When can an Exclusive Psalmist Sing Uninspired Songs in Good Conscience?

[ChristopherPaul]

The Disclaimer:

This thread is not intended to debate the application of the Regulative Principal of Worship (RPW). The question is posed to those who are like minded in applying the RPW regarding the Exclusive Singing of Psalms in worship. Thus if debate is desired or necessary, let the debate be amongst the Psalter-only advocates.​

The question:

When can an Exclusive Psalmist Sing Uninspired Songs in Good Conscience?

My initial premise is that those who apply the RPW to require singing Psalms only in worship would agree that to sing anything other than the Psalms in worship is sinful. Therefore when can songs outside the Psalter be sung in good conscience? Is it at home? During Family Worship? On any other day than Lord's Day? Anytime before the Call to Worship and after the Benediction?

Many may simply prefer to sing only Psalms at all times and that is understood, but when is it not sinful to sing outside the Psalter, say the Lord's Prayer or the Apostle's creed?


Grace,

 

[AV1611]

In the worship of God only Psalms are to be sung, be it public, family or private.

 

[Coram Deo]

Can sing or listen to uninspired music for enjoyment only outside of the the 3 sphere's of worship, i.e Corporate Sabbath, Family, Private Worships....

The Disclaimer:

This thread is not intended to debate the application of the Regulative Principal of Worship (RPW). The question is posed to those who are like minded in applying the RPW regarding the Exclusive Singing of Psalms in worship. Thus if debate is desired or necessary, let the debate be amongst the Psalter-only advocates.​

The question:

When can an Exclusive Psalmist Sing Uninspired Songs in Good Conscience?

My initial premise is that those who apply the RPW to require singing Psalms only in worship would agree that to sing anything other than the Psalms in worship is sinful. Therefore when can songs outside the Psalter be sung in good conscience? Is it at home? During Family Worship? On any other day than Lord's Day? Anytime before the Call to Worship and after the Benediction?

Many may simply prefer to sing only Psalms at all times and that is understood, but when is it not sinful to sing outside the Psalter, say the Lord's Prayer or the Apostle's creed?


Grace,

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Thank you Richard and Michael.

Are most EP proponents like-minded on the position you two have stated here? In other words, in order to hold the EP position, does one necessarily have to also conclude that only Psalms are to be sung in all forms of worship, be that public, family or private?

Does this apply to instruments as well? Why or why not especially in light of passages such as Psalm 150?

[bible]Psalm 150[/bible]

*My goal is not to refute the EP position, but to understand it better and know the answer to the question in the op.

 

[AV1611]

In other words, in order to hold the EP position, does one necessarily have to also conclude that only Psalms are to be sung in all forms of worship, be that public, family or private?

I would not be comfortable in speaking for every adherent of EP but as I see it, that would be the only logical and biblical position to hold.

Does this apply to instruments as well? Why or why not especially in light of passages such as Psalm 150?

Concerning instruments, yes it would be wrong to use instruments in the worship of God whether public, family or private. As for Ps. 150 may I point you to here and here.

 

[jaybird0827]

In other words, in order to hold the EP position, does one necessarily have to also conclude that only Psalms are to be sung in all forms of worship, be that public, family or private?

I would not be comfortable in speaking for every adherent of EP but as I see it, that would be the only logical and biblical position to hold.

Does this apply to instruments as well? Why or why not especially in light of passages such as Psalm 150?

Concerning instruments, yes it would be wrong to use instruments in the worship of God whether public, family or private. As for Ps. 150 may I point you to here and here.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

In other words, in order to hold the EP position, does one necessarily have to also conclude that only Psalms are to be sung in all forms of worship, be that public, family or private?

I would not be comfortable in speaking for every adherent of EP but as I see it, that would be the only logical and biblical position to hold.

Does this apply to instruments as well? Why or why not especially in light of passages such as Psalm 150?

Concerning instruments, yes it would be wrong to use instruments in the worship of God whether public, family or private. As for Ps. 150 may I point you to here and here.

To be consistently exclusive psalmody, you have to hold that only the psalms may be sung in all worship - public, private or family.

Other songs may be sung outside of worship.

 

[MW]

When arguing consistency it is important that the principle and its context is first understood which requires consistency. The context is specific worship, not generic. If inspired songs included generic worship -- e.g., labouring unto the Lord -- then one would not be at liberty to listen to any music whatsoever. And as the Psalms themselves require individuals to "sing" as well as listen, it would then be forbidden to simply listen to the Psalms without singing them. Clearly the principle of adhering to inspired songs is applicable only in the context of specific worship.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

When arguing consistency it is important that the principle and its context is first understood which requires consistency. The context is specific worship, not generic. If inspired songs included generic worship -- e.g., labouring unto the Lord -- then one would not be at liberty to listen to any music whatsoever. And as the Psalms themselves require individuals to "sing" as well as listen, it would then be forbidden to simply listen to the Psalms without singing them. Clearly the principle of adhering to inspired songs is applicable only in the context of specific worship.

Specific worship vs. Generic worship

Thank you Rev. Winzer, this clarifies a lot of my confusion.

A type of call to worship is announced when entering into either Private, Family, or Public worship. In those times God commands His praise to be given exclusively from His psalter.

But it would not be sinful to play a tune (pick an instrument) to say, the Apostles Creed and sing it, as long as it is not intended to be a time of formal worship. Correct?

 

[MW]

But it would not be sinful to play a tune (pick an instrument) to say, the Apostles Creed and sing it, as long as it is not intended to be a time of formal worship. Correct?

It shouldn't be a problem, as long as it's not intended to go any further. For more on the distinction of generic and specific worship, one might consult John Murray's article on worship in his Collected Writings.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Yes, John Murray, "Worship," in his Collected Writings, Vol. 1, p. 165, is a helpful resource here. I personally prefer the distinction characterized as "stated worship" (regulated by the Second Commandment/RPW) in contrast to all of life which is to be lived to the glory of God, which is our reasonable service (Rom. 12.1) [contra John Frame].

Murray's one-time colleague, William Young (a presbyter in my denomination), has also written on how the regulative principle applies to all stated worship, whether public, family or private (“The Second Commandment” in Frank J. Smith and David C. Lachman, eds., Worship in the Presence of God, p. 75):

The Holy Scripture prescribes the whole content of worship. By this is meant that all elements or parts of worship are prescribed by God Himself in His Word. This principle has universal reference to worship performed by men since the fall. In other words, it has equal application to the Old and the New Testaments. It is also universal in that it is regulative of all types of worship, whether public, family, or private.

William Young addresses some of these considerations elsewhere as well:

Links and Downloads Manager - Worship - Puritan Principle of Worship - The PuritanBoard

This issue of whether the regulative principle of worship applies to only public worship or to family and private worship has come up before many times. Here is one post where I addressed it in the context of Christmas:

http://www.puritanboard.com/296153-post29.html

John Cotton (who held to inspired-only a cappella praise) said (John Cotton on Psalmody and the Sabbath, p. 20):

2. We grant also, that any private Christian, who hath a gift to frame a spiritual song, may both frame it, and sing it privately for his own private comfort, and remembrance of some special benefit, or deliverance: Nor doe we forbid the private use of an Instrument of music therewithal; So that attention to the instrument, do not divert the heart from attention to the matter of the Song.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Thank you for the replies to my inquiry. The designation between Stated and Generic worship has revolutionized my view on worship. It seems so clear and basic and yet the concept was foreign to me until this thread. I would identify this as one of those epiphanies where something “clicks” which leads to further reformation of other areas of life. I am truly thankful for Christ’s Church and the saints who sharpen me.

This basic idea that the RPW applies to all forms of stated worship makes a lot of sense; however, how it is to be applied strictly to public worship and yet not as strict with family or private worship is still confusing.

...To affirm that the RPW applies to private and family worship as well as public does not mean that I affirming that the same rules must apply to each category.

For example, I don't believe women are required to wear headcoverings in private or family worship, though I believe they are required in public worship. I believe women may speak (ie., prayer requests, questions) during family worship, but not in public worship. And I also believe, along with the Scottish General Assembly which approved the directory of family worship, that catechism is permitted in family worship, which involves persons besides the head of household speaking. If the father is absent, I believe the female head of household may lead the family worship (if the circumstances are appropriate to that), while I would never approve of a women leading public worship even if the minister was providentially hindered from being there. And the head of household should lead the prayer and other parts of worship, including catechism, but not give a sermon or administer sacraments, which are responsibilities confined to the public ministry. So there are quite a few variations on the rules, or I should say, on the application of the rules, depending on the setting, none of which undermine the fact that we are not to worship God apart from the ordinances that he has commanded.

How is one to determine which commands apply to the different types of worship? For an example, why is it “clear” that no instruments are to be used in Public, Family, or Private worship and yet head coverings are not required when the women speak in family or private worship? In reading the scriptures pertaining to the RPW, how is one to recognize which commands are rigid and which ones are loose?

I have not yet acquired a copy of Murray’s work on the matter and have not read the reasoning from the Scottish General Assembly.

 

[Coram Deo]

Not to get into another headcovering issue.. Aside from the other threads on headcoverings and modesty which I accept and believe. My wife is still studying out the modesty issue aspect of it.. But right now she does cover her head for Corporate, Family and Private Worship Times...

How is one to determine which commands apply to the different types of worship? For an example, why is it “clear” that no instruments are to be used in Public, Family, or Private worship and yet head coverings are not required when the women speak in family or private worship?

 

[BobVigneault]

Michael, see the disclaimer in the OP.

The Disclaimer:

This thread is not intended to debate the application of the Regulative Principal of Worship (RPW). The question is posed to those who are like minded in applying the RPW regarding the Exclusive Singing of Psalms in worship. Thus if debate is desired or necessary, let the debate be amongst the Psalter-only advocates.

 

[JohnOwen007]

When arguing consistency it is important that the principle and its context is first understood which requires consistency. The context is specific worship, not generic. [...]

Dear Matthew,

I appreciate your clear distinction here. Help me to understand: can you show me where the Bible (especially the NT) makes the distinction between specific and generic worship?

Every blessing, Marty.

 

[JBaldwin]

When arguing consistency it is important that the principle and its context is first understood which requires consistency. The context is specific worship, not generic. [...]

Dear Matthew,

I appreciate your clear distinction hear. Help me to understand: can you show me where the Bible (especially the NT) makes the distinction between specific and generic worship?

Every blessing, Marty.

Marty,

I started a thread on this very topic (same question) before I saw your post.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

I agree with AV1611 and Coram Deo in their first posts. Luther advocated exclusive psalmody, and encouraged hymnn singing on other occasions. The problem is that the power of poetry and music can cause people to prefer the "hymns" rather than the psalms, and, before you know it, "hymns" are being sung in worship.

My

-CH

 

[MW]

Hello Marty,

It's not as easy as looking up a concordance and seeing the word "worship" used in two distinct ways. But a difference in generic and specific worship becomes apparent when it is seen that the Scriptures single out specific acts of devotion, e.g. preaching, praying, praising, and when certain instructions are given which are specific to when the saints assemble together or synagogue.

Blessings!

 

[ChristopherPaul]

This basic idea that the RPW applies to all forms of stated worship makes a lot of sense; however, how it is to be applied strictly to public worship and yet not as strict with family or private worship is still confusing.

...

How is one to determine which commands apply to the different types of worship? For an example, why is it “clear” that no instruments are to be used in Public, Family, or Private worship and yet head coverings are not required when the women speak in family or private worship? In reading the scriptures pertaining to the RPW, how is one to recognize which commands are rigid and which ones are loose?

My follow-up question was not directed to Andrew only; I would appreciate anyone clarifying this point confusion for me.

 

[tdowns]

For a simple guitar man....

Can someone break it down for a Simple Guitar Man....

I'm not close to being able to decide on the EP, etc...although, I see EP as being not only biblical, but logical, in it's accuracy for Church worship. I wish my church did it.

But, my simple case.

I'm sitting at school, class goes to lunch, I pull out one of the few songs I can sing, and play well on my guitar...

For you are good to me

I cry out,
For Your hand of mercy to heal me
I am weak
And I need Your love to free me
O Lord, my Rock, my strength in weakness
Come rescue me, O Lord...

You are my hope
Your promise never fails me
And my desire--thanks to you--is to follow You forever
For You are good, for You are good,
For You are good to me....

Now, to me, I am worshipping? So is that private worship, and therefore wrong?

It's musical instrument, It's not a Psalm. I feel like I'm praising, thanking, worshipping God...wrong?

I THOUGHT, from the EP only people, ANDREW?, that this was acceptable?

I'm not offended if some think it is, I'm just looking for a clear understanding, using a real scenario.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

My follow-up question was not directed to Andrew only; I would appreciate anyone clarifying this point confusion for me.

Okay, I'll try.

Just 'cuz.

Not really sure what you mean but ok, give it to me!

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Thank you for the replies to my inquiry. The designation between Stated and Generic worship has revolutionized my view on worship. It seems so clear and basic and yet the concept was foreign to me until this thread. I would identify this as one of those epiphanies where something “clicks” which leads to further reformation of other areas of life. I am truly thankful for Christ’s Church and the saints who sharpen me.

This basic idea that the RPW applies to all forms of stated worship makes a lot of sense; however, how it is to be applied strictly to public worship and yet not as strict with family or private worship is still confusing.

...To affirm that the RPW applies to private and family worship as well as public does not mean that I affirming that the same rules must apply to each category.

For example, I don't believe women are required to wear headcoverings in private or family worship, though I believe they are required in public worship. I believe women may speak (ie., prayer requests, questions) during family worship, but not in public worship. And I also believe, along with the Scottish General Assembly which approved the directory of family worship, that catechism is permitted in family worship, which involves persons besides the head of household speaking. If the father is absent, I believe the female head of household may lead the family worship (if the circumstances are appropriate to that), while I would never approve of a women leading public worship even if the minister was providentially hindered from being there. And the head of household should lead the prayer and other parts of worship, including catechism, but not give a sermon or administer sacraments, which are responsibilities confined to the public ministry. So there are quite a few variations on the rules, or I should say, on the application of the rules, depending on the setting, none of which undermine the fact that we are not to worship God apart from the ordinances that he has commanded.

How is one to determine which commands apply to the different types of worship? For an example, why is it “clear” that no instruments are to be used in Public, Family, or Private worship and yet head coverings are not required when the women speak in family or private worship? In reading the scriptures pertaining to the RPW, how is one to recognize which commands are rigid and which ones are loose?

I have not yet acquired a copy of Murray’s work on the matter and have not read the reasoning from the Scottish General Assembly.

Christopher -- My apologies for delaying in my response. Worship threads generally take a lot out of me, so I don't jump into them often if I can help it. Pastor Winzer has the gift of simplicity in answering these sort of inquiries which I lack. But I will try to answer your questions, brother.

First of all, I'll quote Murray for your consideration:

When we are thinking of worship we must distinguish between the generic and the specific. The generic is the devotion we owe to God in the whole of life. God is sovereign, he is Lord, having sovereignty over us and propriety in us, and therefore, in all that we do we owe subjection to him, devotion to his revealed will, obedience to his commandments. There is no area of life where the injunction does not apply: 'Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God' (I Cor. 10:31). In view of the lordship of Christ as Mediator all of life comes under his dominion. 'Whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as unto the Lord, and not unto men, knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ' (Col. 3:23, 24).

The specific is the exercise of worship in the specialized sense -- prayer, thanksgiving, reading the Word, preaching, singing God's praises, administering the sacraments. Some of these may be exercised in private, all of them in the public worship of God, which is God's instituted communal worship in the assembly of the saints. There are exercises of worship that should be attached to other functions or may be properly attached to other functions. Food is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer, and in partaking of food we ought to ask God's blessing. But a meal is not a part of the instituted worship in the assemblies of the saints. Compare also marriage, the burial of the dead, the convening of political assemblies etc.

-- John Murray, "Worship," in Collected Writings, Vol. 1, p. 165.

While, as I mentioned, I think the distinction is better framed as "stated worship" (governed by the regulative principle of worship, an outworking of the second commandment) / living all of life to the glory of God (a la Rom. 12.1), the idea here is that God's moral law regulates life and requires us to render our reasonable service or "worship" to God by honoring him in all things, specific acts of worship ought not to be rendered to God apart from the regulations he has given to us governing stated worship, whether that be private, family or public worship.

I won't undertake here to defend the RPW itself. That has been done in numerous threads, though it is controversial on the PB.

I will proceed to note that there are three categories of stated worship: private, family and public. Besides stating the obvious (ie., private worship involves one person alone; family worship involves a couple, parents/children, extended family, visitors on occasion, etc.; and public worship involves the church), I will assert that the RPW applies to all three categories. There is no warrant in scripture to assume that the NPW exists for certain categories and the RPW exists only for public worship. I've gone into this before in the thread previously cited, so I'll move on.

Your question is really about how to distinguish between certain acts of worship in certain contexts. The example you gave compared musical instruments with headcoverings. It should be noted that the RPW applies to musical instruments (on the basis of 2 Chron. 29.25, etc., as a regulated aspect of ceremonial worship which has since been abolished, per Col. 2.17, etc.) but I've never viewed headcovering to be a regulated element of worship, rather I view it as a circumstance of public worship (I view 1 Cor. 11 as pertaining to public worship). Arguments showing why musical instruments should be considered ceremonial and, ergo, abolished in worship may be found in Girardeau, Calvin, Dabney, Price, et al., and warrants a whole thread to itself (many of which already exist). Headcoverings are taught by scripture to be required for women in public assemblies, according to Paul. John Murray notes (letter to Mr. V. Connors, Presbytery Clerk, Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Australia, dated November 16, 1973):

There is good reason for believing that the apostle is thinking of conduct in the public assemblies of the Church of God and of worship exercises therein in verse 17, this is clearly the case, and verse 18 is confirmatory. But there is a distinct similarity between the terms of verse 17 and of verse 2. Verse 2 begins, "Now I praise you" and verse 17, "Now in this . . . I praise you not". The virtually identical expressions, the one positive and the other negative, would suggest, if not require, that both have in view the behaviour of the saints in their assemblies, that is, that in respect of denotation the same people are in view in the same identity as worshippers. If a radical difference, that between private and public, were contemplated, it would be difficult to maintain the appropriateness of the contrast between "I praise you" and "I praise you not".

If one examines the context in which Paul is speaking, the reasons given for the use of headcoverings, not grounded in the RPW, but as a matter of decorum (showing modesty, honoring authority) grounded in creation and because of the "angels" (whether these be actual angels attending upon public worship or ministers functioning as God's messengers), seem applicable to public worship but not private or family worship, ie., the issues of decorum (in the context of praying and prophesying in a mixed and public assembly) become moot (not entirely, but functionally) in those other settings. More could be said and more will be inquired, I'm sure, but that must suffice for now.

Moving on to other examples (less controversial perhaps for you, but the subject of numerous other long-running debates here on the PB), let's look at the administration of the sacraments or preaching, both of which our Westminster Standards teach must be done by ordained ministers. So, these are specific acts of worship regulated by the second commandment, not only in how they are performed but in who may perform them. Fathers have no right to administer the sacrament of the Supper or baptism to their children, apart from the ministerial office, nor can anyone just self-administer baptism or the Lord's Supper. So this act of worship is peculiar to public worship, ie., the church, and not meant for private usage (see WCF 29.4, for example). This kind of distinction is accepted by many, though not all Presbyterians.

In my previous post, I gave an example of women leading family worship in certain circumstances (I trust that allowing women to worship in private, ie., utter prayers, read God's Word, etc., is not controversial). In another thread, I have argued that it is the normal duty of the male head of household to normally lead in family worship, but even in that thread, I allowed exceptions to the rule, based on necessity, grounded in the idea that women share in the governance of the family and have a role in the spiritual nourishment of their dependents. And even men aren't supposed to preach in family worship. John Howe makes the case for primacy of male headship in family worship while allowing for such exceptions here:

QUESTION: Some have desired to be informed, “Whether in case of the absence or sickness of a husband from or in the family, it be incumbent on the wife to keep up family duty in such a case?” And the case is the same as to widows, or others of that sex, who are sole governesses of families.

Answer: it must be said in general to this, that one rule cannot be suited to all cases. There may be very great variety as circumstances differ. But,

1. Nothing is plainer than that while the conjugal relatives remain, the female relation hath a real part in the government of the family. That is plainly enough asserted in 1 Timothy 5:14: that it is the woman's part to “guide the house.” The word is oikodespotein, to have a despotical1 power in the family, a governing power, which must be solely in her in the absence or failure of the other relative; and that must by no means be abandoned or quitted. And whereas all power and all order is from God, it cannot be denied or disowned or laid aside without an injury to Him.

2. Hereupon, if there be in a family a prudent pious son or a prudent pious man-servant, who may be assigned to this work, it may fitly enough be done by such a one by her appointment. And so the authority that belongs to her in her station is preserved and the thing done. That such a work as that is may be assigned to another, is out of all doubt and ought to be so, where it may most fitly and most duly be so. And none question the fitness of assigning such a work statedly to another, in such families where persons are kept on purpose for the discharge of family duties.

3. It is possible, there may be families that do entirely at present consist of those that are of the female sex; and concerning them there is no question.

4. Where the family is more numerous, and consists of the male sex, of whom none are fit or willing to undertake that business, and it cannot be done by the governess with decency or to edification; in that case she is to follow the example of Esther, (a very laudable one,) with her maidens and younger children still to keep up to this worship in her family; and, as much as in her lies, to warn and charge the rest, that they be not omissive for their part, (though they do not concur with them,) together or severally in calling on the name of the Lord daily.

So, all this is said, not to spark another thread on that subject, but to show that while women leading family worship is acceptable under certain conditions, without violating the RPW, I do not see any such allowance made for female ministers to lead public worship.

Such examples can be multiplied, but I think my goal has been to show that there is no contradiction per se in holding that 1) the RPW applies to all stated worship (whether public, private, or family) but not life in general; and 2) though the RPW applies to all stated worship, its application will vary depending on the setting, and the differences can be sorted out by looking at each specific act of worship, considering how Scriptures speaks to who may do what, and under what circumstances, and other practical outworkings of regulated worship.

Scriptures teaches that the saints must assemble on the Lord's Day for public worship (fourth commandment, Heb. 10.25), but the outworkings of this (when, where, who, and to some extent, how) are (to some extent) circumstantial and require sanctified common sense. The same with frequency of the administering the Lord's Supper, and other aspects of regulated worship.

I would not say that the RPW is applied "strictly" to public worship and "not strictly" to private or family worship; rather, I would say that the application is different depending on the setting. It's not a question of strict or not strict, but different practical applications or outworkings of the same principle.

I'm sure more could be said -- or perhaps less could be said more succinctly -- but I hope this helps a little. Blessings!

 

[toddpedlar]

Hi:

I agree with AV1611 and Coram Deo in their first posts. Luther advocated exclusive psalmody, and encouraged hymnn singing on other occasions.

Can you provide a source for this assertion?

Thanks.

 

[JBaldwin]

Hi:

I agree with AV1611 and Coram Deo in their first posts. Luther advocated exclusive psalmody, and encouraged hymnn singing on other occasions.

Can you provide a source for this assertion?

Thanks.

I just read an article today on Luther and Psalms and hymns. I don't have it with me, or I would give you the title and the author. It was, however, very well documented. In the article it discussed Luther's love for the Psalms, congregational singing and poetry. He set out to put the Psalms in metrical form. Psalm 130 is one example, and he also wrote other hymns based on Psalms but which carried the main ideas of the Psalms but were almost unrecognizable when it came to the actual words. An example of this is A Mighty Fortress is Our God (Psalm 46 if I remember correctly). This example is one that Luther would have called a hymn. He admitted that poetry was not his thing and asked others to try to do what he was attempting to do with the Psalms. The article did not say that Luther sang hymns on other occasions.

What I also thought was interesting is that Luther taught "hymn" tunes to the young people in order to help teach the congregation and to keep them from singing the sappy love songs so popular in his day.