Like the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America, the Free Church of Scotland has historically allowed only unaccompanied singing of Psalms in the liturgy. However, its synodical assembly has now decided, by a narrow majority, to permit extrabiblical hymns and instruments in worship for those congregations desiring it. Given that the assembly was divided on the issue, many are unhappy with the decision — with one minister considering leaving the “Wee Free” for another Reformed denomination — thereby incurring the scorn of at least one member of the press. The Free Church’s statement can be found here.
Incidentally, I have just been lent a copy of the RPCNA’s new Book of Psalms for Worship, which replaces the Book of Psalms for Singing. I have not yet had a chance to look at it carefully, but at first glance I see that it is strictly limited to the 150 canonical Psalms, excluding other biblical material, such as the Decalogue, the Song of Hannah and the three Lukan canticles.
November 24th, 2010 | 3:50 pm | #1
As one who has always admired the FCC and RPCNA’s concern for purity on this issue while believing the non-instrumental exclusive psalmodist position to be theologically incoherent, I am halfway pleased to see this. My fear is that they haven’t truly seen the theological issue in a more proper light, they’ve just lost some of their zeal.
As for a member of the media scorning someone for resisting this, that’s only to be expected. The media, including much of the allegedly “Christian-friendly” media, simply does not get theological issues, and this is one you really have to understand of the roots of in order to appreciate as anything other than reactionary or strange.
November 24th, 2010 | 8:43 pm | #2
It’s not incoherent. It’s just inconsistently applied. After all, they have all manner of extrabiblical prayers, sermons, calls to worship, pew designs, musical arrangements of psalms, choices of time of day to worship in what way, choices of which brand of bread product to use for communion, choices of which psalms to use on which Sundays, and so on. They hyper-regulative principle that leads to exclusive psalmnody really should allow none of that sort of thing, since it allows something outside scripture to determine how we worship.
Even if the position were true, though, it’s hard to imagine someone thinking it worthy of disfellowship of fellow believers for. The proposal wasn’t to require instituting singing a new song to the Lord in every congregation, just the ones that want to. It imposes nothing on any congregation. It just allow those who find this policy to be pure legalism to abandon it.
November 25th, 2010 | 12:56 am | #3
See Scott Clark (of Westminster Sem. Cal.) on the problematic rationale of the FCS’ decision:
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2010/11/20/free-church-worship-conservatism-sola-scriptura/
November 25th, 2010 | 12:41 pm | #4
I have considerable sympathy for exclusive psalmody, although I myself cannot hold to this position. At the very least, the Free Church should have allowed other biblical canticles decades ago. These have a very long history in the larger church catholic and come straight from scripture itself. What more could you ask?
As for extrabiblical songs, I think the Free Church is taking the proper approach in appointing a special committee to look into which of these are appropriate for worship. However, I do hope this represents, not merely foot-dragging, but a principled approach to liturgical reform. Once more, given the centuries-long history within the church of such hymns as the Te Deum, Credo, Gloria in Excelsis and Veni Creator Spiritus, it is entirely proper that we sing such hymns, provided they conform to a biblical understanding of worship.
As for the use of instruments in worship, I have never been able to comprehend the objections to this in light of such biblical passages as Psalm 150:3-5. At the same time, there is an undoubted beauty in hearing unaccompanied voices singing praise to God.
November 30th, 2010 | 2:24 pm | #5
I have collected psalters for years, and recently purchased The Book of Psalms for Worship (BPW). Yesterday I ordered the first five compilations of psalms from the new BPW all on a single flash drive and we are using the BPW version of Psalm 24C for our daily family Advent devotionals until switching to O Come, O Come Emmanuel on December 17.
I attend a Psalm-singing church, but one that does not sing exclusively from the psalter. I do wish the the new psalter included versifications of the biblical canticles as well, but that is not really that common among psalters. While I do not support exclusive singing from the psalter, I find it less problematic than the majority of churches which seldom, if ever, sing from the psalter. What is the rationale for that omission?
November 30th, 2010 | 3:17 pm | #6
I agree heartily with your last-but-one sentence, Gregory, but not with the immediately preceding one. The metrical psalters produced in the 16th and 17th centuries always contained other biblical canticles as well. A good friend of mine owns an original Geneva Bible from the 1590s, and it includes a metrical psalter along with numerous biblical canticles, even the Song of the Three Youths from the Septuagint version of Daniel. So, no, it’s far more unusual historically speaking to exclude these canticles. My own Genevan Psalter project includes a number of these.
November 30th, 2010 | 8:03 pm | #7
I agree, David, that the earlier psalters included the canticles. I was referring to more modern ones. I’ve visited your site before. Thanks for your work.
I’ve recently begun a project collecting links to psalms, canticles and other scriptural songs, though its not really ready for prime time. See http://psalmsandcanticles.wordpress.com/
November 30th, 2010 | 8:50 pm | #8
Thanks, Gregory. I’ll be sure to include this in my own links page.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact