Apparently the Westminster California hermeneutic has now infected the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. Ligon Duncan recently issued a statement that clarified difference among ACE members on whether or not to sign the Manhattan Declaration. (For some of the diversity among evangelicals or conservative Protestants, go here.)
Duncan wrote:
The Alliance has not historically weighed in on social ethical issues, not because they are unimportant, nor because it is inappropriate for Christians to do so, but because of the mission of the Alliance which is “to call the twenty-first century church to reformation, according to Scripture, so that it recovers clarity and conviction about the great evangelical truths of the gospel and thus proclaims these truths powerfully in our contemporary context.” Specifically, we are an alliance of confessional Protestants (and heirs of the historic Reformed Confessions) who work together to “promote the reform of the church according to Scripture, and to call the church to be faithful to the Scriptures, by embracing and practicing the teaching of Scripture concerning doctrine, life and worship.”
So if the Bible speaks to all of life, including marriage, and the sanctity of human life, and ACE is committed to reforming the church according to Scripture, then why wouldn’t the Alliance advocate the Manhattan Declaration for the church in ministering the word of God? Could it be that even when the Bible does speak to some moral matters, it does not do so in a way suitable for the larger society?
In other words, could it be that the kind of distinction between kingdoms for which Westminster California is notorious is not so radical but even appeals to the good confessing evangelicals that constitute ACE? Hmmmm.
174 Comments
I’m sorry, I missed the direction of your statement. Are you suggesting creedal subscription provides a reductio argument? Or rather that we should not get hung up over creedal subscription?
How’s your back?
There are a lot of issues on the table at once. I’ll start with the foundational:
I was under the opposite impression: that we had agreed that the RPW applies to private worship also, excepting the elements that must be done publicly (preaching, sacraments). I can’t find the original exchange, but I referred to it at the bottom of this comment.
(Dr. Hart, it would lovely if oldlife.org had an “older posts” link. As it is, everything goes down the memory hole.)
Obviously, this will make a huge difference: if it can be shown that Eph 5.19 applies only to private worship, AND that the RPW applies only to public worship, then one plank of my argument disappears.
(I think the exchange took place in the thread about Christmas. Fire, neurons, fire! C’mon!)
So talk more about this. Is private worship regulated by Scripture?
The second issue is the meaning of “ψαλμοις και υμνοις και ωδαις πνευματικαις” (“psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs”). You’ve suggested the possibility that these might be appositive. Greek does allow for και to take an appositive function. A famous example is the “even the Israel of God” clause at the end of Galatians.
However, appositives strung together like this lead to a very unlikely construction, “Psalms, which are hymns, which are spiritual (i.e., inspired) songs.” To have repeated this awkward phrase verbatim to the Colossians (or to the Ephesians if you take a Colossians-first view) would have been downright idiosyncratic. Further, the appositive use of και is rare; it is a distant third behind the garden-variety “and” (very common) and its use as “also” (less common).
While I’ve not read up on the latest Ephesians commentaries, I can say that I’ve not ever read an argument in favor of the appositive reading. Calvin says this (Comm. Col. 3.16):
“Farther, under these three terms he includes all kinds of songs. They are commonly distinguished in this way — that a psalm is that, in the singing of which some musical instrument besides the tongue is made use of: a hymn is properly a song of praise, whether it be sung simply with the voice or otherwise; while an ode contains not merely praises, but exhortations and other matters. He would have the songs of Christians, however, to be spiritual, not made up of frivolities and worthless trifles. For this has a connection with his argument.”
We notice that Calvin has a much more relaxed attitude about the particular definitions of each word.
To the next question:
Concerning doctrinal content, there are two arguments on the table. The absolute argument is yours, RL:
The comparative argument is yours, Dr. Hart: But why not simply sing psalms because hymns are inferior to psalms?
I think the absolute argument is too brittle to stand. Granted: we long to take hold of songs with reckless abandon. But if the standard for doing so is that it requires no level of circumspection, then we cannot meet that standard.
Even if we were to limit ourselves to psalms, they have been translated into English. Surely we must be circumspect about the efforts of the translators. Hebrew into English is not an automatic process; it requires significant intepretive effort (witness the various interesting “alternative readings” that show up at the bottom of the page in the NIV).
Having been circumspect about the translations, we now have to be circumspect about the psalm’s place in the historia salutis. Imprecative pslams, for example, have a different meaning in our time than in David’s, since we no longer “wrestle against flesh and blood.” Songs that command instrumental worship, on some interpretations, no longer apply.
So I think the absolute argument falters because it requires a perfection in worship not to be found.
This doesn’t mean I can’t take up songs with some degree of confidence. It just means that my standard cannot be perfection.
The comparative argument is stronger. We have 150 psalms, why not sing them?
I think this question gets to an admitted deficiency in our worship. If we think about worship as meeting with God, an over-resistance to singing psalms (and an over-fondness with hymns or praise songs) suggests that we aren’t really willing to enter into the full contact with God that He has made available.
So I think there’s a case to be made for *more* psalms and correspondingly less hymns and spiritual songs.
Honestly, I think the real answer to your question, Dr. Hart, is that psalms are hard to set to music that comports with current musical sensibilities. The Geneva psalter is great, but the tunes are sometimes awkward.
I’ve set psalms to music, and it’s hard work. It’s a whole lot easier to write a simple tune and then throw words around it.
(In case it’s not clear, I think this is a Bad Thing … If the pendulum must swing, let it swing towards psalms)
Continued…
JRC
The other reason that psalms may not be more popular has to do with the didactic function of music in worship.
As Psalms demonstrates, music in worship is partly God-directed and partly man-directed, didactically instructing man about God.
When we look at the better hymns today, their didactic function is Gospel-oriented, something that was hidden during David’s time and therefore does not shine forth as directly as it might.
I think therefore that hymn-singing is relatively popular because hymns speak more openly about the Gospel. Singing “And Can It Be” with relative abandon (mentally qualifying the “for Adam’s helpless race” and “emptied himself of all but love” clauses) is an experience of preaching the Gospel to oneself. And praising God for it. All at the same time.
—
Is this a good thing? I don’t know. Here, I speculate a bit: It seems to me that we could make a principled case that hymns are necessary in order to reflect the change taken place with Christ’s coming. The Gospel is no longer hidden; let our music reflect it. I think this would explain why the singing in Revelation is not psalms, but songs of praise to Christ.
Thinking further on this, does not exclusive psalmnody limit our songs to ones in which the Trinity is not fully revealed? Hm.
But now we come back to the question of doctrinal content. Psalms are a known good quantity (subject to the limits of translation and considerations of historia salutis). Hymns? Praise songs? They can come from anywhere … and they DO! … and a lot of them are junk. So aren’t we running the risk of allowing error in the door?
This argument has a lot of appeal, but it proves too much. The primary didactic function in worship is actually served by the preaching. And in preaching, we invite the possibility of error, even serious error, from the pulpit every single Sunday.
If the ministry of the Word were treated to the same standard we are asking the ministry of music to subscribe to, then the preacher would stand up, read his passage, and sit down.
There is no other way to prevent the preacher from possibly teaching error.
Why don’t we have this rule? After all, as far as I know, there is no public worship service in Scripture that contains a sermon, nor is there any command that explicitly requires teaching in the public service. Why then do we make public teaching about the Word the sine qua non of public worship?
Because we understand with the ministry of the Word that it is not enough to hear it only, but also to have it explained.
Why do we not have the same understanding with music? Should there not be a place for hymns that explain doctrine?
And then, should those hymns not be “vetted” by the church for their doctrinal content, much as, say, the Trinity hymnal has been?
JRC
Eliza,
Since you teach logic, it shouldn’t be difficult to figure out that you are still playing games and evading supporting your original comment. If you are interested in learning about 2k, there are some good resources available. Dr. Hart has written a book titled, A Secular Faith. Dr. VanDrunen has written a book titled, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms. The Westminster Seminary California is also holding a conference this weekend titled, Christ, Kingdom, and Culture that available online. You can find the videos here: http://www.wscal.edu/conference2010
Found it. In the thread concerning Advent was this exchange:
JRC: DGH, do the Standards require the RPW in private worship?
DGH: I’m also with Andrew that private worship should not be purposefully different from corporate worship. Granted, no sacraments at home, no invocation, benediction, etc. But I’d hope for Scripture centered worship, teaching that conforms to the creed, songs that are sung at church, and similar reverence and awe (making allowances, of course, for children).
So I had misremembered you, RL, as the participant (sorry to both of you).
Anyways, we come back to the major question: if hymns are acceptable for private worship, then why not public?
JRC
I’m suggesting that folks don’t seem to object to subscription or church polity, but get buggy over having their liberty curtailed in worship. Presbyterians know they need to come to terms with the Standards and with Presbyterian polity to be ordained. Why not with specifics and constraint in Presbyterian worship?
But I’m not sure you answered my question about the superiority of psalms to hymns. Leaving aside the question of acceptableness, why sing an inferior expression whether in public or private worship? Do you really want to say that some hymns are superior to the inspired word of God?
That may not seem like an answer, but it does suggest a begged answer in your question, namely, that hymns and psalms are on an level playing field. If they are not, and I grant you may not agree, and if psalms are superior to hymns, how do you think I should answer your question?
Ah. Now I understand.
It’s a good question, and I’ll think on it. I can say that worship issues raise hackles in ways that make debates over active imputation look tame (except at the SJC level).
It might be that the RPW operates on a different functional principle than the other standards.
For the standards: “Here is the corpus of beliefs that are good and necessary inferences from Scripture. Love it or leave it. For everything else, you have freedom.”
For the RPW: “Here are the only elements that are proven by good and necessary inference to be commanded in worship. For everything else, just don’t.”
What I’m hinting at is that there is a certain paradox with the RPW: it preserves the liberty of the conscience, but it also binds the liberty of the conscience.
I think our three-way discussion of exclusive psalmnody illustrates the problem. If you and I disagree about, say, whether Samuel was saved prior to 1 Sam 3.7 (a reference to a long GB thread concerning this point), then we can argue for good and necessary inference and then walk away saying, “I lean this way, but I could see that way also.” That is, the principle of liberty articulated in WCoF 20.2 means that we need not be concerned that someone will dogmatically bind our conscience to one view or the other. And, we don’t feel pressure to come to the right view.
But with worship, it must be either approved or forbidden; there is no middle ground. So disagreements about exegesis (of say Col 3.16) take on a different character. (I don’t mean a different tone … the discussion is quite edifying. I just mean that there is much greater pressure to “come to the right view” because of the nature of the question at hand)
So for me, for example, there is a paradox: the same WCoF 20.2 that is used (rightly) to defend the conscience of the worshiper by upholding the RPW, normally serves to defend the conscience of the exegete. Yet it cannot do both at the same time.
That’s my intuitive take.
JRC
Yeah, I was being somewhat convoluted there.
Summary: As a matter of observation, I think psalms are not sung more because they don’t translate easily into our musical conventions.
As a matter of principle, it is possible but not certain that psalms and hymns serve different functions and are therefore not strictly comparable (is Barry Bonds superior to Nolan Ryan? Answer: Both are inferior to Chuck Norris).
That is, it may be that hymns serve a post-cross function that psalms cannot serve (except cryptically, as in Ps. 22).
But that’s really speculation. My bottom-line answer to the question is really, “Because God said to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.” So coming up with reasons for it is kind of like coming up with reasons why women should not be pastors. We can speculate, but the command is the Real Reason.
Importantly, I don’t think that hymns are superior to the inspired word. The best hymns are either direct Scripture or close paraphrases of it, and the further they get from the word, the worse they get.
That’s the same attitude I take towards sermons. The need to stick to God’s word is real; bad sermons are real; but that’s not an argument for replacing the sermon with a reading of Scripture.
JRC
Jeff,
Maybe our English translations of the Bible don’t have many “hymns” in the OT, but that wasn’t true for the Ephesians or the Colossians.
I’m willing to concede that both Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 both apply to public worship. After all, these two texts long with James 5:13 were cited to support “the singing of psalms with grace in the heart,†in WCF 21.6. Granting that the church is enjoined to sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, I still don’t find any support for the notion that any of these things refer to uninspired songs. The Septuagint was almost certainly the Bible for both the Colossian church and the Ephesian church, and the same three Greek words that Paul uses in these two versus are found throughout the Book of Psalms in the Septuagint. None of these uses implies a distinction between a psalm as an inspired song and a hymn as an uninspired song.
In the Septuagint, all but two of the chapters in the Book of Psalms had a title. Six of these chapters were dubbed hymns (hymnos) by their own titles: Psalms 6, 54, 55, 61, 67, and 76. Hymnos also appears within specific psalms and is used in very interesting ways. For example, a direct translation to English from the Greek would render the last verse of Psalm 72 as “The hymns of David the son of Jessae are ended.†Doesn’t every tradition view this verse as referring to all of the preceding chapters of the Book of Psalms? At this point, the language of the Septuagint seems to use these words hymnos and psalmos in at least a loosely interchangeable way.
Hymnos and its cognates appear in other books of the Septuagint. And many of these instances are references appear to reference the Book of the Psalms (or at least David’s contributions). One such example is Nehemiah 12:36, “and his brethren, Samaia, and Oziel, Gelol, Jama, Aia, Nathanael, and Juda, Anani, to praise with the hymns of David the man of God….â€
Though the meaning psalmos and hymnos may not be identical, the Septuagint recognizes plenty of overlap and clearly indicates that there are inspired versions of each found not only in the OT, but also within the Book of Psalms itself. When Paul repeatedly implores his readers to study Scripture, he knows that they will turn to the Septuagint. There they will find both hymns and psalms.
How can we read this to require new uninspired compositions?
Wouldn’t singing one of the “hymns of David†satisfy this command, or is it negated because those hymns happen also to be psalms? In the language of the Septuagint, there is no either/or distinction between psalms and hymns (let alone psalms, hymns, and songs!). This either/or distinction is of recent vintage.
If you continue to insist that a hymn is something sui generis, I must continue to insist on a definition. And though I am concerned with doctrinal accuracy, I am also concerned with what you called “genre.†The crux of your argument, is that hymns are something distinct from psalms in such a way that a psalm is not a hymn. This difference has nothing to do with doctrine. We would all, I hope, object to impure doctrine in whatever form.
Or else if a hymn is simply a praise song, haven’t we satisfied both the requirement that we sing a hymn and a psalm, if we sang Psalm 8? That’s a “praise song,†right? Everyone’s happy!
RL,
Thanks for the point concerning the Septuagint’s rendering of some psalm titles as “hymns.” I had overlooked that. I would agree with you that there is overlap between psalms and hymns.
But that wasn’t my point, that “psalms” and “hymns” had to be entirely distinct genres. Rather, my point is that for some reason, Paul did not say, “sing psalms.”
Had he intended the 150 Psalms only, he could have said “psalms” and had done. As it was, he went on to add, “and hymns and spiritual songs.”
So this fact does not prove *entire separation* between psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, but it does demonstrate the likelihood of non-synonymity among the three.
In my view, the fact that the worship depicted in Revelation involves singing songs *other than* one of the 150 Psalms completely falsifies the hypothesis that only the Psalms may be sung in worship. Whether this worship is symbolic or otherwise makes no difference: it is a model of accepted worship of God, and it involves singing, and it isn’t the psalms they’re singing. (and they have harps, but that’s another discussion)
But now you open the door to another possibility: that perhaps we could limit ourselves to *inspired texts*. So for example (as has been done) if Romans 11.33-36 is set to music, then you would find this acceptable?
You are probably right that the Westminster divines were mostly exclusive psalmnists, but that wasn’t my argument.
You recall that were discussing whether WCF 21 is meant as an exhaustive list or not. My point was that, given the contention over DPW, it is unlikely that WCF 21 is meant to provide an exhaustive list but rather a list of agreed-upon elements of worship.
That is, I’m arguing that it’s unlikely that the framers of the Confession were saying, “These are the only elements of worship that Scripture permits, end of story”, given that they did not actually agree among themselves about the proper elements of worship.
Rather, the Real Rule is placed up front in 21.1: “God is not to be worshiped in any way other than as prescribed in Scripture”, and then 21.5 affirms that all of the following are indeed commanded in Scripture.
So I ask, what evidence do you have that the list in 21.5 is intended to be exhaustive? It seems to me that you could only get there by construing the word “all” in a way that it is not normally used.
Consider:
“Algeria, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Dominican Republic: these are all countries.”
Is this sentence saying in any way that these are the only four countries in existence? Certainly not! This construction “X, Y, Z are all P” is simply not used when one wishes to be exhaustive.
JRC
Why not chant the psalms? The Episcopals do and I think Presbyterians sing better than the CofE’s. Plus, how cool would chanting be to NYCer’s?
Ah, but this is another begged question (in my view) that song has a didactic or horizontal function. I believe, following Calvin, that song is a form of prayer (not a musical sermon). Another piece of the argument for psalms.
Jeff,
From GI Williamson’s Singing of Psalms:
“Just as the Holy Spirit speaks of His ‘commandments and his statutes and his judgments’ (Deut. 30:16, etc.), and of ‘miracles and wonders and signs’ (Acts 2:22), so He speaks of His ‘psalms, hymns and songs’. . .
. . . .It is sometimes said that in the singing of the psalms one is denied the privilege of singing of the Saviour who has now come. In other words, it is commonly alleged that there is not enough of Christ in the book of psalms. This is a really astonishing thing. For Christ Himself said that the book of psalms was written about Him. (Luke 24:44.) His own dying words were quoted from Psalm 22. The last fellowship with His disciples was in singing the great Hallel (Psalms 115-118) at the Last Supper. And then by the mouth of His servant Paul, He commanded the Churches to keep on singing the psalms. And why not? He Himself, by the Holy Spirit, was the author of them. And the truth is that there is more of Christ in every psalm written by Him before He came to the world, than in any hymn written by mere men after He came.”
While Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 were added to the WCF by the order of Parliament, they are the proof texts for “singing psalms with grace in the heart”.
Besides singing new songs and harps, we also have beasts, candles, thrones, white robes, crowns and incense in the Book of Revelation. IOW it’s all or nothing, if you insist on the Apocalypse being taken literally as a Directory for Worship; that what glorified saints are doing in heaven is an approved example for here and now, do not pass go,but proceed straight to the popish or prelatical church. Their worship though, is not presbyterian, confessional or reformed.
Preaching is the drawing out and applying the good and necessary consequences of the text. It is not the same thing as the reading of Scripture, which is another distinct element or part of worship.
Bushell’s Songs of Zion will be reprinted by CColdwell of Naphtali Press this year. Respectfully, if you are really interested in getting up to speed on the question, much more furthering the debate, you ought to get a copy. I’m not seeing much here that hasn’t already been addressed on this forum.
cordially
I remember interacting on this briefly before. Since that time, I started noticing how many statements in the Psalms are directed not at God but at the listeners.
Psalm 1 springs immediately to mind.
I think there’s a strong didactic function in song.
And actually, don’t you think so also, really? Isn’t that the underlying concern about bad doctrine in songs … it matters because songs have, well, doctrine. Teaching.
JRC
Bob,
Thanks for the Williamson link.
What’s the Calvin ref BTW?
Jeff,
It’s the context of the list that leads me to conclude that it was meant to be exhaustive. First, broadly speaking we know that that the Divines were concerned with limiting church power. Second, turning to the text of the Confession, we know that the Divines affirmed both the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture, as it pertains to matters of worship (WCF 1.6 & 1.7). Finally, the most immediate context is the Divine’s articulation of the RPW in 21.1.
Let’s add a similar context to your countries example. Suppose that you are a diplomat preparing for an international trade conference, and a trusted supervisor who will accompany you to the conference has given you a memo containing the following instructions: “The President has ordered us to negotiate with each and every country that has signed the trade treaty. He has also forbidden us from negotiating with any country that has not signed the treaty. All of the signatories are either expressly named or directly referenced in the treaty. We must negotiate with Algeria, Bulgaria, Cambodia, and the Dominican Republic.”
Wouldn’t you expect that list to be complete and exhaustive? Sure there’s some wiggle room there. But the meaning seems obvious to me. Do you agree?
I feel the force of your argument, but I don’t fully agree.
First, your analogy adds some language that WCoF 21 lacks: the “each and every” language is notably absent, and it is this language that is lacked to make the list exhaustive. The only place that the language in 21 comes close to being “each and every” is in 21.1, and there, it attaches to “each and every that is commanded in the Scripture.”
Clearly, you feel that the “each and every” is implied in subsequent sections, but I don’t … I’m not sure what would change to cause one of us to persuade the other.
Second, the spirit of the Confession is to provide a secondary, interpretive standard to Scripture. This is clear from ch. 1, 20, and 31. I know from our earlier exchange that you agree with this, and that it is not your desire to pit Confession against Scripture.
Nevertheless, the effect of the method you employ is to foreclose the possibility that Scripture might introduce an element of worship not found in 21, on the grounds that the Confession is interpreting the Scripture in this way. That is, if one brings forth a different possible element of worship, grounded in Scripture, this element is automatically wrong because it is not in the Confession,
This is simply contrary to the stated doctrine of Scripture in the Confession. And so the framers, being sagacious, would not have foreclosed on this issue without showing ground, lest the Real Rule of 21.1 end up conflicting the rest of 21.
In other words, my view is that the “any other way not prescribed in Holy Scripture” is in a separate section from the rest of the discussion because it sets apart the real rule from the particulars that follow; and the language in the sections that follow is carefully constructed so as not to conflate the opinion of the Westminster Assembly with the Scripture.
And Third, at the risk of being overly repetitious, the language of ch. 1 demonstrates what kind of language the Westminster divines used when they wished to be exhaustive. By contrast, the literal language of ch. 21 is clear if not exhaustive, but elliptical if exhaustive. It does not resemble the language of ch. 1.
Fourth, do you feel the weight of my argument concerning church courts? It is significant to me that the GA of the PCA has already ruled (in the BCO) on whether the language is exhaustive … and they say, it isn’t.
Clearly, synods can err, but I feel the weight of their decision as being somewhat normative on myself as an elder in the PCA.
JRC
Sorry, my second point above was written while under the influence of a four-year-old. Here’s a clearer version:
We agree that we do not wish to pit Confession against Scripture. Let’s suppose temporarily that 21.3 – 5 is exhaustive.
If therefore one found in Scripture a good and necessary inference that one must sing hymns that are not psalms, then 21.3 – 5 would have to be pitted against Scripture. This is precisely the situation that the writers of the Confession did not want: Scripture was always primary.
Therefore, my sense of 21.5 is that the language was deliberately constructed so as not to preempt or come into potential conflict with 21.1.
Hopefully, that makes more sense.
On further reflection, doesn’t your question provide more evidence that WCoF 21.3-5 is not exhaustive? We read creeds in the service, but they aren’t listed in 21.3-5.
(Well, maybe I’ve stepped on another landmine. Do you read creeds in your services?)
I was researching the nefarious Manhattan Declaration and found at the ACE website not only Ligon Duncan’s justification for his signing the MD, but also the well-reasoned 1997 note on “The Gift of Salvation” (w/ reference to ECT, of course).
See http://sites.silaspartners.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086_CHID560462_CIID1415576,00.html
Have you read it lately?
It stands in stark contrast to Rev Duncan’s 2009 declaration.
See http://www.reformation21.org/articles/the-manhattan-declaration-a-statement-from-ligon-duncan.php
I note that such ACE luminaries as Begg, Sproul, & MacArthur do not have their anti-MD articles at the Alliance website, though Duncan’s defense still stands.
The ACE of 2009-10 appears not to be the ACE of 1997.
One question more: Duncan mentions other ACErs who were invited to sit in on MD proceedings, as well as to sign the thing. Do you know of anyone else @ ACE who actually signed MD?
Hugh McCann