The sermon based on Colossians 3:16 that was preached in Second Reformed Protestant Church by Rev. Nathan Langerak under the theme “The Indwelling Word”¹ has received intense scrutiny by the proponents of exclusive psalmody. All of a sudden, the minister who preached that sermon is no longer a faithful minister of Jesus Christ, but he is a fearmonger and a cruel abuser of the sheep, and to some he is even a schismatic person.

Many received that preached word in faith with rejoicing as the very word of Christ unto his beleaguered church. But there were also many others who heard that word and received it in unbelief, so that they now speak against that word. They seek to tear at that word and make that word out to be “an uncertain sound.”²

Many at Second Reformed Protestant Church walked to the back of church after the sermon that Sunday evening and spoke with one another about how much they needed to be instructed from the word of God concerning the issue of exclusive psalmody and even how the sermon was revealing for them. I was one of them. I had been instructed, I had been corrected, and had been comforted in the truth of the word of God.

However, that was not all that I felt that Sunday evening. I was left surprised and nearly speechless regarding an issue about which I thought I had a basic understanding before that sermon was even preached. Shame covered me as a wet blanket and weighed me down that Sunday evening. And why? Because I had been blindsided. I had been given a false narrative of the issue by someone whom I thought I could trust. That someone was Rev. Andrew Lanning.

A few days prior to that Sunday evening, I sat down with Reverend Lanning via a zoom call concerning a couple of questions about exclusive psalmody. Before then I had not yet taken the time to listen to the two recent sermons by Reverend Lanning in which he preached exclusive psalmody based on the second commandment.³ Admittedly, that was foolish on my part. In my ignorance I figured that if anyone would be able to tell me honestly what all the fuss was about at First Reformed Protestant Church, it would be Reverend Lanning. When I asked him about the elders who would not shake his hand after the March 12, 2023, sermon, this is the essence of what Reverend Lanning had to say: there are men in the church who disagree with what I preached who would be perfectly content with having a psalter hymnal in church.

On the basis of that statement, I had been a narrative that those elders who would not shake Reverend Lanning’s hand really had a problem with singing only psalms in church, and they wanted to at least leave the door open for introducing all sorts of man-made hymns in corporate worship. Instantly, the alarm bells were raised in my mind. My Reformed antennae were sounding off, and I was deeply concerned at what the implications of that could mean for the churches. I thought to myself, “How could anyone in the Reformed Protestant Churches prefer to sing hymns rather than sing the psalms, even only the psalms, in corporate worship? Ought not we to love the psalms? Does not church history show us that false doctrine can be sung into the church by means of hymns?”

However, the narrative that I had been given was false. It was a lying narrative. Considering that lying narrative, I call Reverend Lanning and whoever else has spoken it to repent. Repent! For “lying lips are abomination to the Lord” (Prov. 12:22). Instead, let them heed the admonition, “Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another” (Eph. 4:25). Carrying that lying narrative, they trampled roughshod over the heads of all their brethren and easily left the denomination. Not a single sermon was protested; neither was there any regard for the welfare of the church and churches. For their false and lying narrative was sufficient for them.

Furthermore, Reverend Langerak exposed that false narrative for what it is in the sermon that I heard that Sunday evening. In the days and weeks following, the reality of the situation became increasingly clear. The issue never was hymnody versus psalmody in the church. Rather, the issue was whether the church could sing only the 150 canonical psalms and whether it was a sin and an accursed idolatry for the church to sing anything else. At this point, this is abundantly clear. This has been made clear by the public testimony of those who have left the Reformed Protestant Churches.

Moreover, I find it greatly offensive when Reverend Lanning, as the chief editor of his new “Reformed” magazine, recommends an article by Dewey Engelsma in which Mr. Engelsma attributes the position of the seminary students on exclusive psalmody to Reverend Langerak’s apparently other-worldly powers of persuasion. As has been asserted, we all have been given our “marching orders” and as submissive subjects are all too willing to follow our supreme leader to the end that he had previously determined.⁴ Reverend Langerak is supposedly the master puppeteer behind the present controversy, and the seminary students are as his toys that are being pulled every which way without any real resistance. However, this could not be any further from the truth. To assert this is to commit the sin of presumption and worse is to lie against the work of the Holy Spirit of promise, whose work it is to lead God’s people into all the truth (John 16:13).

There was in the seminary classroom a unanimous position that the doctrine of exclusive psalmody based on the second commandment teaches the error of legalism. There was no professor who was grooming his students to believe a certain way about the issue. Everyone had something to contribute to the discussion. Therefore, I think that I can speak for all of us students that those moments we spent discussing the issues after class were tremendously impactful for us, not merely in our understanding of the truth over against the lie but also in our appreciation for the simplicity of the gospel. Those were joyous times for us even amid the tremendous grief that this controversy had brought upon our churches. As a result of those discussions, we became inspired to study the issue even more on our own, and we always came together again with something new to contribute. I can only speak for myself when I say that I found myself coming back to Colossians 3:16 again and again. What may be the best proof text (not exegesis) for the proponents of exclusive psalmody became one of the most comforting and reassuring passages for me over against that same position.

It seems that each minister in the Protestant Reformed Churches had his own explanation of Colossians 3:16. When I was preparing this article, I listened to sermons from several Protestant Reformed ministers on that same passage, and none of them seemed to be agreed. I listened to a sermon by Rev. Ronald Hanko, which taught that the passage was referring only to corporate worship and that “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” were very clearly a reference to three different categories of the 150 psalms that the church can and must only sing in worship. Then I listened to a sermon by Rev. Jonathan Mahtani, in which he denied that the text was merely a reference to corporate worship. Instead, he taught that the exhortation applies to the entire life of the believer as he exists within the covenant sphere and is called to admonish one another and sing to one another. And then I listened to a sermon by Prof. Barry Gritters, in which he said that the text meant that the church sings the psalms “almost exclusively.”

The more I listened to these sermons, the more convinced I became that this controversy in our churches became an issue in part because it had never been settled in the Protestant Reformed Churches. Every man said that which was right in his own eyes, but all men failed to see what stood at the heart of the Colossians 3 passage, which is the word of Christ. That word is powerful. The word is effectual and works mightily in the hearts of God’s elect people, so that they will and do of God’s good pleasure. All things in the church and in the home are rooted in that word of Christ, so that it is only through the word of Christ that there is life, and outside of that word there is no life.

The word of Christ is the doctrine of Christ, which has at its core Jesus Christ and him crucified and risen. That word of Christ comes to us by way of the preaching of the gospel. That word of Christ, being properly expounded from the sacred scripture, also comes to us in the preaching of the gospel as a two-edged sword, a savor of life unto life and a savor of death unto death (2 Cor. 2:16).

Most broadly, then, we can understand the calling to “let the word of Christ dwell in you richly” to mean that when the word comes to you, believe it. Cleave unto it. Receive that word in faith and glory in it. Know that word and seek to understand that word. Do not speak against that word. Do not fight that word. Rather, “let the word of Christ dwell in you richly.” This is outside the realm of possibility for man. For man by nature hates the word of Christ and rebels against it. There is an aspect in which the exhortation completely rules out man and his activities. The calling then is a calling to faith in the word. As such it is a spiritual activity that man can never perform. It is only when that word enters the heart of the elect child of God by the Spirit of Jesus Christ that the word works effectually in that heart, moving, as it were, along the heartstrings and invariably producing melodious praises unto the Lord that arise from within that heart. There is an activity of the believer, but that activity is entirely the work of God and not at all the work of man. Therefore, the church sings because the word of Christ dwells in her richly. When the church cleaves to the word and receives it by faith, then she also sings that word in thankfulness unto God.

The word. The word. The word. Here is the key to understanding that text. The word is the difference between having a man-centered theology and a Christ-centered theology in that passage. Exclusive psalmody teaches a man-centered theology from Colossians 3:16. And what is that man-centered theology?

By their singing the psalms together with grace in their hearts to the Lord, the whole word of Christ dwelt in them richly in all wisdom, for the psalms are the little Bible.⁵

That theology is man-centered and conditional. It makes the indwelling word of Christ impotent until the church does something. It is not freedom; it is bondage. Essentially, it is no whit different than the doctrine of the churches from which we came out. And if the proponents of exclusive psalmody would have had their way in the Reformed Protestant Churches, we would have been led down that same road of apostasy. It is a theology that not only lies against the truth of the word of God but also lies against the Reformed tradition. One may need only to examine Martin Luther’s own treatment of Colossians 3:16 to figure this out. After all, was it not Luther who first called the psalms a “little Bible”? Here is what Luther had to say about what it means to “sing with grace”:

But what is the significance of Paul’s phrase “with grace”? I offer the explanation that he refers to the grace of God and means that the singing of spiritual songs is to be voluntary, uncompelled, spontaneous, rendered with cheerfulness and prompted by love; not extorted by authority and law, as is the singing in our churches today. No one sings, preaches or prays from a recognition of mercy and grace received. The motive is a hope for gain, or a fear of punishment, injury and shame; or again, the holiest individuals bind themselves to obedience, or are driven to it, for the sake of winning heaven, and not at all to further the knowledge of the Word of God—the understanding of it richly and in all wisdom, as Paul desires it to be understood. I imagine Paul has in mind the charm of music and the beauty of poetry incident to song. He says in Ephesians 4, 29: “Let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth, but such as is good for edifying as the need may be, that it may give grace to them that hear.” Likewise should songs be calculated to bring grace and favour to them who hear. Foul, unchaste and superfluous words have no place therein, nor have any inappropriate elements, elements void of significance and without virtue and life. Hymns are to be rich in meaning, to be pleasing and sweet, and thus productive of enjoyment for all hearers. The singing of such songs is very properly called in Hebrew singing “with grace,” as Paul has it. Of this character of songs are the psalms and hymns of the Scriptures; they are good thoughts presented in pleasing words. Some songs, though expressed in charming words, are worldly and carnal; while others presenting good thoughts are at the same time expressed in words inappropriate, unattractive and devoid of grace.⁶

What does Luther have to say about Colossians 3:16? Luther taught that the church’s singing is a spontaneous activity that is rendered with cheerfulness and prompted by love and is therefore not extorted by law. For law is a cruel slave-master, which demands that the one who is under it keep that law perfectly, lest he die. But the church is not under the law. The church is under grace. And the church is under grace even with respect to her singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. When the church gathers for worship, she does not come with a law that she must follow in order for God to hear and receive her praises. Rather, the church comes with all cheerfulness and love.

The worship of the church is a spontaneous activity that is worked in her by the Spirit of Jesus Christ and arises out of faith—faith that is the opposite of working. The church’s singing, therefore, as an expression of praise, of delighting in God, and a glorying in him alone as her God is itself a blessing from God. The church is not motivated to sing, even to sing the psalms, because in doing so she sings with Jesus, is heard of God, or enjoys fellowship with God. Rather, the church sings “from a recognition of mercy and grace received.”

In addition to this, Luther also emphasized that for the church to sing with grace means that the church sings with understanding of the word of Christ. The calling to “let the word of Christ dwell in you richly” is not merely outward or superficial, but it involves a profoundly inward and spiritual knowledge of that word. The church that admonishes one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs would that all the members of the church be kept in remembrance of the word of Christ, that the truth of Christ dwells richly in their hearts, and that every man confesses the truth of the word of Christ one with another. Therefore, the content of those things that the church sings is of critical importance. Let the church sing the word of Christ, that is, let the church sing the doctrine of Christ. And let the church not sing mere words as they appear on a page or in a book; rather, let the church sing with understanding. Just as the church knows and receives the word of Christ by faith in the preaching of the gospel, so also the church sings out of that knowledge and as an instrument to further that knowledge.

Apart from singing with understanding, it matters very little what form that worship takes, whether the church sings only psalms or she sings mostly psalms and a few doctrinally sound hymns. The danger is thus expressed. No church that worships under bondage to the law cares very much about singing with understanding. For then that church becomes more like Rome, which sang songs in Latin that no one could follow along with, let alone understand. The same is true for the proponents of exclusive psalmody.

If Luther were alive today, I suspect that he would level the same charge against those who teach exclusive psalmody. For them the emphasis is not on the understanding of the psalms and what they teach. Rather, the emphasis is on what the church sings—that she sings the right thing. I can sing with understanding the “Song of Moses,” the “Song of Zacharias,” the “Lord’s Prayer,” or any other song that can be derived from the word of God and be condemned by the proponents of exclusive psalmody because I did not sing the right thing. While Luther does mention the psalms in his exposition, he does not mention them in connection with the regulative principle of worship. Rather, Luther proves the beauty of the psalms in their content, that they are “good thoughts presented in pleasing words,” over against those songs that may have a charming expression but contain words that are not in harmony with sound doctrine.

The fact that exclusive psalmody makes the form of the church’s singing more important than that she sings with understanding exposes the nature of exclusive psalmody—it is carnal. It is carnal to the very core. It is no less carnal than the endless laws that the Pharisees invented and by which they sought to establish their own righteousness. And the effect of this doctrine of exclusive psalmody will be the same as the effect of those laws of the scribes and Pharisees in that the blessedness of those who cleave to exclusive psalmody will also be carnal. Blessedness for the church will be because the church does certain things and does not do other things. Blessedness for the church will become wrapped up in the outward form until the church becomes a hollow shell of dead orthodoxy. On the outside they might appear very pleasing in the sight of men. However, on the inside they shall be like rottenness, festering sores, and even as whitewashed sepulchers.

I was blindsided. I was easily deceived. Like a wandering sheep, I was led astray. However—praise be to God—I was delivered. For I heard the voice of Christ, my faithful shepherd, speak unto me and lead me into green pastures. I was as a bird that thinly escaped out of a hole in the net, which God himself cut out for me in Jesus Christ. The Lord has caused his face to shine upon the Reformed Protestant Churches in preserving his truth among us, who by nature are easily carried away by every wind of false doctrine. Is not this your comfort? We ought to stand amazed before the wondrous works of God. These are our landmarks. God testifies unto us every day of his never-ending faithfulness unto us. Let the churches be settled on this issue, and may the Lord ever preserve us in the truth of the simplicity of the gospel.