My View of Song in Worship, by Tony Cowley for the Committee on Worshi - PDF document

My View of Song in Worship, by Tony Cowley for the Committee on Worship. page 1Preponderant Psalmody, Total PsalmodyThrough Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God,that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name. (Hebrews 13:15 NASB)The Place Song in Covenant Renewal WorshipPublic, corporate worship is a renewal of the Church’s Covenant with God in Jesus Christ.1 The Church ofChrist is to teach and observe all that He has taught us in His Word for all of life (Matt. 28:19-20). The Scriptures areour only rule for faith and life. Especially in the church’s public worship Jesus Christ requires in His Covenant that singing of the OT Psalter results in a service of praise that isintrinsically defective.” 4 EP adherents assert that the Psalms answer all the needs of God’s people when approachingthe throne of grace in the service of sung praise. While there are extreme sentiments expressed on both sides of this . Baker. 1960).2 Actually, congregational singing in its present form began with the Reformation, and it there may have been no singing in the Synagogue until after theChristian era. Sijnging in the Temple was by priestly choirs, not the congregation.3 As asserted by Greg Bahnsen in his debate with William Young in Antithesis. Also, cf. Vern Poythress, “Ezra 3, Union with Christ, and ExclusivePsalmody, I-II” My View of Song in Worship, by Tony Cowley for the Committee on Worship. page 2without the Law and the Prophets, still include the Psalms. The Psalms are known by all Christians to be essentialreading. Responsible advocates of including other scripture songs and uninspired hymns in public worship do notreject the Psalter as part of the canon of praise. At least, in theory. In practice, however, all too often, those whoreject EP have failed to give the Psalter any significant place in the singing of the Church. Thankfully, this is less thecase today, with the use of so many Scripture songs, than it was during the reign of the revivalist hymnals. 6 As wediscuss the matter of Psalmody it is essential to keep in mind that, sometimes when EP is rejected, the Psalter ispractically set aside. At the level of practice EP is much better than any practice that allows the Psalms to becomeanything less than the rule (canon) for singing Christianity.At the same time, those who advocate EP for the New Covenant, recognize that the Psalms are part of a largercanon of Scripture. They are sung by Christians as New Covenant songs, not relics of a past age. We sing the canonof the Psalms in light of the total Scriptural canon. The R.P. Directory for Worship is absolutely correct to say: “ThePsalms of the Bible, by reason of their excellence and their Divine inspiration and appointment are to be sung in theworship of God.”7 But, the R.P. Testimony (1980) goes further, asserting the following:The Book of Psalms, consisting of inspired psalms, hymns and songs, is the divinely authorized manual of praise. Theuse of other songs in worship is not authorized in the Scriptures. The Greek words in the New Testament which aretranslated "psalm," "hymn" and "song" all appear in the Septuagint (Greek) version of the Book of Psalms. (21:5).When it comes to the question of the centrality and sufficiency of the Psalter as a standing rule for praise, I believe thatany non-psalms-based practice of song in worship will be “inherently defective.”Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs = The Psalter?While many other considerations move us to Psalm singing, the exegetical argumentation for Exclusive depends upon the meaning of the phrase “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” found in Eph. 5:19 and Col.3:16. Does this repeated phrase mean, “Sing the Psalms, and only the Psalms,” or something else? There are somewho assert: “that the psalms, hymns and songs of Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 mean, and can only mean, thePsalms of the Old Testament book of Psalms, the Hymns of the Old Testament book of Psalms, and the Songs of theOld Testament book of Psalms.”9 The exegetical case for this view depends upon a semantic and syntactical analysisof the phrase “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs.” The semantic meaning of psalms is taken to be undisputed, i.e.,“psalms” refers to the book of Psalms10. While this seems a truism, we ought to note that Paul is referring either to“The Psalms” as a book, or to psalms, which are found in the Psalter and outside the Psalter. If the former, then allthree terms, Psalms, Hymns, Songs (P-H-P)are to be taken each as ‘global’ titles for the Psalms as a canonical bookand hymnal. If the latter, then each term would refer to certain songs, whether included in the Book of Psalms, or not.While considerable semantic overlap of the P-H-P titles is clear (Cf. LXX title Psalm 76) these individual titles withinthe Psalter are given to individual psalms, and to songs outside the Psalter.11 So, while Frank Frazer is correct whenhe states, “These examples, a few among many, are sufficient to show that each of the three words in question wasapplied to the 150 Psalms,” he goes beyond the evidence when he writes, “They were applied to the 150 Psalmscollectively. They were applied to the 150 psalms individually, without discriminating between them.”12 Dr. Robsongoes on to states “Yet it is the syntax of these passages which will show conclusively that the words psalms, hymns,and songs refer only, and exclusively, to the Old Testament Book of Psalms.”13 His syntactical analysis demonstratesthat two Trinitarian passages, Matt. 28:19 and 2 Cor. 13:13 (and other passages), parallel the structure of the PaulineP-H-P references. “To use this same structure in Ephesians 5:19 indicates that the terms psalms, hymns and songs are6 Psalm-less Christians are a relatively new phenomena. For, as discussed in my historical study, the Psalter has formed a central part of the worship ofthe Church in various ways for three millennia. Cf. The Psalms Through Three Thousand Years: Prayerbook of a Cloud of Witnesses, by William L.Holladay (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993/1996).7 The Directory for the Worship of God, 2:1. (Constitution , [Pittsburgh: Board of Education & Publication], page f.2).8 See my related paper, “Summary of the Exegetical & Theological Arguments For and Against Exclusive Psalmody.”9 Edward A. Robson, “An Exposition of The Psalms, Hymns and Spritual Songs of Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16,” in The Biblical Doctrine ofWorship. (Pittsburgh, PA: Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, 1973), pp. 197-205.10 This move is made explicitly by Dr. Robson, and is a long standing assumption amongst both EP advocates (The True Psalmody [Philadelphia:William S. Young, 1859], p. 74) and opponents (e.g. Robert A. Morey, An Examination of Exclusive Psalmody [Shermansdale, PA: New Life Ministries,n.d.], p. 4-5).11 While the term “psalm” is restricted to the Psalter, I Cor. 14:26 excepted, “hymn” and “song” are found without the Psalms, e.g. Gen. 31:27; Ex. 15:1;Num. 21:17; Dt. 31:19, 21,22,30; 32:44; Jud. 5:12; 2 Sam. 22:1; 1 Ki. 4:32; Hab. 3:1, 19; Is. 12:5; 42:10; 38:20; Rev. 5:9; 14:3; 15:3, etc. Luke 24:44also speaks of “the Psalms,” probably indicating the whole O.T. wisdom literature - "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you,that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." In the LXX psalmos occurs 87 times, ofwhich 78 are in the Psalter. So, in translation, at least the LXX uses the term, or title, psalm 9 times outside the Psalter.12 Frank D. Frazier, “Psalms and Hymns and Spiritual Songs”, in Robson, ibid., p. 336. Emphasis added. Robson, ibid., p. 199. My View of Song in Worship, by Tony Cowley for the Committee on Worship. page 2 My View of Song in Worship, by Tony Cowley for the Committee on Worship. page 3related very closely. It means that if any one of these terms is Scripture, then all of the terms have the authority ofScripture, i.e. are the equal of Scripture…. Psalms is already acknowledged to be a reference to Scripture. Songs,modified by the adjective, spiritual, would also be a reference to Scripture, and therefore hymns must be Scripture.”14Are the Other Inspired Bible Songs Included, or only the Manual of Praise?In a moment we shall turn to the question of the meaning of “spiritual” in the P-H-P passages. My point hereis that we cannot read Ephesians and Colossians as referring to the Book of Psalms as such. I have found nopersuasive case by which the Church can justify singing the Psalter while not singing other inspired songs. Indeed,What is the Scriptural warrant by which we exclude other inspired songs from the Public worship? Among theHymns and Songs in the Bible beyond the Psalter, many are not only reported as sung but are commanded to besung. The rationale asserted for excluding these from our canon of worship song is the fact that they are notincluded in the canonical Psalter, the divinely authorized manual of praise. That is, now that the Psalter is collected,we lack clear biblical warrant for singing anything else, even other Biblical, inspired, songs. This view depends uponthe assumption that the Psalms were collected into their final canonical form as an exclusive manual of praise. This isan argument from silence whereby previous O.T. imperatives are set out of gear by virtue of an assumption about thenature of a collection. First, note that whatever prima facie plausibility this case may have for the exclusion of thenon-Psalter O.T. hymns, such would not apply to the exclusion of the New Testament canticles and hymns, reportedin Revelation, Luke, etc.. We cannot expect N.T. songs to have been included in the OT Psalter! While we do nothave a N.T. Psalter (a new manual of praise), we do have N.T. songs. Unless we can show that thePsalms-Hymns-Songs (P-H-P) phrase in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 actually means “the O.T. book of Psalms,” theBiblical warrant we find there for singing the P-H-Ps in the canonical Psalter applies equally to all the inspired P-H-Pin the canonical Bible. There is therefore sufficient ground to sing not only like those in Revelation & Luke, etc., butto sing with them the very Scripture songs they employ.For EP to be true16 two matters must be firmly determined: 1. That the Psalter is the Divinely AppointedExclusive Manual17 of Praise, and 2. That the P-H-P phrase applies to this collection as such, and not to the varioussongs which go towards making up the collection. As seen above, these two points are mutually related18. Defendersof EP, such as the authors of The True Psalmody19 often first prove that the Psalter was collected for the purposes ofpublic worship song. Then they show that the P-H-P phrase points to the Psalms by means of the titles included in theSeptuagint Psalter. Thus far, this is unobjectionable20. But, a certain proposition has silently slipped into the case21that the phrase points to the manual as such, to the whole, not the parts that make up the whole. But, the verystructure of the case indicates the fallacy: “The Book of Psalms, consisting of inspired psalms, hymns and songs is thedivinely authorized manual of praise. The use of other songs in worship is not authorized in the Scriptures.” Theproposition, “The use of other songs in worship is not authorized in the Scriptures” points to “inspired psalms, hymnsand songs.” Logically, this would include all inspired psalms, hymns and songs. Certainly, no objection can be madeto singing any of the inspired songs in the book of Psalms, for they meet this criteria. The Apostle Paul could easilyhave said that we are to sing The Psalms, David’s Psalms, or the Book of Psalms (all phrases used in Scripture), but heused the distributive phrase, not a collective (‘global’) term. The Orthodox Presbyterian (minority) proponents of EPgrant this point:14 Ibid., p. 200.15 Alfred Edersheim writes, “At the close of the additional Sabbath sacrifice, when its drink-offering was brought, the Levites sang the ‘Song of Moses’ inDeut. XXXII. This ‘hymn’ was divided into six portions, for as many Sabbaths. ....At the evening sacrifice on the Sabbath the song of Moses in Exod. XVwas sung.” (The Temple, Its Ministry and Services[Eerdmans, 1952], p.188. - Drawn from an unpublished paper by Bruce Hemphill.)16 Not merely as an acceptable practical option, but as a divine requirement under the Regulative Principle, upon pain of violating God’s Law!17 In Presbyterian polemics regarding Psalmody it is natural that the argument would have arisen this way - Watt’s Paraphrases and various Hymnals werecontending for a place in the pew, as a manual of praise, to replace the Scottish Psalter then in use. See The Songs of Zion: The Only Authorized Manualof Priase, by J.R. Lawson (St. John, N.B.: R.A.H. Morrow, 1879) for a good example of the polemic of the 19th Century.18 Because of this, and time restraints, my case is redundant at points.19 (Various.) The True Psalmody, or Bible Psalms Only Divinely Authorized Manual of Praise . 1859. (1867 reprint, Ed., Christopher Coldwell,Anthology of Presbyterian & Reformed Literature. vol. 4. Dallas: Naphtali Press, 1991.) http://www.naphtali.com/pdf/trupsalm.pdf I have heard arguments that the Psalms are not all intended for public worship as songs. While I do not think that the only purpose for the collectionwas for the Psalter to become an exclusive manual for praise (and I find no Scriptural warrant for it being exclusive in this respect, or any other), the title ofthe collective canon is mizmor in Hebrew and Psalms in Greek. Psalms are religious songs to be sung to instrumental accompaniment. Cf. The TruePsalmody, p. 50 (and Chapter II passim, “The Book of Psalms Has the Seal of Divine Approval…”). The Psalter is inclusive, i.e., a collection set apartfor various uses, Prayer, recitation, song, meditation, repitition. This fits its place in the Wisdom literature of the Bible. It should be noted that the LXXversion of the Psalter has various NT and OT canticles appended. These songs, inspired (or considered such) have been sung in the church ever since.21 Perhaps not so silently in the case of Frazier and Robson, vide supra. My View of Song in Worship, by Tony Cowley for the Committee on Worship. page 3 My View of Song in Worship, by Tony Cowley for the Committee on Worship. page 4...(ii) If the argument drawn from the expansion of revelation is applied within the limits of Scripture authorizationthen the utmost that can be established is the use of New Testament songs or of New Testament materials adapted tosinging. Principally the minority is not jealous to insist that New Testament songs may not be used in the worship ofGod. What we are most jealous to maintain is that Scripture does authorize the use of inspired songs, that is,Scripture songs, and that the singing of other than Scripture songs in the worship of God has no warrant from theWord of God and is therefore forbidden.22However, Murray and Young indicate their preference for EP in the following propositions:1. There is no warrant in Scripture for the use of uninspired human compositions in the singing of God’spraise in public worship. 2. There is explicit authority for the use of inspired songs. 3. The songs of divine worshipmust therefore be limited to the songs of Scripture, for they alone are inspired. 5. The Book of Psalms has providedus with the kind of compositions for which we have the authority of Scripture. 5. We are therefore certain of divinesanction and approval in the singing of the Psalms. 6. We are not certain that other songs were intended to be sung inthe worship of God, even though the use of other inspired songs does not violate the fundamental principle in whichScripture authorization is explicit, namely, the use of inspired songs. 7. In view of the uncertainty with respect to theuse of other inspired songs we should confine ourselves to the Book of Psalms.I find it ironic that Murray & Young, who rest much upon inspired song and two Pauline P-H-P citations, can go on tocreate doubt respecting the appointment of all inspired songs for worship.23 Note the same manual concept slips intoMurray’s argument, when he writes:When taken in conjunction with the only positive evidence we have in the New Testament, the evidence leadspreponderantly to the conclusion that when Paul wrote “psalms, hymns and Spiritual songs” he would expect theminds of his readers to think of what were, in the terms of Scripture itself, “psalms, hymns and Spiritual songs,”namely, the Book of Psalms.If he had written, “songs such as the psalms from the Book of Psalms,” I would have no objection! The songs ofthe LXX Psalter would be the pre-eminent thing which would occur to the mind of the readers of Colossians andEphesians in terms of any pre-existing body of praise, but Biblically literate Christians would have thoughtequally of the other Songs, Hymns and Canticles outside the Psalter.Does “Spiritual” Mean “Inspired”?This brings us to the question of the meaning of pneumatikos, for it is here that the R.P. Testimony andother EP apologists turn in order to establish the concept of exclusively inspired praise. Murray is an articulateadvocate:Paul specifies the character of the songs as “Spiritual”—odais pneumatikais. If anything should be obvious from theuse of the word pneumatikos in the New Testament it is that it has reference to the Holy Spirit and means, in suchcontexts as the present, “given by the Spirit.” Its meaning is not at all, as Trench contends, “such as were composedby spiritual men, and moved in the sphere of spiritual things” (Synonyms, LXXVIII). It rather means, as Meyer pointsout, “proceeding from the Holy Spirit, as theopneustos” (Com. on Eph. 5:19). In this context the word would mean“indited by the Spirit,” just as in I Corinthians 2:13 logois...pneumatikois are “words inspired by the Spirit” and“taught by the Spirit” (didaktois pneumatos).…On either of these assumptions the psalms, hymns and songs are all “Spiritual” and therefore all inspired by theHoly Spirit. The bearing of this upon the question at issue is perfectly apparent. Uninspired hymns are immediatelyexcluded.Dr. J. Renwick Wright gives a competent review of the case:There has been much discussion… as to the meaning of the word rendered “spiritual” (pneumatikov), and its controlof the preceding words. What is its precise connotation[?]... Let me quote B.B. Warfield again, for his is a namebefore which we all bow - Presbyterian Review, July 1880. “Of the 25 instances in which the word occurs in theNew Testament, in no single case does it sink even as low in its reference as the human spirit, and in 24 of them it isderived from pneuma the Holy Spirit. In this sense of belonging to, or determined by, the Holy Spirit the NewTestament usage is uniform, with the one single exception of Ephesians 6:12 where it seems to refer to the higherthough superhuman intelligences. The appropriate translation for it in each case is “Spirit-given” or “Spirit-led” or“Spirit-determined”. So - generally throughout the New Testament the word pneumatikov is used to signify animmediate supernatural product of the Holy Spirit. For example, in Romans 1:11 the spiritual gift of which Paulwrites seems clearly to be a gift of the Holy Spirit conducing to the edification of believers. In 1 Corinthians 2:15 itis said, “But he that is spiritual judgeth all things.” The word “Spiritual” here isn’t equivalent to pious or saintly -22 John Murray and William Young, "Minority Report of the Committee on Song Worship," (14th General Assembly of the Orthodox PresbyterianChurch). In an edited form on the web at: http://members.aol.com/RSICHURCH/song1.html and http://www.opc.org/GA/song.html Except, perhaps, on a case-by-case basis, which would show why any given song would be inappropriate, or would lack warrant.24 ibid. Emphasis added. Dr. William Young told me at the 1990 Psalm-Singers conference that Murray wrote the whole report. He signed on. My View of Song in Worship, by Tony Cowley for the Committee on Worship. page 4 My View of Song in Worship, by Tony Cowley for the Committee on Worship. page 5but to renewed and enlightened by the Spirit of God. It is true that the man who has been renewed and enlightenedby the Spirit of God is a pious man - but his piety is the consequence of his being renewed and enlightened by thespirit. You get the contrast between the natural man and the spiritual man well expressed in John 3:6 - “That whichis born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” And there is a strong parallel betweenman and song - for just as a spiritual man is one directly made so by the Holy Spirit, so a spiritual song is one directlyproduced by the Spirit’s agency. In other words, pneumatikov here may be equivalent to Qeopneustov that is -God breathed. [Wright cites Meyer and Tholuck in support, finally]… Thayer in his lexicon onpneumatikov says of the wdai in our two verses that they are “Divinely inspired and so redolent of theHoly Spirit.”… Clement…in his work…”the Instructor”, he uses the language … ‘the apostle called thepsalm a spiritual song’. And Jerome…in his commentary on Ephesians he says “The difference betweenpsalms and hymns and spiritual songs may be best seen in the book of Psalms.”25I don’t think that the Greek word, pneumatikais in Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3 has the force of “inspired” ratherthan “spiritual”26 This is because of the work of Paul Copeland in his 1985 unpublished paper, which see.Our 1980 Testimony’s statement of the basis for EP goes beyond Scripture and sound reason. It claims too much andso falls short of proving what it actually ought to show:5. Singing God's praise is part of public worship in which the whole congregation should join. The Book of Psalms,consisting of inspired psalms, hymns and songs, is the divinely authorized manual of praise. The use of other songsin worship is not authorized in the Scriptures. The Greek words in the New Testament which are translated "psalm,""hymn" and "song" all appear in the Septuagint (Greek) version of the Book of Psalms. Ps. 95:2 ; Ps. 40:3, (4); Ps.96:1; Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19; Mark 14:26; 1 Cor. 14:26; Jas. 5:13.27This is simply unsound exegesis and reasoning. Paul Copeland writes that the Testimony “makes the astoundingclaim that the Greek terms for sacred music are found in a collection of sacred music translated into the Greeklanguage!” as if that somehow proves that we are to sing nothing else. These titles appear in other parts of theLXX. This paragraph is a departure from the more balanced statement in the earlier Testimony (1809, etc.), which ispreserved in our Directory for Public Worship (1945):“The Psalms of the Bible, by reason of their excellenceand their Divine inspiration and appointment are to be sung in the worship of God, to the exclusion of all songs andhymns of human composition.” 29 Whatever pneumatikos means, inspiration is at least a meaningful line to draw.To exclude the songs of Divine inspiration that simply fail to make it into the OT Psalter, especially when they are NTsongs, is not warranted.A Psalm-fed church will be a body which will pray like Mary and Sing like the Saints in Revelation! And,not only so, they ought to be sung in a way that reflects the canonical nature of the Psalter. The monks of the earlychurch were right in the practice of chanting through the Psalter.30 Our history of Psalm Explanations encourages methat we could easily improve our practice of singing through the Psalms in a regular way, from 1 to 150. Doing aresponsive reading, a Psalm explanation and then singing or chanting the Psalm in the service. The RPCNA seeks tohonor the canonicity of the Psalter by excluding other songs from public worship. I don’t think that this is what thecanonicity points to as much as the disciplined and regular use of the whole Psalter in an ordered fashion. We ought tosing them thus. This, we - in most of our churches - do not do. But, as a manual, the Psalter is our instructor, ourmodel to teach us not only What to sing, but how to pray and how to sing.The question that remains, however, is whether or not the R.P. Testimony is correct when it goes on to assertthat the Psalms are to be sung “to the exclusion of all songs and hymns of human composition.” While I am notprepared to argue that this is correct, I have not been able to decide that it is incorrect. A study of Paul Copeland’spaper causes me to suspect that it is going beyond Scriptural warrant, but time does not allow further inquiry.25 J. Renwick Wright, “Presbytery of the Alleghenies - Conference on Psalmody. Topic Number 3” (unpublished manusscript), pp. 8-10. I cannotdetermine just where the Warfield quote ends and Dr. Wright picks up again (it is probably at “So - generally throughout the New Testament…”)26 For exegesis of “spiritual” see: Paul Copeland's statement of reservations presented to St. Lawrence Presbytery, 1985.27 Reformed Presbyterian Testimony, 21:5.28 Copeland, Op. Cit.29 The Directory for the Worship of God, 2:1. (Constitution , [Pittsburgh: Board of Education & Publication], page f.2).30 Also see the Book of Common Prayer’s break down of the Psalms, so that they may be read over once a month. My View of Song in Worship, by Tony Cowley for the Committee on Worship. page 5 My View of Song in Worship, by Tony Cowley for the Committee on Worship. page 6My View of Song in Worship, by Tony Cowley for the Committee on Worship. page 6