Defining Terms

The Reformed Protestant Churches are being troubled by the preaching and teaching of Rev. Andrew Lanning that the regulative principle of worship as grounded in the second commandment “require[s] exclusive psalmody.”¹

In every argument the position opposed and the terms used must be clearly defined. I have attempted to do that. Throughout this controversy I have tried to deal fairly with the doctrine that I oppose, if for no other reason than that I have had tremendous respect for those who promote exclusive psalmody but also because truth and righteousness demand it. In my conclusions and statements of the implications of exclusive psalmody, I have not been sensational, but I pointed out where the doctrine on its own principles leads.

Reverend Lanning taught that the command of God for the church in her public worship is to “sing the psalms and nothing else.”² That is, for the church to sing anything other than psalms in worship is a violation of the second commandment and is the same as making a graven image.

His definition of the regulative principle is this:

In the church of Jesus Christ only those things that God has commanded may belong to worship, and all of those things that God has not said anything about or that he has forbidden may not be part of the worship of the church…The principle is not this: worship God in whatever way is not forbidden in his word, so that you’re free to do many, many things as long as God doesn’t explicitly forbid it. That regulative principle flows right out of the prohibition against graven images because a graven image is an attempt of the church to worship God in a way that appeals to her, in a way that her will inclines towards. The regulative principle is this: worship God only as he has commanded in his word, only with those elements of worship that he has said belong to that worship.³

And the regulative principle says, “Do not depart from those psalms to sing something else.”⁴ “The worship of Jehovah in the matter of singing requires the psalms and exclusive psalmody.”⁵

The elements that belong in worship Reverend Lanning finds in the Heidelberg Catechism’s explanation of the fourth commandment: “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.⁶ He inserts into the Catechism the words “the singing of the psalms.”

This teaching regarding the regulative principle and the second commandment, I call exclusive psalmody. I use the term exclusive psalmody for ease of expression. But you have to understand clearly that I do not mean by that term only sing the psalms in church. I mean by the term the doctrine that the regulative principle of worship and the second commandment demand that the church sings only the psalms in worship and that to sing any other versifications of scripture in worship is the dread sin of image worship.

I believe that it is necessary to state in my definition of exclusive psalmody in the form with which we are contending that the doctrine really is not satisfied with versifications of the psalms. The proponents of exclusive psalmody say, “Sing the psalms.” What does “sing the psalms” mean? Does this mean sing the Hebrew psalms? Does this mean sing an English translation of the psalms? And then what translation, perhaps the King James translation or the Coverdale translation of the psalms?

However, when the proponents of exclusive psalmody defend their doctrine as sing the inspired psalms and as sing what Jesus sang and what Jesus sings, then that can lead to only one conclusion. “Sing the psalms” means sing the actual words of scripture. Versification is a transliteration and an explanation of the Hebrew poetry—its thoughts and theology—into English poetry, and the versification is set to Western music. This is not acceptable for the proponents of exclusive psalmody.

They talk not only about singing the psalms but also about singing the inspired psalms. This is what they mean by inspired psalms:

The psalms being the 150 psalms that God has given us in the psalm book, and hymns being not inspired compositions of men…In the one category are the psalms, those 150 God-inspired songs; and in the other category are the hymns, which are not the inspired songs of God.⁷

Strictly speaking and based on the above quotation, “sing the psalms” would mean sing the “God-inspired” psalms in Hebrew. I will grant that “sing the psalms” could mean sing a good translation of the psalms. But “sing the psalms” means sing the actual words of the psalms. Do not think that the exclusive-psalmody proponents are content, for instance, with The Psalter, the blue book, or even a large revision of that songbook. They are after singing the 150 psalms as closely as possible to the original. I personally have no problem with that.

However, the issue is that proponents of exclusive psalmody ground “sing the psalms” in the second commandment and the regulative principle. So when the regulative principle supposedly says, “Sing the psalms,” it does not mean sing good versifications of the psalms but sing the actual psalm, word for word or almost word for word. They must be clear on what it means to “sing the psalms” because they make their argument look powerful by appealing to the fact that the psalms are inspired and no hymn is. So they say that the psalms are “God-inspired songs” and that hymns are “not the inspired songs of God.” Hymns are “human inventions,” man’s songs.

But the reality is that when we sing from The Psalter, we do not sing “God-inspired songs.” We sing some man-made versifications of the psalms, or at best manmade translations of the psalms, such as those made by Coverdale. Here again, in the church’s singing, the focus is taken off Christ and his work and praising God for it, and the focus has become how close we are to singing the “God-inspired” psalms.

I want to refute the idea that the proponents of exclusive psalmody have not charged sin against the church’s singing anything other than a psalm in worship. I do not know why they are shy or embarrassed about this. They have charged sin. Even if they have not used the exact words, they have charged sin according to their own principle. Let me illustrate: if my principle according to the law is that a man is married for life, then when I confront the divorced man with that principle, I have charged him with sin even if I never use the words. If the principle according to the law is that the church must sing the psalms exclusively in worship, then when I confront those who do not, I have charged them with sin regardless of whether or not I use the words.

The proponents of exclusive psalmody cannot pick and choose when and how far they will apply their principle. Let them be bold. To sing the name of Jesus in the worship service is sinful because God did not command it. To sing the Lord’s prayer in the worship service is sinful because God did not command it. To sing versifications of the psalms deemed too loose is sinful because God said that the church must sing the “God-inspired” psalms. Let them be bold. Do not let them hedge on the principle or hem and haw on its logical applications. They should tell us all the sinful things that we are singing, so that we can know and not have to wonder anymore where they actually stand. I repeat, let them be bold.

Over against this, the position that I am advocating and that I believe to be Reformed is that God says, “Sing the word. Sing that word out of a thankful heart.” That word we have encapsulated for us in the psalms. So we sing the psalms almost exclusively.

Reverend Lanning misstates the position that he opposes—whether deliberately or not, I am not going to judge. He says,

If one wants to maintain that…the regulative principle permits hymns, that is, non-inspired songs, then not only is this the case that you must find in scripture a requirement to sing hymns… We don’t permit human inventions…And not only must you find a specific command to sing hymns, non-inspired songs, but then you must also do it. You must sing hymns in church. You must have a psalter hymnal. You may not have only a psalter. And you may not have only a psalter with one hymn or two hymns. God said, “Sing hymns,” and that would mean keep writing them, keep adopting them, keep singing them.⁸

The argument of those who oppose exclusive psalmody is not whether the regulative principle permits hymns. The regulative principle is not about what God permits, but it is about what God commands in his worship. And their position is that God commands his church to sing his word. This command is carried out by singing the psalms, and the same command can be carried out by singing the Lord’s prayer and the Song of Mary. So Reverend Lanning’s argument falls on its face.

Foolish Questions

I cannot answer every single question that has arisen in the controversy regarding exclusive psalmody. To do so would be unprofitable. The many questions being asked regarding exclusive psalmody are like going down the rabbit hole, so that something exceedingly simple is being burdened and obscured by useless questions and unprofitable answers.

Reverend Lanning is to blame for the confusion and endless questions. He states a position and then draws back from its implications; for instance, whether in light of his position it is sin to sing the Lord’s prayer in worship services. He does not define important terms, such as his repeated mantra, “Sing the psalms.”

The doctrine of exclusive psalmody being taught can be condemned for no other reason than that it leads to endless questions and endless calculations about singing and endless strife about whether the church sings purely enough, so that she does not violate the second commandment and she can sing with Jesus.

The proponents of exclusive psalmody claim that they give the simple truth: sing only the psalms because this is what God commands in the regulative principle and because Jesus sings the psalms; but this doctrine, which at first appears righteous, corrupts the regulative principle and engenders all manner of questions and arguments, most of which are distractions from the main issue. We must not be distracted by the flurry of questions and arguments that are being raised.

For this reason I believe that the exclusive psalmody doctrine and those who promote it are guilty of ignoring the warning of the apostle Paul in Titus 3:8–11:

8. This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.

9. But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

10. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

11. Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

We are to be careful to maintain good works, including the proper worship of God without novelty and strange inventions, but foolish questions we are to avoid. The question whether the second commandment requires exclusive psalmody is a foolish question. There are other foolish questions and arguments. For instance, the members of the churches are arguing about whether singing and prayer are the same thing, when the psalms themselves are prayers and meditations. This should not even be a question. They are arguing whether “Praise God” is a hymn or a psalm, when the category in which a song is placed does not matter for the singing and worship of the church. The church may sing a psalm or a hymn without offense to God. The Reformed church at Dordt included some hymns in article 69 of the Church Order, and some of the versifications of the 1912 psalter are so loose as to amount to being hymns. So there has been much questioning and arguing to no profit.

I warn the churches against that. Let the church strive for the truth and for the application of that truth, but let the churches and all the members avoid foolish questions that come out of the brains of men, by which trouble, strife, and contention are brought into the churches to no profit.

Those who bring in the doctrine of exclusive psalmody are false teachers who are to be rebuked sharply. If they will not turn from that false doctrine, they are to be rejected as those who condemn themselves. If we have not already seen the seriousness of their false doctrine, then we should now. The doctrine of exclusive psalmody and the doctrine of singing the word cannot coexist in the Reformed Protestant Churches. We cannot continue our current practice of singing while there are those who come to church with a standing charge of sin against the churches and make that charge plain by standing mute while the churches sing to God.

In the controversy regarding exclusive psalmody, we must stick to the principal issue: Does the regulative principle as grounded in the second commandment require exclusive psalmody, or is this doctrine legalism? If the doctrine is legalism, then it must be condemned as such. If it is not legalism, then the proponents of exclusive psalmody must condemn as wicked modernism the doctrine that the regulative principle teaches the church to sing the word.

To stick to that principal question, a few things must be said about what the issue is not.

What the Issue Is Not

First, the issue is not about singing psalms as Reverend Lanning now asserts. “The church controversy…is about the psalms in worship.”⁹

Here is exclusive psalmody: sing psalms in church…Exclusive psalmody…remains so refreshingly simple: sing psalms in church…The term exclusive psalmody simply expresses what God has revealed: sing psalms in church.”¹⁰

The controversy is not about singing psalms versus singing hymns. To make it very sharp, the controversy is not really about what the churches sing at all. To say that the controversy is about psalms, or psalms versus hymns, or singing in general is only an occasion in the same way that the command that the Gentiles had to be circumcised was an occasion, a convenient handle, with which to develop and promote a theology.

Besides promoting the false doctrine of exclusive psalmody, its proponents slander their opponents by unfair and unfounded accusations. If they are against adopting the exclusive psalmody doctrine, they show that they want more hymns introduced in worship, that the churches might as well adopt hymns and give up psalm singing, and that there is something suspicious in a person who does not adopt the doctrine of exclusive psalmody. That is slander and fear-mongering.

That is also a new and offensive test of orthodoxy. The Reformed Protestant Churches are orthodox according to the Reformed creeds. Where did this new test come from? Out of our creedal orthodoxy—especially a renewed love for the doctrine of Christ as our only and complete savior—we were joyfully and thankfully singing psalms. That has been the practice of the churches. We are psalm-singing churches. We could have had wonderful speeches and articles about the glories of singing psalms versus singing hymns. We could have had sermons and speeches about our precious Reformed heritage of singing the psalms. The Reformed churches, if they are truly Reformed, have been singing psalms contentedly since Dordt. But our orthodoxy is not going to be tested by the capricious imposition of a supposed principle.

Second, the issue is not about singing psalms exclusively. I have said before, and I will say again, “I could sing the psalms exclusively.” However, at this point in the controversy and understanding the reason that men want exclusive psalmody, I oppose that doctrine. If someone were to overture classis to change article 69 of the Church Order to read that we sing only the 150 psalms of David, I would want to make clear that the churches do not hold to exclusive psalmody. And to establish that fact, the churches would include a hymn or some other versifications of scripture in the Church Order.

The fathers at Dordt did exactly that because they did not find in sacred scripture or the Reformed creeds the calling to sing psalms exclusively in connection with the regulative principle and the second commandment. If they believed the doctrine of exclusive psalmody, they had every opportunity to make that clear when they adopted the creeds and formulated the Church Order. They did not. When they applied to the Church Order the doctrine of the creeds concerning worship, they added hymns. If the churches today would say, “We want to add some hymns to the Church Order,” I would have a number of reasons against that, the first being that the church today does not have the spiritual wherewithal to do that. The more spiritual church of earlier centuries, as she was given the privilege from God to draft the Reformed creeds, was also given the privilege to instruct regarding the church’s worship and what to sing in worship. This the Reformed fathers did.

If we would only listen to them.

Third, the issue is not about whether we should sing from The Psalter, the blue, 1912 psalter with which we are all familiar. The point of my contention against exclusive psalmody is not that the arguments put forward in the Reformed Protestant Churches for exclusive psalmody will lead to the discontinuation of that psalter and therefore I am opposed to that position. The Psalter is not above criticism or a revision. But that songbook has proved its worth and has served the churches well, so that by its use the churches sing the psalms.

However, it is the explicit teaching of Reverend Lanning that by singing from The Psalter we really do not sing the psalms purely enough. He preached this: “In our own psalter we have the words of man, not in every psalter number. But…we have the words of man, so that we sing sometimes what we ought not sing.”¹¹

And this:

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. Only the church’s voices are heard, but the voice of Christ is not heard in heaven in that song.

And the church becomes dissatisfied with a songbook that doesn’t include every part of every psalm. That’s the case with our own psalter [regarding Psalm 18]…Our own psalter does not have this whole…text in it, so that most of us have never sung Psalm 18 in its entirety with the Lord Jesus Christ in church. He sings the song in heaven. We sing summaries of that song. The church becomes dissatisfied with it and eventually intolerant of it because she wants to sing with her Lord.¹²

And here we come to part of the main point in the controversy. The freedom of the churches to sing praises to God is being displaced by the teaching that when the churches sing the psalms from The Psalter, they are not singing the psalms closely, purely, completely, and accurately enough. This is bondage.

Over against this teaching, the churches may rest in their freedom to praise God in worship because the principle is to sing the word. And in The Psalter the churches have the word of God as it is contained in the psalms versified for the use of the church.

So I am not defending the blue psalter, nor do I regard as a threat to the gospel any calls to revise The Psalter. I believe that our churches are wholly unequipped for that at present and that God in his providence has spoken clearly to our place in the world right now: it is to preach the gospel of the unconditional covenant of God over against the corruption of that gospel especially in the Protestant Reformed Churches. Pointing out where The Psalter could be improved or even proposing that we get rid of The Psalter is not the issue.

Not about the Doxology “Praise God”

Neither is this controversy about singing the song “Praise God.” Whether “Praise God” is a hymn or a psalm or a faithful reflection of the theology of a psalm is immaterial. Whether or not “Praise God” was included in article 69 of the Church Order is immaterial. The churches could have easily remedied that by including the song in article 69. The practice of the churches sometimes is not entirely in harmony with the original reading of every article of the Church Order, and so the Church Order can be changed. Perhaps the churches ought to consider updating article 69 to bring it in harmony with our practice. Such a thing could be easily done, so that the article would read as follows: “In the churches only the 150 Psalms of David, the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, the Twelve Articles of Faith, the Songs of Mary, Zacharias, and Simeon, and the Doxologies shall be sung.” No one sings the “Morning and Evening Hymns” that were originally included by Dordt. We do sing the doxology “Praise God.” But those who are against singing “Praise God” are not against it because it is not included in article 69 of the Church Order. They are against it because it is a manmade hymn, a human invention.

Reverend Lanning defined psalms and hymns this way:

The psalms being the 150 psalms that God has given us in the psalm book, and hymns being not inspired compositions of men…In the one category are the psalms, those 150 God-inspired songs; and in the other category are the hymns, which are not the inspired songs of God but the songs composed by men about God.¹³

By this definition “Praise God” is a forbidden hymn.

By an assault on that hymn, Reverend Lanning intended to bring his entire view of singing into the churches. He thought that he had an easy argument: the church may not sing hymns because hymns are man-made; “Praise God” is a man-made hymn, so we cannot sing it. He thought that he had sympathy because of the faithful Reformed church’s insistence on psalm singing and perhaps even an opportunity in the newly formed Reformed Protestant Churches, where there was a reappraisal of what the churches had been doing. But the fight is not about “Praise God.” If someone had come and said, “The churches need to get rid of ‘Praise God’ because there are better options for a doxology,” I would not have fought against that. But the prize was not to rid the churches of “Praise God”; the prize was the denomination’s adoption of the theology of exclusive psalm singing based on the regulative principle and the second commandment.

Regarding the song “Praise God,” Reverend Lanning said,

Dordt allowed a tiny handful of exceptions [to the psalms] because people were just as stubborn then as they are now. Imagine suggesting then that the beloved hymn of prayer before the sermon should not be sung and see what would have happened. Try to suggest now that Thomas Ken’s beloved doxology “Praise God” is a hymn and see what happens. So Dordt made a concession to the people’s will. But Dordt was not enthusiastic about the few exceptions. Dordt suffered the few exceptions…

So also Dordt, which loved psalms, suffered a tiny handful of non-psalms for the hardness of Dutch hearts. But where the article suffers hard hearts, we ought to be ashamed, rather than demand continued room for our hardness.¹⁴

This is another slander of the churches, as though we are defending “Praise God” with our lives. It is also a slander of the Dutch fathers in the Netherlands to say that the explanation of the inclusion of certain songs is that Dordt made a concession to men’s hard hearts, as though they would have defended the “Morning Hymn” with their lives. I don’t believe it. Dordt did not teach exclusive psalmody based on the regulative principle and the second commandment.

Even if Dordt had written article 69 to read, “Sing only the 150 psalms,” that would not have been conclusive proof that Dordt taught exclusive psalmody on the basis of the regulative principle and the second commandment. That Dordt did include some scriptural and popular hymns is irrefutable proof that Dordt did not believe exclusive psalmody based on the regulative principle. And if the Reformed fathers at Dordt did believe that, then they would not have granted any exceptions. Those were serious men who took proper worship and the law of God seriously.

Besides, there are not exceptions to the law of God in the New Testament as there were exceptions in the Old Testament. We are not children but adults who have the law, the whole law, written on our hearts.

So whether we sing or do not sing “Praise God” is no issue. I could have easily given it up. That doxology is of no consequence to me. There are other doxologies. One is “Glory be to the Father,” which has a massively long pedigree in the churches, so that it is arguable that the apostle John sang it.

To say that Dordt allowed exceptions because of “the hardness of Dutch hearts” is pure slander, and I reject it absolutely.

So also with regard to singing “Praise God.” We are not up in arms because there was a suggestion to do away with singing “Praise God.” I know of no one who cares about that. The issue is not whether or not we sing “Praise God.” You could sing or not sing “Praise God” as far as I am concerned. I would much rather sing psalter number 268. I like it better, and it is a wonderful song for entering into God’s house. But I will not be forced with charges of sin to give up singing “Praise God.” Indeed, when the guiltless are condemned and charged with sin for singing that doxology, then we may not give up that doxology, but we must withstand the legalists and not give place to them for one hour. We may not be cowed by the charges of the legalists about things being man-made and about hymns and so become defensive about singing “Praise God.” We should simply say, “‘Praise God’ is a hymn, and we are going to sing it because there is nothing wrong or suspicious with the church’s singing a hymn.”

Further, we should say, “Now that we have been charged with sin for singing ‘Praise God,’ we are going to glory in singing it as a hymn and a man-made one at that.”

Dordt established that as our liberty. Our calling is to praise God with his own word. Article 69 is an expression of liberty that the churches are free to include other songs in worship besides the psalms. And we ought to stand firmly in that liberty and not be soon moved by the legalists’ howling about hymns and man-made things in the worship service. There is absolutely nothing sinful with singing a hymn in worship.

Those who sing psalms because they think it is sinful to sing otherwise, who charge the churches with sin for singing anything other than a psalm, and who will separate from the churches because of that charge of sin can perish with all their psalm singing. It would be better for them if they would just sing a hymn instead of staying on their current path.

The Issue Is Legalism

We must stick to what the issue is: legalism in worship and the application of the second commandment. I am against the doctrine that has been introduced into the churches that God in the second commandment commands the church to sing only the 150 psalms of David in worship and that to sing any other portion of scripture is a sin against the second commandment and thus is image worship and will worship. That doctrine I oppose as legalism. That was my charge from the beginning¹⁵; and after having studied the doctrine even more, that is still my charge today and even more forcefully. That doctrine is the dread error of legalism, and in essence it is no different from the leaven of the scribes and Pharisees.

The specific form of the legalism is that Jesus Christ does not sing with his church unless she sings the 150 psalms of David. So Reverend Lanning preached,

That [Jesus sings the psalms] has implications, too, for the church’s singing in worship. That as the church understands what those psalms are, then the church desires those psalms and is zealous for those psalms and becomes intolerant of anything replacing those psalms. The church will not suffer a hymn to come into her midst, that is a man-made hymn. That’s not a psalm from the word of God because when the church sings that hymn and all her mouths are open and all her voices are raising to the rafters, the Lord Jesus Christ isn’t singing that song, though the church might sing it. That’s not the Lord’s psalm. It’s not the word of Christ. It’s not the word of his Spirit, and so the church will not have that hymn.¹⁶

Reverend Lanning also preached, “He [Jesus] doesn’t sing with the church if her doxology is not a psalm.”¹⁷

And yet again,

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. Only the church’s voices are heard, but the voice of Christ is not heard in heaven in that song.¹⁸

Key to this doctrine is that Jesus is singing the psalms. So Reverend Lanning preached, “That the Lord Jesus Christ is the singer of the psalms is the key to understanding the psalms, and it’s the key to understanding this text [Psalm 18].”¹⁹ Jesus sings the psalms himself in heaven wholly apart from the consideration of his church. If the church sings a hymn in church, then Jesus keeps right on singing a psalm, but he is not singing with the church when she sings that hymn. The calling of the church then is to sing with Jesus and to sing what Jesus sings.

This is contrary to the gospel, which teaches that we sing because Jesus is with us and indwells us by his Spirit. Jesus is not singing alongside the church, but Jesus works in and through the church by the indwelling Spirit. Whenever the church sings the truth, she sings because Christ is in her.

This truth of the gospel regarding our worship on Sunday and in all of our lives is the teaching of Colossians 3:16: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” The key to the passage is that the word of Christ dwells in us richly. This is basic and fundamental to the theology of worship. We have Christ. We have Christ by the gospel. We are one with him and are kept in communion with him. When God gives to us the gospel, he saves us. By that gospel he also makes our worship perfect in Jesus Christ our Lord. That is first and foremost and everything in the subject of worship. Is the gospel there? For then Christ is there, not merely alongside his church but in his church.

One of the arguments of those who disturb the churches with their legalism is that the reformation of the church at this time demands a reformation of worship. With this I agree. I disagree with the arbitrary and tyrannical imposition of exclusive psalmody as the form of that reformation. Rather, I insist that the reformation of worship in the Reformed Protestant Churches took place when the gospel was restored to the pulpit, so that we were brought back to Jesus Christ our Lord and our communion with him and all his benefits by a true faith and through the operation of the Holy Spirit. That is the great reformation of the churches’ worship.

The worship in the Protestant Reformed Churches was not corrupted because they did not adopt the doctrine of exclusive psalmody, but the worship in the Protestant Reformed Churches was corrupted because they did not preach the gospel, and they taught the law as the way to fellowship with God.

That same error has come now into the Reformed Protestant Churches in connection with singing. The law, specifically obedience to the supposed meaning of the second commandment, is the way that Jesus sings (fellowships) with us. This is not an advance of the reformation but a deformation. The churches are not moving forward, but the churches are being brought back into bondage to the law, returning like swine to their wallowing and like dogs to their vomit.

Because the doctrine of exclusive psalmody is legalism, it also robs the church of the peace to which she is called and leads to endless calculations and controversies about whether the church is, in fact, singing the 150 psalms purely, closely, completely, and accurately enough. If the doctrine is, in fact, that we must sing only the 150 psalms, the logical end of that is an endless and unsatisfying search by the church to sing the psalms as closely to the Hebrew as possible because that is what Jesus sung and sings. The focus of the church is taken off Christ and placed upon what we do and off Christ’s perfect work and placed on our work of singing. The freedom of the church to praise God out of the indwelling word is taken away, and the focus is placed on whether our singing is, in fact, good enough for an arbitrary standard of what is good enough.

Because the doctrine of exclusive psalmody is legalism, it also destroys. It already has. Those who appear to be ready to separate from the Reformed Protestant Churches are going to depart from true churches of Jesus Christ because of their personal scruples about hymns. In that they will be guilty of schism for making the unity of the church consist in something other than Christ and his truth. Their legalistic doctrine has destroyed the peace of the members’ consciences and destroyed friendships as well. The doctrine will also swallow up those who go after it.

Implications and Warnings

I want to make clear that this doctrine of exclusive psalmody also demands the almost exclusive—if not exclusive—singing of the psalms in the home, in the school, and in life in general. The doctrine looks askance at singing hymns and other portions of scripture as undermining the principle of exclusive psalmody in the church. In other words, the doctrine may seem to grant liberty to the church to sing something other than the psalms in the home, school, and life in general; but the practical consequence of exclusive psalmody is that, in fact, singing other biblically based and sound hymns is viewed as undermining exclusive psalmody. This extends also to what the proponents of this doctrine regard as too loose versifications of the psalms, which they—each according to his own judgment—will neither sing in church and will also refuse to sing in the homes and schools.

I speak from personal experience here. In a gathering where songs from The Psalter were being sung, there were those who refused to sing whole songs or certain verses of songs because they regarded those songs as too loose, regardless of the fact that the theology of the versification was sound. In other words, what I am pointing out is that this doctrine that promotes itself as merely being interested in the public worship of the church cannot overcome the reality that the lives of the covenant people of God are one and that what is an idol in one place must necessarily be an idol in another place. The doctrine of exclusive psalmody cannot overcome the reality that the church is the center of our lives. Thus what we do in our lives necessarily leads to the same in the worship services.

The doctrine also cannot overcome the logic of its own supposed grounding in Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19. These verses occur in the context of describing the whole thankful life of the believer as it is really and truly one in every sphere of life and as that life proceeds from the believer’s union with Jesus Christ. The compelling logic of the passages is that if psalms are to be sung exclusively in the church worship services, they are to be sung exclusively in all of life. This is the compelling logic of grounding psalm singing in the second commandment. The second commandment has to do with our whole lives, and what is sinful in one area of our lives is sinful in another. Note well, that the argument is not, are there things that the people of God do in church that they do not do in their homes? The answer is, yes. The church institute preaches and administers the sacraments, for instance. Preaching and administering sacraments are not done in the home. But here the question is: Is there something sinful that the people of God do in church that is not sinful to do in their homes? For instance, it would be sinful for me to erect a golden calf in church, and it is likewise sinful to do so in my home. The life of the child of God is one whole. For this reason the psalm-singing church is unashamedly psalm-singing in the church, home, and school.

We must also understand that the proponents of exclusive psalmody as part of the second commandment cannot be allowed to take refuge in the subterfuge that they are like weaker brethren with whom the church must bear patiently, even to the point of not exercising her liberty while the weaker brother is instructed.

On the contrary, the legalist is to be withstood and not tolerated. So his argument is, “Why can’t you just allow me not to sing ‘Praise God?’” Or better yet: “Why won’t you for my sake not sing ‘Praise God?’ And certainly, do not preach against my not singing ‘Praise God.’” Such is the argument of the legalist. He takes refuge behind what the church does to accommodate the weaker brother. But the legalist’s contention in our churches is not that he is weaker and for conscience’ sake cannot sing “Praise God.” With his refusal to sing that doxology, he takes the place of instructor in the church; and with his refusal to sing that song, he charges sin against all the churches. The legalist does not merely say, as would a weaker brother, that he wants to sing “Praise God,” but he feels it would be sin for him to sing it, and then ask to be instructed regarding the reason singing “Praise God” is not sin.

If there is such a weaker brother, pull him out of the fire.

The legalist charges sin against the whole church.

By contrast, the weaker brother, if he thought singing “Praise God” were a sin, would be tempted to sing it when he saw someone sing it and thus sin against his conscience. That is always the thing with the weaker brother: he does what others may do in their liberty but what his tender conscience does not allow. That man can be instructed and grow in his faith and the knowledge of his liberty. With such a poor soul, we would bear patiently and instruct patiently.

However, we are not dealing with weaker brothers. In this instance many of the requests for instruction in the matter of exclusive psalmody are completely disingenuous and stink of entrapment. Most people have made up their minds and only ask for instruction to sound pious. We are dealing with those who seek to instruct the churches in their own law about singing and so to corrupt the churches from the simplicity of the gospel and who disturb her peace with their own scruples. We may not be intimidated by their not singing “Praise God” while we do sing it, as though in some way we offend the weak. We should not be worried about not giving place to them, as though we injure the weak. We do not offend the weak, but we offend the legalist. And that the Lord taught us to do. He deliberately healed on the Sabbath for the very purpose of establishing the legalism of his opponents and to establish himself as the gospel.

Wrong View of the Regulative Principle

The doctrine of exclusive psalmody is legalism because of its erroneous view of the second commandment and the so-called regulative principle of public worship. The doctrine is legalism especially in its application to singing.

The regulative principle teaches that the various elements of public worship are commanded by God and that what is not commanded is forbidden. Others go farther and define the regulative principle to include not only the elements but also the manner of worship, which allows a vast expansion of the regulative principle into such things as whether accompaniment may be used in singing.

Here we will deal only with the definition of the regulative principle that teaches that the elements of worship must be prescribed by God.

By elements of public worship, we mean the main liturgical actions of the worship services. The Reformed faith in Lord’s Day 38 describes those actions as four elements. There is preaching, the use of the sacraments, calling upon God, and the giving of alms.

The regulative principle does not specify the circumstances of these elements, that is, how each is specifically to be carried out. For instance, we preach every Sunday but celebrate the Lord’s supper four times a year. There is to be singing, but whether there is or is not accompaniment does not matter. There is to be a collection, but whether it is taken by bags or plates does not matter. These all fall under the category of the church’s liberty in worship and her ability to make laws that are for the edification of the churches without binding consciences, as though these things constitute the proper worship of God.

The central and unifying element of all the elements is the word of God. The church is to preach the word of God, partake of the word of God in the sacraments, pray the word of God, and give thanks for the word of God, by which he makes himself known to his church. The regulative principle does not say, for instance, that ministers must preach a series of sermons on a particular book of the Bible, that there must be a common cup in the celebration of the Lord’s supper, that prayer must be the Lord’s prayer, or that in giving there must be a collection for the schools. The regulative principle does not deal with specific circumstances but with principles— timeless truths about worship—and the overall principle is the word as the center of the worship. We are to worship God in church and in our whole lives as he commands in his word, so that in worship we may not invent another way to worship God; and in our lives we may not be self-willed in our stations and callings but serve God as he commands, so that everyone sticks to his calling. The word is the center of the worship. The word is the power of worship. Without the word there is no worship.

For man to prescribe something in worship or as the worship of God that God has not prescribed is will worship. All the passages of scripture that reject will worship likewise reject human laws of men, who upon their own authority prescribe anything in reference to divine worship that God has not commanded, although the thing itself is neither sinful nor forbidden by God. That issue has to do with prescription. Man on his own authority prescribes a thing as necessary for the worship of God, when God has not prescribed it; or God has prescribed something in the worship of him, but man ignores it.

Applied to singing specifically, the regulative principle says, “Sing the word of God.”

Exclusive psalmody teaches that God not only says, “Sing” or “Sing the word” but that God also says, “Sing the psalms and only the psalms.” In the form that we are confronting exclusive psalmody in the Reformed Protestant Churches, the lure of it in this principle is the promise that when we sing the psalms we sing with Jesus. Notice that it is sing the psalms first, and then we sing with Jesus. This “sing with Jesus” is a corruption not only of the regulative principle but also of the concept of worship and the believer’s relationship with Jesus Christ.

To that matter of “sing with Jesus,” I will turn in the next article.