EP, but I can't see how this is good. I am against change for the sake of the masses.


----------



## LeeJUk (Nov 19, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> LeeJUk said:
> 
> 
> > I'm very happy to hear this. Perhaps now there could be some unity between evangelicals in the CofS and FCoS.
> ...



I wouldn't like the FC to go to lowest common denominator like a lot of evangelicalism has. Perhaps though there could be certain exceptions made for the evangelical branch of the church of Scotland to join in some form with the FC should the church of Scotland split over the coming end to the homosexuality moratorium. This is of course all total speculation and hypothetical talk but I do recall one of the barriers to people(incl. ministers) leaving the CofS to join the FC during the last homosexuality debate was this issue of EP. The westminister confession I don't think was mentioned a whole lot.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Nov 19, 2010)

Let me make one comment....(after the puke)....

Often when there is a church split, and the creme is removed from a denomination, the downward spiral of those remaining is quick. I think of the CRC after what became the URC left.... very quickly it moved away from confessionalism and towards mainline/evangelicalism. 

Now the FRC since the FRC(c) left/split/continued/or whatever... the downward spirals are quick. 

It really should make ordained men think about what they are splitting over and whether the error over which they are splitting is worth it! When men leave a denomination en masse- they leave it open for wolves, wild boars (see Psalm 80), and other creatures to gnaw at the vine and eat up the sheep. 

It's really sad and should make all of us think about how pure of church_* we*_ want, and at what cost.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 19, 2010)

This is great news. In my humble opinion


----------



## raekwon (Nov 19, 2010)

The reactions in this very thread are microcosmic of those across the church it affects, I'm guessing. Fascinating.


----------



## seajayrice (Nov 19, 2010)

raekwon said:


> The reactions in this very thread are microcosmic of those across the church it affects, I'm guessing. Fascinating.


 
1:a little world; especially : the human race or human nature seen as an epitome of the world or the universe 
2: a community or other unity that is an epitome of a larger unity 

Great word, microcosmic. I can't figure what it means though? 

Do you mean the vote largely reflects the sentiments of the PB posters?


----------



## Dearly Bought (Nov 19, 2010)

There is not much to say except that I am saddened by this development.


----------



## markkoller (Nov 19, 2010)

Very sad, but not unexpected.


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist (Nov 19, 2010)

Completely unexpected. I honestly thought that the Assembly would reject any motion to change. I doubt much will change for the majority of congregations in the Free Church. Some good arguments made, some not so good.


----------



## Edward (Nov 19, 2010)

nleshelman said:


> Often when there is a church split, and the creme is removed from a denomination, the downward spiral of those remaining is quick.



I'll disagree. The rapid downward spiral is generally well underway before the major split occurs. I'll hold out as examples the PCUS-PCUSA (no significant acceleration in the decline after either the PCA or the EPC splits) and the Episcopal church (once they had their first openly homosexual bishop, was adding a second an acceleration?). And where has their been any change in the decline of the CRC since the URCNA left?


----------



## christianhope (Nov 19, 2010)




----------



## kvanlaan (Nov 19, 2010)

Edward, I think that you're right - perhaps there is not much change in the degree of decline in the CRC, but the speed has indeed increased. It was about 1990 when the split was occurring over WIO in my church (but it was, as a whole, still fairly conservative). In only 15 years, there were openings for homosexuals in office (Toronto CRC) and female pastors (Eastern Avenue CRC). At some point, they 'invalidated their maleness' in an act of synod, and now many CRC churches have female elders. And with the rise in female offices bearers and the other such nonsense, the decline has gathered speed. There is a congregation close to us that no longer has evening services every Sunday, instead, only every other Sunday, otherwise not enough folks show up to make it 'worthwhile' and they have stopped teaching catechism altogether. Degree - same. Speed - Mach 3 and rising.


----------



## jogri17 (Nov 19, 2010)

I'm ok with it, but I do beg the Free church of scotland to not go the way of the other NAPARC churches (RPCNA excluded) and almost never sing psalms.


----------



## kvanlaan (Nov 20, 2010)

The URCNA's psalter hymnal is more than half psalms - 310 of 493 songs are psalms. We're NAPARC members. We sing plenty of psalms.


----------



## RTaron (Nov 20, 2010)

too bad


----------



## raekwon (Nov 20, 2010)

seajayrice said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> > The reactions in this very thread are microcosmic of those across the church it affects, I'm guessing. Fascinating.
> ...


 
Another definition:

1. a miniature representation of something, esp a unit, group, or place regarded as a copy of a larger one 

In other words, the reactions of the PB folks are a likely small sampling of the reactions of FCoS parishioners.


----------



## Tim (Nov 20, 2010)

I am saddened to hear of this news. On a purely practical level, there are already so few options in the world for those who hold to an EP position. There will, no doubt, be some congregations that will continue to hold to EP, but this will most certainly reduce the number of options available. My current estimate is that there are now fewer than 200 Presbyterian congregations in the entire world that have this practice.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Nov 20, 2010)

nleshelman said:


> It's really sad and should make all of us think about how pure of church we want, and at what cost.



Food for much thought here. Thanks, Pastor.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 20, 2010)

Someone more in tune with ARP history than me will have to speak to this authoritatively but since the ARP dropped EP in 1946 only a tiny handful of our churches (all in Eastern Canada) still practice EP. I believe we do not have a single congregation left that existed in 1946 that is still EP. I do not think it took very long after 1946 for this to occur. 

For what that is worth. Who knows how long it will take the FCoS to get to a similar point.


----------



## JML (Nov 20, 2010)

Tim said:


> My current estimate is that there are now fewer than 200 Presbyterian congregations in the entire world that have this practice.



And even fewer Baptist. Most likely just a handfull.


----------



## TimV (Nov 20, 2010)

Tim, just by counting three denominations you mentioned on a previous thread
http://www.puritanboard.com/f124/what-denominations-practice-exclusive-psalmody-36251/
you get to around 200. The real number must be in the thousands.

PS Where do I fit in if I prefer only psalms but always accompanied by musical instruments and want to give a session liberty to include hymns?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 20, 2010)

Dr. Clark makes some excellent observations about this change in practice here:
What We Can Learn From the Free Church About Conservatism and Sola Scriptura « Heidelblog


----------



## bookslover (Nov 20, 2010)

Since the Bible does not forbid the use of musical instruments or the singing of uninspired songs (I know, I know: can of worms here), the FC has made a biblical decision. With others, though, I do believe that, over time, this might lead them away from singing the Psalms.

For a thoughtful comment, see the top post (for now) at the Heidelblog: Heidelblog.


----------



## JOwen (Nov 20, 2010)

jogri17 said:


> I'm ok with it, but I do beg the Free church of scotland to not go the way of the other NAPARC churches (RPCNA excluded) and almost never sing psalms.


 
The Free Reformed Churches of North America are EP, and apart of NAPARC, not to mention the Heritage Reformed Congregations.


----------



## Marrow Man (Nov 20, 2010)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Someone more in tune with ARP history than me will have to speak to this authoritatively but since the ARP dropped EP in 1946 only a tiny handful of our churches (all in Eastern Canada) still practice EP. I believe we do not have a single congregation left that existed in 1946 that is still EP. I do not think it took very long after 1946 for this to occur.



Take this with a complete grain of salt, Benjamin, but I think (emphasis on "think") there may still be a tiny handful of ARP churches in the Carolinas that sing psalms either exclusively or near-exclusively (out of the _Bible Songs_ book). For example, I filled in for an ARP pastor at the Ebenezer ARP church in Georgia (near Augusta), and I'm pretty sure the only song book available was Bible Songs. This was a tiny congregation, but it is interesting in that it was originally a Covenanter church (i.e., pre-dating the 1782 merger between Seceders and Covenanters to form the ARP Church). And they liked me when they found out my last name, since a previous pastor of the congregation shared my last name. 

BTW, the only reason that Midlane Park is ARP is because of EP. Every other ARP church in Kentucky wound up joining up with the Southern Presbyterians in the early 1800s. But there was a small group from the Louisville congregation (only 10-15 or so) who wanted to remain psalm-singers. So that group formed the church that later became Midlane Park. Sad that most of the psalm-singing was left behind after mid-1900s. But I'm working to bring some of that back.


----------



## Drake (Nov 20, 2010)

*What every Christian needs to read.*

With regards to unity-diversity and how this relates to the reg. p, and e.p. and no instruments: every seminarian, and I should say every Christian must read this book: _Free Disputation _by Samuel Rutherford

A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience

The move that the FCOS has made is an attack on the entire system of doctrine that the Scottish Church laid down in the 17th century; the same system that was so meticulously constructed with regard to the effects of any deviation from it, with knowledge that if any deviation happened, there would be an immediate resurgence of the Roman Religion. George Gellespie in EPC makes the same point and it was a pleading point with the English prelates. These warnings fell upon deaf ears and look what happened. 

Until Protestants can shake off this semi-Manichaen view of human nature that man lost his rational faculty in the fall and instate again that old Scottish idea that there is only one true religion, this stuff will keep happening. Christ's command to contend for THE FAITH as obedience and fulfilling of the reward to Christ, that is, the obedience of all nations, will continue to be disobeyed with the irrational view of human nature and religion in general that the modern Church so embraces. There is only one way to interpret the Bible and it was in essence laid down for us in the 17th century Church of Scotland. May I say again it was and is a system.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 21, 2010)

Below is comment on this matter I received from Dr. Rowland S. Ward, Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia, which I post here with permission.

*FREE CHURCH STANCE ON WORSHIP*​ *Rowland S Ward*​ 
 I confess very happily that I am an inclusive Presbyterian: I’ve very ready, despite my own prejudices, to live in the same church with office-bearers who have different viewpoints on many issues that are not decided by our Confession of Faith. I’m also very happy to have close fellowship with churches like the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in the USA that do not have the same form of worship as ourselves, but do cling loyally to the Reformed Faith. Still, I’m very sorry to see that the Free Church of Scotland on 19 November voted 98-84 to change its position on unaccompanied singing of inspired material in public worship.

  The matter of the propriety of limiting sung praise in public worship to inspired material without musical accompaniment has been under discussion in the Free Church for several years. Of course our sister is entitled to make its own decisions in accordance with its constitution. Still, it’s the way the matter has been raised and dealt with that is of particular concern. 
 
As well as rescinding certain past decisions (1905,1910,1932) – not a bad idea if simply replaced with a simple Declaratory Act as to the meaning of the vows - the Assembly resolved:​“5. The General Assembly declare that purity of worship requires that every aspect of worship services, including sung praise, be consistent with the Word of God and with the whole doctrine of the Confession of Faith approved by previous Assemblies of this Church.

“6. The General Assembly ordain that every service of congregational worship shall include the singing of Psalms.

“7. The General Assembly ordain that, with regard to the sung praise of congregations in worship, each Kirk Session shall have freedom, either to restrict the sung praise to the Psalms, or to include paraphrases of Scripture, and hymns and spiritual songs consistent with the doctrine of the Confession of Faith; that each Kirk Session shall have freedom whether to permit musical accompaniment to the sung praise in worship, or not.

“8. The General Assembly advise that, notwithstanding the foregoing, no Kirk Session should agree to a change in sung praise or musical accompaniment against the wishes of the minister of the congregation, and that a visiting minister, presiding at a service in a congregation where the aforementioned freedom to use uninspired materials of praise and musical instruments has been exercised, may exercise that freedom or not as he sees fit.

“9. The General Assembly ordain that in meetings of Church Courts the use of uninspired materials of praise and of instrumental music will be avoided.

“10. The General Assembly appoint a Special Committee (using consultants as required) to investigate the feasibility and desirability of producing a recommended list of paraphrases of Scripture and hymns and spiritual songs consistent with the Word of God and the whole doctrine of the Confession of Faith, and whether the Free Church ought to produce a praise resource supplementary to the Psalter, and to report to the 2011 General Assembly.”​ These decisions arise from a plenary Assembly of all ministers and an equal number of elders. Against the advice of the Assembly Clerk, James Maciver, it was claimed that the plenary nature of the Assembly rendered Barrier Act procedure unnecessary. Barrier Act procedure dates from 1697 as a method for regulating the exercise of the lawful power of the church. The relevant part reads:​ “…considering…that it will mightily conduce to the exact obedience of the Acts of Assemblies, that General Assemblies be very deliberate in making of the same, and that the whole Church have a previous knowledge thereof, and their opinion be had therein, and for preventing any sudden alteration or innovation, or other prejudice to the Church, in either doctrine or worship or discipline, or government thereof, now happily established; do, therefore, appoint, enact, and declare, that before any General Assembly of this Church shall pass any Acts, which are to be binding Rules and Constitutions to the Church, the same Acts be first proposed as overtures to the Assembly, and, being by them passed as such, be remitted to the consideration of the several Presbyteries of this Church, and their opinions and consent reported by their commissioners to the next General Assembly following, who may then pass the same in Acts, if the more general opinion of the Church thus had agreed thereunto.”​ The proposal passed was not what was recommended by the relevant Assembly Committee (which essentially recommended the _status quo_), but was an amendment not considered by presbyteries beforehand. In the setting of the plenary Assembly a decision might well be taken that was not sufficiently weighed and considered, although a majority of Sessions were known to be opposed to change. I have the very distinct impression that a significant number of commissioners were anxious to avoid another split after the division in 2000, and so accepted the proposal as the best obtainable, but in the setting of Presbytery meetings it might well have been rejected. The decision also might have had something to do with the long-standing lack of a positive and succinct statement on the vows about worship, as well as the rather complicated legislation of the Free Church hitherto which might convey to sensitive consciences the thought that other forms of worship were of necessity to be regarded as sinful. ​ So the Free Church, by the barest of margins, has enacted new binding laws without Barrier Act procedure, and rescinded a contrary position adopted in 1910, again without the Barrier Act procedure required by the Act of 1736. I don’t think this was wise procedure and I’m afraid it may cause trouble. I confess some sympathy with the supporters of the substance of the decision, but their pushing the matter through as they have is disappointing. (I guess as a Church we can’t be too critical since we did something similar re our relations with the Free Church in 2005, but I was opposed then to not following Barrier Act procedure.) William Mackay, a former elder in Melbourne, rightly pointed out in debate how inappropriate it was to make this decision so soon after the new Psalter had been produced. 
 I know that there was frustration that the Free Church worship style seemed a barrier to evangelicals disillusioned with the now so liberal Church of Scotland, but I hardly imagine introducing hymns and musical instruments is really the solution, assuming that it is within the church’s constitutional power to do so. If we have a proper balance in our practice, singing the psalms is liberating, honours the word, protects the conscience and is truly ecumenical.

 The decision will not of itself lead to theological liberalism in the Free Church but when a few high flyers thumb their noses at the vows and garner support from others, with good men caving in for the sake of peace, you have pragmatism operating and ultimately you will get liberalism, 

 Of course most Free Church congregations will not change from exclusive use of the psalms, but some will. I remain very happy to have close relations with the Free Church, our sister if not our mother, but have no desire to follow in her direction on the worship issue. One very happily supports the superiority of the Psalms of the word of God, and it was pleasing to note at our second Leaders’ Training day in Melbourne on 20 November that our two newest ministers in Southern Presbytery (Messrs Bajema and Miranda) spoke so positively of their use in public worship.
 Rowland S. Ward¶ ​


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 21, 2010)

Here's the statement at the FC website

PDF:
http://www.freechurch.org/images/audio/FC_Statement.pdf

Link:
Free Church of Scotland

The Free Church's position wasn't technically EP but inspired materials of worship i.e. Psalms, non-Psalmodic Biblical Songs and Paraphrases. But in my 21 years in the FC I only heard a paraphrase used once.


----------



## Tim (Nov 22, 2010)

TimV said:


> Tim, just by counting three denominations you mentioned on a previous thread
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f124/what-denominations-practice-exclusive-psalmody-36251/
> you get to around 200. The real number must be in the thousands.


 
I'm not sure about that, Tim, but stay tuned. I am working on a world-wide Google maps account of every such congregation in the world.


----------



## JML (Nov 22, 2010)

Tim said:


> I am working on a world-wide Google maps account of every such congregation in the world.



Sounds great. I would be interested in seeing it when you get done. If you need help finding churches, there is an extensive listing on:

exclusivepsalmody.com


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 22, 2010)

Tim said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> > Tim, just by counting three denominations you mentioned on a previous thread
> ...


 
Very worthwhile project, Tim.

The Psalms are the national anthems of the international nation, the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16) and have been, are, and will be even more used to bind that nation together in unified worship of its King, as it is in the process of inheriting the earth (Matthew 5:5).

Whatever the place given to other songs in various congregations and denominations, it's good to know how international Psalm singing is developing and how the Israel of God, the Church, is becoming more mature and self-conscious (Ephesians 4:10-16). The embracing of Psalm singing by Christian people isn't everything but it can be a good sign.


----------



## amg (Nov 24, 2010)

The exclusive Psalmody position must be respected because the aim of the position is a theologically sound praise and what we find in the Psalms is an inspired book of praise to Jehovah. However, I know many men in the FCS are vehemently opposed to this change and my understanding is that this was done as a means to increase attendance in the churches, which are languishing. This is _never_ a good reason to change a doctrinal position. In a very real sense it reeks of the notion that man can bring revival, that man can fill the pews with sinners and that man can keep the churches full; afterall, we just need to keep man happy, right? Read Daniel 4.35. Sadly, this is the notion too many people have though. God is sovereign and the blessing of God is the only source of reformation and revival for the church today. The preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ and the saints of God continually coming before the throne of grace are the only means of converting the lost and receiving the blessing of God.

Furthermore, the Psalms are becoming more and more phased out in the catholic church. The truth of the matter is that most churches are not singing Psalms anymore, and _if they do,_ they may sing _a Psalm_, but that is the extent of their Psalm usage. We have every reason to sing the Psalms today, particularly as Covenant Theologians, because the Psalms are so rich with Christ the Savior. Additionally, the admonition in Col. 3.16 is to sing Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. The Bible is clear on the matter, but there appears to be a major disconnect in the application of the doctrine today. The swing is usually completely to one side, or, completely to another. We must trudge the middle ground, which I believe is the plain Biblical teaching. Ultimately, the Lamb of God is the object of our praise and worship and whatever we happen to be singing in praise to God must be done in a reverent and holy manner.


----------



## JP Wallace (Nov 24, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> The Psalms are the national anthems of the international nation, the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16) and have been, are, and will be even more used to bind that nation together in unified worship of its King, as it is in the process of inheriting the earth (Matthew 5:5).



Now there's a quote worth writing down for future use regardless of position on Exclusive Psalmody!


----------

