After
the debate, President Joseph Pipa asked the audience how many there
who had come to the debate wondering about the issue, had been swayed
to
lean in one direction or another as a result of the debate. Several
dozen
hands went up. When he asked how many had been absolutely persuaded
as a
result of the debate, evidently no hands went up.
In Taylors, South Carolina, on March 13, 2003
on the final morning of the
Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary Conference on Worship
a debate
took place on the doctrine known as "exclusive psalmody",
that is, the
question of whether the church should sing the 150 psalms in public
worship
to the exclusion of all other songs, especially uninspired compositions.
Throughout the Presbyterian and Reformed community, in relatively recent
history, the question of the content of worship music has become a
vibrant
issue only over the past decade or so. For example, when the Presbyterian
Church in America (PCA) was founded in 1973, the issue within PCA circles,
was almost totally unknown. However, through a variety of means, the
question has, as it has done in centuries past, generated extensive
discussion in the Reformed world.
One of the factors which impacted the discussion was the 1990 International
Psalmody Conference, held at Bonclarken, Flat Rock, North Carolina,
a
conference which was commended or endorsed by several denominations,
including the PCA. Two years later, the PCA General Assembly answered
in
the affirmative an overture from Central Georgia Presbytery which advocated
the singing of psalms (though not necessarily exclusive psalmody).
The next
year (1993), the PCA Assembly voted to "reaffirm that Psalm-singing
in the
worship of God is a Gospel ordinance, is commended by the Westminster
Confession; and is an historic practice of Reformed churches";
to "give
thanks to God for the revival in the use Psalms and Psalm portions
in
contemporary worship settings"; "[t]hat congregations be
encouraged to sing
at least one Psalm at each of their services"; and "[t]hat
congregations be
encouraged to identify Psalm-settings as Psalms, when they are sung." The
same Assembly approved the publishing of the Trinity Psalter, in
conjunction with the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America
(RPCNA).
Designed as a supplemental manual of praise for congregations which
use a
hymnal, the Trinity Psalter is printed as a words only book. It made
its
debut at the 1994 PCA General Assembly; after 1000 copies were donated
for
perpetual use by the Assembly. The denominational bookstore sold out
of its
1000 copies of the Psalter which were available at the Assembly, and
took
800 back orders. Sales since that time have been in the tens of thousands.
In recognition of the growing practice of psalm-singing among its
constituency, as well as the growing acceptance of the proposition
that
only the psalms should be sung in public worship, Greenville Seminary
sponsored today's debate. Unlike debates at Greenville theology conferences
in previous years, this discussion was conducted in accordance with
formal
rules of debate. For example, each speaker was given twenty minutes
for an
opening presentation, with ten minutes each of rebuttal. After about
a
half-hour break, during which time each speaker consulted with an advisor
(his "second"), the debate resumed with each speaker being
able to pose
questions to the other. The debate concluded with fifteen minutes of
summation from each party.
The question for the debate was the following: "Do the Scriptures
require
the exclusive use of psalms for the content of our singing in public
worship?"
Speaking for the affirmative was the Rev. Brian Schwertley, pastor
of
Chalcedon Presbyterian Church in Michigan. Opposing him was the Rev.
Ben
Shaw, a professor of Old Testament at Greenville.
BRIAN SCHWERTLEY ON EXCLUSIVE PSALMODY
Mr. Schwertley began by noting that Scripture allows us to use our
words
for prayer and preaching. However, the same is not true for the content
of
our sung praise.
The case for exclusive psalmody, according to Mr. Schwertley, is rooted
in
a strict application of the regulative principle of worship, as well
as the
sufficiency of the Psalter. With regard to the regulative principle,
he
noted that in order for a worship practice to be acceptable to God,
it must
be derived either from a direct command, or approved historical example,
or
logical deduction.
There is, he stated, a positive warrant for psalmody, but no positive
warrant for uninspired hymns. Why sing psalms? he rhetorically asked.
"
Because there is an inspired hymnbook right in the middle of the Bible.
You're obligated to sing all 150 psalms; it's a moral obligation."
Furthermore, only psalms are used in the worship of Jehovah in Scripture.
In accord with this point, the Michigan pastor stated that the New
Testament repeatedly refers to David as a prophet, highlighting the
inspired character of what he penned.
Mr. Schwertley said that a common objection to exclusive psalmody is
that
the term to "sing psalms" does not in Scripture contain the
noun
("psalms"), but simply means to "sing praise." He
countered that Scripture
defines what it means to sing praise, and that inspiration was necessary
for the writing of worship song.
The debater affirmed the standard explanation that the three-fold term
of
"
psalms, hymns, and songs" (found in the classic texts on the subject,
viz., Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16) refers to the inspired psalms
of
the Old Testament, and that the term 'pneumatikos' ("spiritual"),
which in
this context must mean "inspired," refers to all three nouns.
He also
argued that "word of Christ," which is in the Colossians
passage, is
equivalent to "word of God." And, he stated that the term "new
song" in
Scripture refers only to inspired songs.
BEN SHAW ON THE NON-EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE PSALMS
Professor Shaw argued that the mere existence of the Psalter does not
form
an express command to sing from it. In his view, there is no Old Testament
evidence that the Psalter or parts of it were used exclusively in the
temple, and no New Testament evidence that most or all of the Psalter
was
used in the synagogue. He also argued that the evidence that the Hallel
would have been sung at the Passover meal (as in Matthew 26:30), came
from
the Talmud, which was written 300 years after Christ.
Mr. Shaw noted that James 5:13 ( ". . . let him sing psalms")
contains only
the verb, 'psalleo', which simply means to sing praise. Conceding that
the
three terms of "psalms, hymns, and songs" are found in the
Psalter, he
tried to downplay its significance by pointing out that those three
terms
are only in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament),
which is not as accurate as the Masoretic Text (the Hebrew). Furthermore,
the terms are used outside of the book of Psalms to refer to other
compositions. In his view, the term "spiritual," which does
not mean
"
inspired," is added to the word "song" because it is
the least religious
of the three nouns.
SCHWERTLEY'S RESPONSE
Mr. Schwertley began his rebuttal by saying, "My dear brother
did not
demonstrate that 'psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs,' refers to uninspired
hymns. He has not demonstrated with respect to worship where these
terms
refer to uninspired hymns. We let Scripture interpret Scripture." He
later
stated that there is not one example in Scripture of a song or hymn
used in
public worship that is uninspired. Noting that the Holy Spirit had
organized the 150 psalms into the Psalter, and also that the Westminster
Assembly and lawful Presbyterian General Assemblies of a bygone era
had
drawn the conclusion that therefore the church should use the Psalter
only,
he urged his listeners, "Let us submit to our covenanted unity
and
Scripture." He added that the "overhead projectors and Bobo
the Clown and
all that won't fit in anymore"; and he concluded his rebuttal
by noting
that the Trinity Hymnal contains hymns by Unitarians and feminists
and
Arminians.
SHAW'S RESPONSE
In his rebuttal, Mr. Shaw contended that there is a confusion in Mr.
Schwertley's writing that is endemic, viz., with respect to the meaning
of
"
inspired." He stated that generally, "inspired" is equivalent
to
"
inscripturated." However, Mr. Schwertley and others want to have
"
inspired" to refer to extra-canonical compositions.
The professor stated that although a first century Jew "might" have
understood the three-fold phrase in Ephesians and Colossians to refer
to
the Psalter, the terms have a fairly broad meaning, and that a primarily
Gentile congregation would have understood them broadly. When the apostle
Paul avoided using the term "The book of psalms," he was
directing us to
sing the Psalter only as part of what we should sing.
THE SUMMATIONS
After the mutual interrogation by the two participants, Professor Shaw
gave
his summation. He argued that we are commanded to sing a new song,
and
that the shadowy and typical nature of the psalms make them difficult
to
understand.
Pastor Schwertley began his summation by stating that the adoption
of
hymnody began a history of declension, into a dark, uncertain future.
What
is needed, then, is a strict, consistent application of the regulative
principle of worship.
Given that strict approach, then, "There is no way in the world
to prove
uninspired hymnody." Alluding to his published writings on the
subject, he
declared that if anyone could show one example of an uninspired song
being
used in public worship in Scripture, "I will publicly recant,
I will burn
my books!"
Mr. Schwertley argued that the Psalter "is perfectly balanced
and meets all
the needs of men." He also stated that to mix the psalms and uninspired
hymns together is sacrilege. "Can you imagine what God would think
of
adding to our Scripture readings, readings from Max Lucado, nineteenth
century feminists, Unitarians?"
He concluded by saying that we are to uphold "our covenanted
reformation,... our Westminster Standards."
After the debate, President Joseph Pipa asked the audience how many
there
who had come to the debate wondering about the issue, had been swayed
to
lean in one direction or another as a result of the debate. Several
dozen
hands went up. When he asked how many had been absolutely persuaded
as a
result of the debate, evidently no hands went up.
[as reported in "Presbyterian and Reformed News", January-March
2003.
www.presbyteriannews.org]
