To those who reject Exclusive Psalmody

[CalvinandHodges]

Greetings:

What is your objection to singing the Psalms of David? I will ask this question gradually in three parts:

First, does your church sing "hymns" exclusively without any Psalm singing at all? If so, then why does your church categorically reject the singing of the Psalms? Do you think that God does not want you to sing Psalms?

Second, If your church sings both hymns and psalms, then what is the ratio? Are there times in your worship where you sing only hymns during the day? Are there days where you only sing psalms? Does God only want you to sing psalms part-time?

Third, Do you feel that the idea of singing only psalms somehow intrudes upon your Christian liberty? If so, then how so?

Blessings,

Rob

 

[nicnap]

What is your objection to singing the Psalms of David?

Without entering into the discussion, is this question even valid? I don't know that anyone likely rejects singing the Psalms. Perhaps you should say, "to singing the Psalms of David exclusively?"

Further most of your questions seem a little like baiting rather than questions asked in earnest. For instance: " Do you think that God does not want you to sing Psalms?" & Does God only want you to sing psalms part-time?", seem more like an accusation/argument posed in a question rather than a genuine question. I think this has been chased around sufficiently on the PB to begin with questions such as these. I am not questioning your sincerity; I just think there's a better way to word questions in order to begin a thread.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I can remember folks who categorically reject the singing of Psalms as being an "old covenant" thing here on the PB in the many discussions we have had.

From our own denomination's history on the subject part of the argument for the inclusion of hymns in 1946 was in fact that the psalms were not for new covenant worship since they lacked direct references to Christ and to other aspects of the new covenant.

Here is a quote that gives an example of the kind of thing that was being argued:

“‎”Hymns crowd out Psalms, Parkinson contended, because the former are filled with Christ. He is not in the Psalms, though ARP ministers frequently attempt to read Him into them. ‘Our worship at its most vital point is involved in circumlocutions.’ Parkison argued that revelation was progressive and it would be strange to see praise as static by being restricted to the Old Testament. The revelation which comes to believers through the experience of God is new. The truth thus realized is not extra-biblical but the experience of God’s grace is new and should be expressed in new songs of praise. Parkinson saw Jesus emphasizing a dispensation of liberty rather than of restriction.” -- From “The Second Century: 1882-1982″ by Lowry Ware and James Gettys, pg. 237

 

[nicnap]

I can remember folks who categorically reject the singing of Psalms as being an "old covenant" thing here on the PB in the many discussions we have had.

From our own denominations history on the subject part of the argument for the inclusion of hymns in 1946 was in fact that the psalms were not for new covenant worship since they lacked direct references to Christ and to other aspects of the new covenant.

Here is a quote that gives an example of the kind of thing that was being argued:

“‎”Hymns crowd out Psalms, Parkinson contended, because the former are filled with Christ. He is not to in the Psalms, though ARP ministers frequently attempt to read Him into them. ‘Our worship at its most vital point is involved in circumlocutions.’ Parkison argued that revelation was progressive and it would be strange to see praise as static by being restricted to the Old Testament. The revelation which comes to believers through the experience of God is new. The truth thus realized is not extra-biblical but the experience of God’s grace is new and should be expressed in new songs of praise. Parkinson saw Jesus emphasizing a dispensation of liberty rather than of restriction.” -- From “The Second Century: 1882-1982″ by Lowry Ware and James Gettys, pg. 237

Fascinating. I had never heard of anyone doing so. I'll definitely have to make that next on my "to-read list." Right after I finish Bavinck.

 

[Marrow Man]

What is your objection to singing the Psalms of David?

Without entering into the discussion, is this question even valid? I don't know that anyone likely rejects singing the Psalms. Perhaps you should say, "to singing the Psalms of David exclusively?"

Further most of your questions seem a little like baiting rather than questions asked in earnest. For instance: "Does God only want you to sing psalms part-time?", seems more like an accusation/argument posed in a question rather than a genuine question. I am not questioning your sincerity, just your wording.

Agreed. I don't think you are going to run across anyone on this board who objects to singing the psalms, albeit there will be many who do not sing psalms exclusively. And there are a variety of reasons people may not sing psalms. Sometimes it is mere ignorance -- some today simply are unfamiliar with the practice because hymns have been dominant for so long. It was not until I was preparing to join an ARP church in 2001 that I was even made aware that there was such a thing as psalm-singing (or exclusive psalm-singing).

To answer the questions:

1) We do not sing hymns exclusively.
2) When I came to my current church in 2007, there was no psalm-singing at all. I have been working to gradually change that practice. Eventually we were including one psalm during every morning worship service. That number has slowly shifted to psalms (we typically sing three songs in a service, and 3 out of 4 Sundays now it is 2 psalms and one hymn in a service; one fewer song is sung during Lord's Supper services, which are once a month). We have also added an evening service twice a month that is psalms-only (3 psalms per service). So, in a typical month at our church, there will be a total of 17 songs sung, with 12 out of 17 being psalms. I'd call that progress.
3) Obviously not.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

It would seem consistency would call for Parkinson to be exclusive hymn singing; but I think the content of worship song is the least of the problems of this argument.

“‎”Hymns crowd out Psalms, Parkinson contended, because the former are filled with Christ. He is not to in the Psalms, though ARP ministers frequently attempt to read Him into them. ‘Our worship at its most vital point is involved in circumlocutions.’ Parkison argued that revelation was progressive and it would be strange to see praise as static by being restricted to the Old Testament. The revelation which comes to believers through the experience of God is new. The truth thus realized is not extra-biblical but the experience of God’s grace is new and should be expressed in new songs of praise. Parkinson saw Jesus emphasizing a dispensation of liberty rather than of restriction.” -- From “The Second Century: 1882-1982″ by Lowry Ware and James Gettys, pg. 237

 

[Marrow Man]

It would take concerted effort to be a practitioner of exclusive-hymnody because of the "new covenant" argument -- even the hymnals used by such advocates would have included "All People That on Earth Do Dwell" and "The Lord's My Shepherd, I'll Not Want." Furthermore, several of the hymns included in hymnals are paraphrases of psalms, so such thinking does not hold much water, in my opinion. Chris is right -- better cut out hymns like "O God Our Help in Ages Past" and "Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken" if one is going to consistently follow that "new covenant" argument.

Of course, the next phase in such thinking has been happening over the last several years. Hymns themselves are falling out of practice in favor of contemporary praise songs -- which, ironically, include snippets of psalms in some cases.

 

[Jack K]

Rob, my current Baptist church seems to have never given a thought to intentionally singing psalms. Sometimes a psalm will worm its way into the singing because a hymn is based on it or—more likely these days—because a contemporary praise song comes largely from a psalm. But I think most worshipers don't even realize or consider that they're singing a psalm. That does NOT mean anyone intentionally rejects psalms. I suspect most folks would think the idea of singing them sounds good, but is a bit novel and non-traditional for Baptists. They'd probably be willing to try a few psalms provided they still got to end the service with a rousing round of "How Great Thou Art." This is due to tradition and familiarity, not conviction.

The PCA church I used to attend sang a mix of hymns and psalms, with the psalms being sung to tunes that felt a lot like contemporary praise songs. But they were psalms, intentionally. I believe the thinking was that psalms are good to sing because God gave those songs and so they're good stuff (and they still speak to our experience in Christ today), but time-tested hymns that clearly celebrate Christ and the gospel are also good. Neither is rejected; both are great! Both are ways we gladly keep God's command to sing to him. There was no set mix or specific point in the service for psalms, nor any thought that the psalms essentially expressed anything different from the hymns. Either might be suitable for any part of the service.

My own family, for devotions around the dinner table, sings both psalms and carefully selected hymns. We sing psalms because I want us to sing and know the songs God has given in the Scripture, and because they (obviously) contain great material. We sing selected hymns because I want us to sing and know hymns that connect us to Christ's church through the ages, and because they too contain great material. The amounts of each are about the same. "Ratio" is the wrong word to use because psalm singing and hymn singing aren't activities that are in opposition to each other. Having both just means more choices and more singing!

Does God only want you to sing psalms part-time?

Of course he only wants us to sing psalms part-time. There are several other good elements of worship that are largely incompatible with singing psalms at the same time, like most Scripture reading, preaching and prayer. I consider hymn singing one of those godly worship activities. Again, I don't see it as something that's in opposition to psalm singing, just as another good way we sing to God in addition to using psalms.

Do you feel that the idea of singing only psalms somehow intrudes upon your Christian liberty?

I've never thought much about it because I've never been in a church that practiced EP. I suppose if you were to tell me I may only sing psalms with my family around the dinner table, I would feel you're intruding on my liberty. But I wouldn't necessarily hesitate to join a church that was psalms-only just because I demanded the liberty to sing hymns. If they got other things right, I'd think I'd gladly join them in their psalm-only singing and not worry about the hymns I wasn't singing. The church's leaders are charged with selecting good material for singing. Psalms-only is, in my view, more cautious than it needs to be. But I can appreciate a cautious church. Being overly cautious is not so bad compared to a lot of what one finds in churches today.

 

[Edward]

I'm having trouble reconciling the assumptions upon which your post is based (all folks who aren't EP object to the singing of Psalms) with your tag line (In Essentials Unity, in non-Essentials Liberty, in all things Charity). I understand that you consider EP to be an essential, but charity should dictate you approach your opponents fairly.

 

[Peairtach]

Jack

I've never thought much about it because I've never been in a church that practiced EP. I suppose if you were to tell me I may only sing psalms with my family around the dinner table, I would feel you're intruding on my liberty. But I wouldn't necessarily hesitate to join a church that was psalms-only just because I demanded the liberty to sing hymns. If they got other things right, I'd think I'd gladly join them in their psalm-only singing and not worry about the hymns I wasn't singing. The church's leaders are charged with selecting good material for singing. Psalms-only is, in my view, more cautious than it needs to be. But I can appreciate a cautious church. Being overly cautious is not so bad compared to a lot of what one finds in churches today.

The doctrine of liberty of conscience is foundational to EP, along with the need for church unity, and the Regulative Principle of Worship. If the Church is to expect its people to sing from the heart, in unity, with a clear conscience then it better have songs with a high Scriptural warrant. Songs other than the Psalms of David don't have this. But people may feel free to sing them on other occasions than the stated services.

When other Scripture songs, paraphrases or extra-canonical songs are introduced into the stated services, the Christian liberty of the worshippers and the Christian unity of the congrgation is likely to be stepped on, because there may be people there who believe in only singing the Psalms of David, or who disapprove of the doctrine of the hymns being sung, or who just don't like these particular hymns. None of these things could be validly said of the Psalms of David.

So EP is intended to promote biblical liberty of conscience and church unity, as well as purity of worship in accordance with the RPW. EPers aren't necessarily saying that other songs shouldn't be sung at all, in certain circumstances. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland that approved the Westminster Directory of Worship and the 1650 Psalter, also commissioned Zachary Boyd to write metrical versions of the Scripture songs outwith the Book of Psalms, presumably for use at the fireside and beyond the regular stated services.

The use of songs other than the Book of Psalms should be supplementary to the Book of Psalms, and this is best served, along with the aforesaid liberty of conscience concerns, by having them outwith the stated services.

 

[Cymro]

From personal experience which is not exaggerated, I have found that to be EP is to be a figure of
archaism and suspicion. Though not militant in expressing my conviction, when asked about it my
response draws out a number of carnal, not spiritual disagreements. Eg, You are trying to introduce
Scottish practice into a Welsh scenario! Or, This is our tradition! Or, The Name of Jesus is not found in the Psalms!
No biblical arguments are forthcoming. There is a lamentable ignorance even of our religious history, as
Wales was a psalm singing nation up until the great 1737 revival and its aftermath. There is only one psalm singing
church left in my nation at this present time. When hymns came in the psalms went out. Just as when feast days came
back, the Sabbath went out. And when it is stated that the Name of Jesus is not sung in the psalms, I am reminded of
an old Free Church of Scotland Minister of better days saying, "where in the psalms is Christ not to be found." His other Names and
offices abound. And there is more of the workings of our Lord's heart and soul in the sacred psalter than in the gospels!
My nation is famed for its choral hymn singing, but the only time one hears a psalm sung is at the grave side,
when Ps23 is sung. Believe me, hymns are more preferred than singing the word of God. One other point is relevant.
A Prof Wok, an American Presbyterian at about 1900, investigated several contemporary hymn books. He found he could
not find 9 consecutive hymns that did not contain error. Consider the multiplicity of hymn books in all the denominations,
and the natural and logical degeneracy to vacuous chorus singing. David was the sweet Psalmist of Israel, and held it in type For Christ.
This office has not been replaced in the NT, nor anyone commissioned to succeed.

 

[reformedminister]

Greetings:

What is your objection to singing the Psalms of David? I will ask this question gradually in three parts:

First, does your church sing "hymns" exclusively without any Psalm singing at all? If so, then why does your church categorically reject the singing of the Psalms? Do you think that God does not want you to sing Psalms?

Second, If your church sings both hymns and psalms, then what is the ratio? Are there times in your worship where you sing only hymns during the day? Are there days where you only sing psalms? Does God only want you to sing psalms part-time?

Third, Do you feel that the idea of singing only psalms somehow intrudes upon your Christian liberty? If so, then how so?

Blessings,

Rob

1). NO.
2). We sing from the Trinity Psalter during our evening worship service. We sing two, one in the beginning, and one before the benediction. We sing several hymns in between.
3). NO. I don't see EP as a Scriptural mandate.

 

[matt01]

1.) We primarily sing contemporary choruses; occassionally, we sing more traditional hymns. In the last 8 months we have not sung a "pure" Psalm, though I imagine some of the choruses are inspired by them. (a) I am not sure on this. There are many things that we take issue with. (b) No. Given that He gave us the Psalms, I imagine he would like us to sing them.

2.) (a-c) We don't sing Psalms. (d) As the Lord directed that we sing Pslams in addition to songs/hymns, I suppose we should be singing them on occasion, but I wouldn't say He wants us to sing them part-time.

3.) I am not concinced that EP is biblically mandated; however, I would not be opposed to worshipping in an EP church, if providence brought us there.

 

[jandrusk]

I think Colossians 3:16 negates any validation upon requiring Pslams to be sung exclusively.

"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God." (Colossians 3:16 [ESV])

 

[Christusregnat]

I think Colossians 3:16 negates any validation upon requiring Pslams to be sung exclusively.

"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God." (Colossians 3:16 [ESV])

Is the Word of Christ inspired or uninspired?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I think Colossians 3:16 negates any validation upon requiring Pslams to be sung exclusively.

"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God." (Colossians 3:16 [ESV])

Whether a person is EP or not, I would suggest that when St. Paul wrote Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19 that he wrote those passages with the 150 in mind. All three of the terms used in the text refer to the 150. They are Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs.

I know reading books can be grueling on this topic for some, so I uploaded a discussion with William F. Hill Jr. (when he use to do Covenant Radio) and Dr. Richard Bacon. It is well done even though it might be long. Give it a listen if you have time and want to hear a discussion from the EP side. Download it if you can and listen on a long drive as I did.

[video=youtube;Q5fHopImltY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5fHopImltY&list=FLMc1--fMVG4xLzsE_0LpSaw[/video]

Here is a brief history of Psalm Singing.

[video=youtube;cvTDc086quA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvTDc086quA[/video]

This one is short. I asked permission to upload these from the speakers.

 

[Cymro]

We are on the same ground on this one Randy. The headings of the psalms show simply that
a song is a psalm, and a psalm is a hymn. A number of the psalms are prefixed with both titles
(A psalm or Song, etc ).Whilst two have the 3 titles. I am led to believe that the Rabbis consider the
headings to be inspired.
As for Col 3:16, The context is ,'Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching
and admonishing one and other in psalms,' etc. Hymns of human composition are not inspired and
therefore cannot dwell in us richly , nor teach us, as many contain error. For example Wesley's hymn,
'emptied himself of all but love.'---Which Prof Finlayson considered ,a gross error.
The parallel in Eph5:19, is related to v18, which exhorts, 'be filled with the Spirit; speaking to yourselves
in psalms etc.' To be filled with the Spirit is inseparably linked with the psalms, or the word of God dwelling
richly in us.
I think what we forget is, that Paul was writing to his generation at the time, who had no idea what our
modern concept of hymnology is. And we, because of being brought up in the use of hymnody, take these verses
to identify with the modern meaning of hymn singing.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Mr. O'neil,

Can you sing like this?

[video=youtube;k3MzZgPBL3Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3MzZgPBL3Q[/video]

I think this is so wonderful.

 

[Peairtach]

Wrong Celts, Randy.

The Scottish Celtic language is a "Q-Celtic", Goidelic, language called Scottish Gaelic.

The Welsh Celtic language is a "P-Celtic", Brythonic, language called Welsh.

 

[MW]

Does God only want

According to the Psalms, God wants for nothing, Ps. 50:9-10; 115:3.

 

[Cymro]

Thank you for that video Mr Snyder, it is a happy reminder of the yearly blessing we have
in going to Lewis for our holidays for the last 40yrs. Yes we can sing like that as we sing with them in English.
There is a psalm book which gives the equivalent English to what the Precentor lines out. When our children
first heard it 40 yrs ago, their eyes went like organ stops, and they likened it to a human bag pipe! It was that first
contact that brought me to examine why I sang hymns and permitted an organ. In fact. from then on in the process
of time I changed from a hymn singing, guitar and organ accompanying Baptist, to a WCF Presbtyterian unaccompanied psalmist!
Must finish, as someone from Lewis is Skyping at this moment.

 

[Andres]

It's been a while but I remember Rev Lane Keister and Dr. R. Scott Clark having a good discussion on the case for EP vs Non-EP. I thought Rev Keister brought up some interesting points for the non-EP side.

 

[Zach]

It's been a while but I remember Rev Lane Keister and Dr. R. Scott Clark having a good discussion on the case for EP vs Non-EP. I thought Rev Keister brought up some interesting points for the non-EP side.

Do you know where I can find this? I would love to read/listen to what they had to say.

 

[Andres]

It was dialogue between their two blogs. Unfortunately, Dr. Clark's side was lost when the original Heidelblog died but you should be able to find Pastor Lane's arguments on his blog still. Just have to search his archives.

 

[Zach]

It was dialogue between their two blogs. Unfortunately, Dr. Clark's side was lost when the original Heidelblog died but you should be able to find Pastor Lane's arguments on his blog still. Just have to search his archives.

Thanks, Andrew. I may have to spend some time trying to find it. So much to read, so little time here on Earth!

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

It was dialogue between their two blogs. Unfortunately, Dr. Clark's side was lost when the original Heidelblog died but you should be able to find Pastor Lane's arguments on his blog still. Just have to search his archives.

Thanks, Andrew. I may have to spend some time trying to find it. So much to read, so little time here on Earth!

I believe this may be what is being referred to by Andrew: http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/category/church/worship/

 

[JonathanHunt]

I'll indulge you, although I'm not sure why you're asking.

First, does your church sing "hymns" exclusively without any Psalm singing at all? If so, then why does your church categorically reject the singing of the Psalms? Do you think that God does not want you to sing Psalms?

No.

Second, If your church sings both hymns and psalms, then what is the ratio? Are there times in your worship where you sing only hymns during the day? Are there days where you only sing psalms? Does God only want you to sing psalms part-time?

The ratio is about 10:1 in favour of hymns, because the book we use currently contains few psalms. If we include looser paraphrases etc, the ratio is about 10:3 in favour of hymns.

As to the second part of your question, it is loaded. We believe that God wants us to sing Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs ALL the time. As to whether we should sing more Psalms, I've no doubt about it, and when our new supplemental hymnbook is introduced in a couple of months, we certainly will. It is designed so that it sits alongside our current book and offers us at least one metrical or paraphrase for every psalm.

Third, Do you feel that the idea of singing only psalms somehow intrudes upon your Christian liberty? If so, then how so?

No. I don't see that it has anything to do with Christian liberty.

 

[Zach]

It was dialogue between their two blogs. Unfortunately, Dr. Clark's side was lost when the original Heidelblog died but you should be able to find Pastor Lane's arguments on his blog still. Just have to search his archives.

Thanks, Andrew. I may have to spend some time trying to find it. So much to read, so little time here on Earth!

I believe this may be what is being referred to by Andrew: Worship | Green Baggins

Thanks, James!

 

[CNJ]

Dr. Kenneth Gentry had a series of tapes on EP that I reviewed here:

Millennial Dreams: Sing Only Psalms in Worship?

I felt what he had to say was very cordial to the EP side and helped me decide on why I do not sing only Psalms.

 

[Cymro]

A lecture on Biblical praise, by Rev Kenneth Stewart recently preached, can be found on Sermon Audio.
To my mind he is one of the foremost preachers in the UK. He holds the EP position. His weekly sermons are on
his church web site, RPCS ,Glasgow.