Introduction

As of the publication of this article, almost two months will have passed since the creation and distribution of a new magazine, Reformed Pavilion. I have a few remarks and observations regarding this new magazine by way of introduction. I find the name to be a peculiar one. Looking over the landscape of Reformed magazines throughout the past century, you see the names the Banner, the Standard Bearer, Beacon Lights, and Sword and Shield. The names of these magazines indicate that their purposes are to be witnesses to the Reformed truth. They stood as a city on a hill that radiated forth the light of the gospel (Matt 5:14). The names reflect that they are polemical magazines. (And by God’s grace, one still remains that polemical witness to the truth.)

Recently, a new controversy has ensued, precipitated by Rev. Andrew Lanning. He and his supporters have run into a pavilion. It is a defensive measure because they have no ground on which to stand to attack any supposed lie. I understand well what Psalm 27:5, the theme of the new magazine, is teaching. It is a covenantal text. God tabernacles and fellowships with his covenant people. He hides them in Christ and sets his people upon Christ. But the tent into which Reverend Lanning is gathering his supporters is not the safety of the gospel but the law of his own mind, heart, and will. His pavilion is a man-made, hastily put-together tent that, with one gust, will blow over. There is no safety in the defense Reverend Lanning offers.

Standing behind this magazine is a suspended minister, Rev. Andrew Lanning. On March 23, 2023, with the concurrence of the consistory of Second Reformed Protestant Church, the consistory of First Reformed Protestant Church voted to suspend Reverend Lanning, by judging “Rev. Lanning’s teaching regarding exclusive psalmody in the worship service to be legalism by bringing an erroneous application of the second commandment in the preaching.”¹ This new magazine stands in the service of that false doctrine. That false doctrine is the sole reason for the magazine’s existence. The reason is not the gospel. The reason is not the Reformed truth. The magazine exists for the sole reason to promote the false doctrine of exclusive psalmody as part of the second commandment. There is even a rubric dedicated to it called Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs.

Sword and Shield is a believer’s magazine. This magazine is non-ecclesiastical. There is no official connection to the Reformed Protestant Churches. And in the office of believer, one has the right to speak the truth in this magazine. Articles and speeches have been dedicated to this truth. The suspended Reverend Lanning had an avenue in Sword and Shield to continue to write in defense of the Reformed faith. He had an avenue to lay forth the truth of the gospel in this magazine, but he laid down his pen on the pages of this magazine to start his own. The fact that he resigned from this magazine—a believer’s magazine—but would publish two video posts in his “office of believer” promoting his position betrays him.² The new magazine may claim to be a defense of the Reformed faith, but I maintain that the magazine is deceptive and dishonest with its readers.

Reverend Lanning, one man, decided that it was time for a new magazine. He has thrown off the yoke of the church of Jesus Christ. He attacks and despises the rule of Christ over him through the elders, who judged his doctrine as false. He has thrown off the yoke of a governing board and association. He contends against the counsel of God with his own wisdom and understanding (Prov. 21:30). He attacks the sabbath rest of the church of Christ by allowing his magazine to be sent out on Sunday morning, as God’s people are preparing to go to God’s house for worship. He attacks the confessions and thereby the Holy Spirit, who leads the church into all truth (John 16:13).

The purpose of this article then is to contend against Reverend Lanning, his false doctrine, and all those who espouse it. His false doctrine is a corruption from the simplicity in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3). Over against the principle of exclusive psalmody as required by the second commandment is the Reformed principle of sing the word. I will lay forth positively that truth in defense of the glory of God to the end that God’s people are instructed in his word.

In fervent prayer, we beseech the God of all grace that he will make us men who have understanding of the times. “And of the children of Issachar, which were men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do.” (1 Chron. 12:32).

The Controversy Defined

Everyone seems to have a different idea of what is being taught by Reverend Lanning. Ask one man, and he says that it is one thing; ask another man, and he says that it is another thing.

The issue is this: Does the second commandment require exclusive psalmody? Does the regulative principle require exclusive psalmody? In the public worship of God, must we only sing the 150 psalms to the exclusion of everything else as idolatry?

Reverend Lanning understands that this is this issue.

So there is a question of the application of the regulative principle to the singing of the church, especially this question, does the regulative principle require exclusive psalmody?”³

And again,

And God’s command with regard to the singing of the worship of Jehovah is that we worship him with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, which refer to the psalms that are given to us in the word of God, so that the regulative principle of worship for the singing of the church in her public assembly is sing the psalms and nothing else.⁴

This is the issue, and do not be misled into thinking otherwise. Reverend Lanning taught that the answer to this question is a resounding yes. We must exclusively sing the 150 psalms as demanded by the second commandment. Worship requires exclusively the 150 psalms, and to sing anything else besides the 150 psalms in public worship is idolatry and a violation of the second commandment. Although some proponents of exclusive psalmody are now trying to back off of this charge of idolatry, this was clearly implied in the sermons by virtue of the fact that to transgress the second commandment is to make a graven image; and if the second commandment requires exclusive psalmody, and the church sings something other than the psalms, then she is guilty of breaking the second commandment and thus making a graven image and committing idolatry. Reverend Lanning also taught this explicitly when he preached,

The second commandment requires as the thankful life of the believer that he sing what God has given to sing, that he sings the psalms of God’s word in his public worship of Jehovah, that he not bow down to any graven image, that he not serve any graven image.⁵

Reverend Lanning in his welcome address in Reformed Pavilion tries to assert what the controversy is about. He writes, “The church controversy out of which this magazine arises is about the psalms in worship.”⁶ I disagree. That is not the controversy. As a church we already sing versifications of the psalms in worship. The controversy is about the 150 psalms being demanded in worship as part of the second commandment and that to sing anything else in worship is the sin of idolatry. That is the controversy. That is what he taught repeatedly. He should be honest, stand behind what he has taught, and inform his readers as such.

This is the reason then that some families and individuals will not sing the doxology, “Praise God,” at the beginning of the worship service or the spiritual songs if they are chosen as part of the worship service. If they were to sing these songs, they believe that they would be worshiping a golden calf erected during the service.

The consistory of First Reformed Protestant Church judged on the basis of scripture and the confessions that the second commandment does not require exclusive psalmody.⁷ It is not idol worship to sing “Praise God” or the songs listed in article 69 of the Church Order. It is not idolatry to sing the Lord’s prayer. It is not idolatry to sing the spiritual songs of Mary, Zacharias, and Simeon. It is not sin to sing those versified portions of the word. God be praised.

Reformed Principle: Sing the Word

The Reformed principle of singing in worship is that we sing the word. That principle is confessional, as is the regulative principle. In Lord’s Day 35 question and answer 96 we read,

Q. 96. What does God require in the second commandment?

A. That we in no wise represent God by images, nor worship Him in any other way than He has commanded in His Word. (Confessions and Church Order, 125)

In this Lord’s Day the regulative principle of worship is taught formally. In this commandment we are given the how of our worship. The Reformed view of worship is that whatever element is not prescribed is forbidden. The worship of God must be according to how he prescribes in his word. Anything introduced into the worship of God that is not prescribed by God is will worship (Col. 2:23) and must be condemned.

The entire first table of the law has something to say about this worship of the one spiritual God.⁸ In the first commandment we are commanded regarding who we must worship. Who is the object of our worship? God alone. We must not worship man or his idols in any form. Worship of God then, as the spiritual divine being, must be spiritual worship. We worship him “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24).

Then in Lord’s Day 38 we are taught when and where our worship must be.

Q. 103. What does God require in the fourth commandment?

A. That I, especially on the sabbath, that is, the day of rest, diligently frequent the church of God. (Confessions and Church Order, 128)

Worship must be in God’s church, which we are called to diligently frequent. We must worship him in that locally instituted church where the gospel is preached purely, where the sacraments are administered rightly, and where discipline is applied faithfully. In this Lord’s Day we are also given the elements of that worship. We are taught what that worship should look like in God’s church. The regulative principle prescribes the elements or contents of that spiritual worship of Jehovah, which are “to hear His word, to use the sacraments, publicly to call upon the Lord, and contribute to the relief of the poor.”

The element of worship that the Catechism prescribes as publicly calling upon the Lord includes prayer and singing. That is the truth taught in Isaiah 12:4–5: “In that day shall ye say, Praise the Lord, call upon his name, declare his doings among the people, make mention that his name is exalted. Sing unto the Lord.” In 1 Chronicles 16:8–9 we read, “Give thanks unto the Lord, call upon his name, make known his deeds among the people. Sing unto him, sing psalms unto him.” We read this also in Jeremiah 29:12: “Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me.” Finally, Psalm 55:16–17: “As for me, I will call upon God; and the Lord shall save me. Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud.” Lord’s Day 38 takes in hand these texts and many others throughout scripture, which teach that to call upon God’s name means to pray and sing, and joins praying and singing in one element of our worship.

This informs us then of the relationship between singing and prayer. They are essentially the same thing. This is also plain from Psalm 72:20: “The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended.” The whole of Habakkuk 3 is a prayer of the prophet, which in verse 19 is given to the chief singer of his stringed instruments. 1 Corinthians 14:15 also joins prayer and singing together: “What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.” Prayer arises from the indwelling Spirit of Jesus Christ in our hearts that cries out in prayer to God, “Abba, Father” (Mark 14:36; Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Prayer arises out of the regenerated heart as the chief part of thankfulness, and singing is the expression of that prayer set to tune and meter. The Holy Spirit plucks the cords of the heart, and that prayer comes to expression in song from the mouth out of joy for the gracious salvation freely given.

But let us suppose that this law of exclusive psalmody as required by the second commandment were true. If exclusive psalm singing were required by the fourth commandment, then exclusive psalm praying must also be required. Exclusive psalms must apply to both praying and singing because the confessions join them together. Thus it would be idol worship for the church to pray anything but the 150 psalms. This is absurd though. God does not limit our prayers to a single book of the Bible today, and neither did he limit the prayers of the saints throughout the Old and New Testaments, as evidenced by the multitude of prayers that scripture records for us. We pray free prayers and form prayers in our worship. We pray the word, and we sing the word.

An objection arises when it is pointed out that singing and praying are essentially the same thing in our confessions. That objection comes in this way: “Just because we can pray whatever comes into our mind and that accords with the word of God, so too we can sing whatever comes into our mind, as long as it accords with the word of God?” The Reformed answer to this objection is that our confessions teach us how and for what to pray. All things that we are commanded to pray for are given voice in our confessions through the exposition of the prayer that Christ himself has taught us. In Lord’s Days 45–52 we are taught the necessity of prayer and the requisites of a true prayer. In these Lord’s Days we are taught how to pray and for what to pray. We don’t flippantly pray whatever comes into our minds, but our prayers arise from true faith out of love and thanksgiving to God. The elect child of God prays because the Spirit lives in him. So too with his singing.

Reverend Lanning, in his sermon “No Image Worship,” taught that publicly to call upon the name of the Lord means to sing the psalms and to pray.

In the fourth commandment, Lord’s Day 38, the elements that belong to worship are the preaching of the gospel, the administration of the sacraments, the singing of the psalms, the public prayers of the church, and the giving of offerings. Those are the elements of worship. That’s what belongs in the worship of the church, that and that alone.⁹

Reverend Lanning imposed the idea of exclusive psalm singing on Lord’s Day 38. He had no basis for this, and he went against the teaching of the scriptures and the creeds by making an improper distinction between praying and singing.

Now Reverend Lanning is teaching that Lord’s Day 35 means that the Catechism is telling us to go back to the scriptures for the answer to how God commands us to worship him. Proponents of exclusive psalmody use this Lord’s Day for the authority to abandon what the confessions teach in Lord’s Day 38 about worship. Reverend Lanning writes regarding Lord’s Day 35, “When the creeds explicitly send us to Scripture on a matter, the creeds require what the Scriptures require in that matter.”¹⁰ This is not correct. Not only is it wrong, but it is also inconsistent. A month prior Reverend Lanning preached in the above-mentioned sermon that the answer to the question of what the church sings is found in Lord’s Day 38. Now he writes that the creeds do not have the answer, and so they send us back to scripture. However, the confessions are not teaching us to go back to the scriptures to find each explicit command regarding worship; moving on from Lord’s Day 35, the Catechism quickly arrives at Lord’s Day 38 to teach us the elements of worship that God has commanded in his word. I find it remarkable how quickly men went from “the confessions settle controversy” to “the confessions can’t settle this controversy.”¹¹ If we must have an explicit command from scripture for worship in the way Reverend Lanning teaches, then the preaching of the Heidelberg Catechism and the reciting of the Apostles’ Creed would also be idol worship, as God does not specifically command them in his word either.

The Reformed principle of worship is that worship is Word-regulated worship. It is a service full of the Word, Jesus Christ. Everything is done in the service of the word.¹² That is the teaching of Lord’s Day 35 that we worship him as he has commanded in his word. Preach the word, read the word, administer the word, sing and pray the word, and give offerings for the poor. We preach the word, that is, right doctrine and the pure gospel of grace. We must preach the truth and not a mixture of the truth and the lie. We read the sacred, inspired scriptures during worship and not a man-made devotional. We administer the word. We administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper that Christ has instituted for the New Testament church, which are signs and seals of the truth of the word of God. We sing and pray the word, that is, publicly call upon the name of the Lord. We may not pray for whatever we want; but we pray out of true faith, out of love for God in thanksgiving, for the things God has commanded. We pray the truth and theology of God’s word, and we sing the truth and theology of the sacred scriptures. We do not sing Arminian ditties or songs that glorify man and debase God, but we must sing and pray right doctrine.

And when you want to know what to sing out of true faith and love for God, sing the psalms because they are especially prepared by the Holy Spirit to that end. We do not need to look around to figure that out. God has already given us the answer in giving us a beautiful book of praise, full of songs and prayers. With the recovery of the gospel of grace, the church of Jesus Christ recovers her love for the psalms. The psalms are opened up for her, and she tastes and sees that the Lord is good.

What has been lost sight of in this controversy— shamefully—is the gospel. Our eyes have been taken completely off Christ and instead have been placed onto this law that must be met. There is nothing in the controversy about worship being spiritual worship, worshiping in true faith, or worshiping out of thankfulness. Worship is simple. It is not hard to understand. False doctrine has obscured this simplicity. Jesus Christ is the Word (John 1:1). That Word feeds his sheep. Lord’s Day 35 concludes by teaching that God will have his people taught, not by dumb images but by the lively preaching of his word. And that word is what regulates the singing in our worship as well.

The right worship of God by his elect people chosen in Christ is God’s purpose in creating them.¹³ “This people have I formed for myself; they shall show forth my praise” (Isa. 43:21). God will have his name glorified and exalted. He has formed a peculiar people for that purpose. And in glory, his elect people will worship him eternally through his beloved, only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

Errors with Exclusive Psalmody as Law

There are numerous errors in the feeble attempt to defend exclusive psalmody as required by the second commandment. I will address just a few of them now. A text that is being appealed to for support of exclusive psalmody is Psalm 95:2. “Let us come before his presence with thanksgiving, and make a joyful noise unto him with psalms.” This text does not support exclusive psalmody as Reverend Lanning teaches. The word “psalms” in the text is not to be understood as the 150 psalms of David. The word simply means to sing a song in praise of God. In James 5:13, which reads, “Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms,” the singing of psalms simply means that the saints sang a song of praise to God. The word for psalms in the New Testament carries the meaning of rubbing or plucking against the strings of an instrument to make music. This word is picked up again in Romans 15:9 as “sing” in connection with Psalm 18:49: “As it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.” The people of God sing a song in praise of God. They sing unto his name.

The principle of exclusive psalmody must be carried through all the way to its logical end. The argument is made that if we do not sing the 150 psalms, then we are not singing the word of Christ. But we do not sing the psalms even now. We sing versifications of the psalms. This is what Rev. H. C. Hoeksema wrote concerning this point.

From the fact, which we can all see, that we do not have and do not sing the inspired Word of God in our Psalter or in our Dutch Psalms. This is a catchy phrase, “the inspired Word of God.” And it has been appealed to more often in support of psalm-singing…In both our English and Dutch psalters we do not have the inspired word of God, but versifications based on the Word of God. All these versifications involve interpretation.¹⁴

If the former is true [that we sing versifications based on psalms]—and it is— then there can be no principle objection to other versifications of Scripture, whether Old or New Testament, and to hymns in that sense. And no one need shame himself for thinking of it.¹⁵

We can make a beginning on the definition of hymns here as well. An issue with the speed of developments in this controversy in the Reformed Protestant Churches is that we have a lack of defined terms. The word hymn does not mean the same thing for each person. One might take the term hymn and understand that to be an Arminian song such as “Trust and Obey” or some other theologically revolting song that teaches salvation by man. Rev. H. C. Hoeksema took hymns to mean that they are versifications of the word other than the 150 psalms. This is completely legitimate for the church. We do not sing the psalms now. We sing versifications based on the psalms. Any principled objection to singing the word of God must also object to singing versifications of the psalms today.

The fact is that even if one only were ever to sing out of the blue psalter, according to Reverend Lanning, that too would not be good enough. In a sermon on May 2, 2021, he taught the following:

The church becomes dissatisfied with versifications of the psalms that are only summaries of the psalm and that are close but not quite the psalm and that are only man’s interpretation of the psalm. That becomes, after a while, intolerable to the church, because when she sings a man’s summary of a psalm, she’s not singing the word of Christ, and Christ isn’t singing that song with her.¹⁶

The current psalter we use, which contains versifications of the 150 psalms, does not even fulfil the requirement of the second commandment according to Reverend Lanning. Certainly, psalter revision or some other alternative will be required for Reverend Lanning and his proponents.

Anyone who believes that this principle of exclusive psalmody as required by the second commandment is a defense of the current psalter is gravely mistaken. The principle of exclusive psalmody will be an endless stream of controversy over purity of worship. Psalter revision will not be sufficient to satisfy the requirement. One will need to chant the psalms, at a minimum, because versifications based on the psalms is idolatry as well. But chanting from the Scottish psalter will also not be good enough, as that is also an interpretation of the psalms from the Hebrew, versified and adapted to meter and rhyme. One will need to chant the original Hebrew in order to meet the requirement of exclusive psalmody and to be singing the words of Christ. An arbitrary law will have to made at some point by Reverend Lanning to determine when the law of exclusive psalmody has been met and therefore for the church to know that Christ is singing with her.

A Jealous God

The false doctrine that exclusive psalmody is required by the second commandment has serious implications. This position condemns the singing of the New Testament church through the ages as idol worship. This position makes God a weak, tolerant, impotent God, a God who for close to two thousand years has allowed idolatry in his church. He is a God who has winked at this sin and suffered an idol to be erected because his church was not singing exclusively the 150 psalms.

Philip Schaff, in his History of the Christian Church, details the singing of the church during the apostolic period (AD 1–100) and the ante-Nicene period (AD 100–311):

But to this precious inheritance from the past [the psalms of the Old Testament], whose full value was now for the first time understood in the light of the New Testament revelation, the church, in the enthusiasm for her first love, added original, specifically Christian psalms, hymns, doxologies, and benedictions, which afforded the richest material for sacred poetry and music in succeeding centuries; the song of the heavenly hosts, for example, at the birth of the Saviour; the “Nunc dimittis” of Simeon; the “Magnificat” of the Virgin Mary; the “Benedictus” of Zacharias; the thanksgiving of Peter after his miraculous deliverance; the speaking with tongues in the apostolic churches, which, whether song or prayer, was always in the elevated language of enthusiasm; the fragments of hymns scattered through the Epistles; and the lyrical and liturgical passages, the doxologies and antiphonies of the Apocalypse.¹⁷

The psalter was first enriched by the inspired hymns which saluted the birth of the Saviour of the world, the Magnificat of Mary, the Benedictus of Zacharias, the Gloria in Excelsis of the heavenly host, and the Nunc Dimittis of the aged Simeon. These hymns passed at once into the service of the Church, to resound through all successive centuries, as things of beauty which are “a joy forever.”¹⁸

For almost two thousand years the church of Jesus Christ has sung other hymns and spiritual songs alongside the psalms. When the gracious gospel of justification by faith alone was restored by the Reformation and the great Synod of Dordt, the church also restored the singing of the psalms to their rightful place of honor, but the reformers never required exclusive psalmody on the ground of the second commandment. Reverend Lanning condemns Martin Luther as an idol worshiper, who was known for writing hymns. Reverend Lanning condemns John Calvin as an idol worshiper, whose congregation sang the Song of Simeon after every celebration of the Lord’s supper. Reverend Lanning condemns Rev. Herman Hoeksema as an idol worshiper, who advocated for hymns and spiritual songs in the church. Reverend Lanning condemns Rev. John Heys, who wrote music for and sang the Lord’s prayer, as an idol worshiper. Reverend Lanning condemns most of the New Testament church and his forefathers. That is how serious this charge is that Reverend Lanning has made.

One man decided that for two thousand years, God allowed in his church this idolatry of singing songs other than the 150 psalms. God’s people bowed themselves down to the golden calf by singing “Praise God” and other spiritual songs. And God was weak to stop his church from worshiping an idol. He tolerated this idolatry.

What does God say in Exodus 20:5? “Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.” I the Lord am a jealous God. God is jealous for his own honor and glory. He is jealous because the sin of idolatry is an affront to his eternal, holy, and triune being. The sin of idolatry is deadly serious to him because it is an assault against that glory. He promises to visit that iniquity of the fathers to the third and fourth generations.

Jeroboam the son of Nebat was infamous for causing Israel to sin by worshiping the golden calves (1 Kings 12:28–33). He set up images in Dan and Bethel and said, “Behold thy gods.” Israel’s worship became more and more abominable and disgusting. She plunged deeper and deeper into idolatry and the corruption of her worship. God is a jealous God. He judged Israel’s worship in her generations. He judged that sin of the ten tribes upon the children and children’s children until finally they were consumed and destroyed by the Assyrians. God visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children. God does not take lightly the corruption of his worship. He judges that sin of the fathers upon the children.

It is not that the church of Jesus Christ is opposed to the charge of idolatry in itself. The child of God who knows his nature, knows his sin, knows that in himself all of his worship is filled with idolatry before the face of the thrice-holy God. The child of God knows his need for the one who worshiped God perfectly in his stead, and he is comforted by the gospel that Jesus Christ worshiped perfectly for him. But for Reverend Lanning to preach that to sing anything other than the 150 psalms in worship is idolatry is to unlawfully bind the conscience of the child of God and to rob him of the comfort of the gospel.

Conclusion

The worship of the church of Jesus Christ is wordregulated worship: preach the word, administer the word, read the word, pray and sing the word, and give offerings to the poor. The Reformed principle of singing is sing the word. That principle is confessional. The law of exclusive psalmody as part of the regulative principle is legalism. The law of exclusive psalmody as part of the second commandment is a law of man that Christ does not command in his word. That law is an attack on the church; it is an attack on the confessions; and it is an attack on the Holy Spirit who leads the church into all truth (John 16:13).

“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3). I fear for the souls of those who have been removed from the simplicity of the gospel and have been corrupted by the subtilty of the serpent.

Next time, the Lord willing, I will take up the conditional covenant theology that has been taught in the church by Reverend Lanning that Christ does not sing with the church unless the law of exclusive psalmody has been met. The theology is a mutation of the theology of the Protestant Reformed Churches.