I  have had some conversations with some other brothers in the blog world recently about the idea of "Exclusive Psalmnody".  (EP) which is the short acronym for Exclusive Psalmnody is the idea that God has given us His own hymnbook for corporate worship and it is the Psalter, exclusively.  The idea of (EP) is not an idea embraced by all Reformed denominations.  To be sure it has caused some division between some of the "Reformed" denominations.  I used to think that (EP) was non-sensical approach to Scripture, to music and to the freedom that Christians enjoy.  I used to think that (EP) was a new kind of "preference" used to mark out a distinction between those who sing whatever they want, and those who actually think about what kind of music should be used in Worship.  I used to think that there was no logical way to be (EP) and be true to the admonition to sing "Psalms, hymns and spriritual songs" (Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16).  I used to think that when Paul and Silas sang "hymns" in jail, that they probably were singing an early version of Luther's great hymn "A mighty fortress" or the classic "What'er my God ordains is right" by Samuel Rodigast.  It didn't make sense to me that first century gentile Christians would be singing the Psalter.  Did Paul provide a "greek" translation, or "latin" translation of the Psalms for the 1st century Church to sing?  Was Paul so concerned with the Regulative principle and the application of it, that he would of taught the 1st century Gentile church to sing the Psalms and the Psalms only?  Then my thought progression moved into the idea that to sing the Psalms would be to exclude the very name of Christ, which seemed silly to me.  I mean any notion that we would only be able to sing Psalms about locusts, flies and frogs in Psalm 105, but not be able to sing something that exalted the name of Christ seems stupid, right?  Lastly, the thing that always bothered me about (EP) was the idea of only being able to sing about the "shadows" and "types" of Christ, but not actually be allowed to sing about and name the name signified in those types and shadows.  These are the things that I used to think.

But recenlty my thoughts and preferences have softened a bit.  Just so that there is no confusion so far, I am not about to advocate (EP).  I am not about to give reasons why I am "close" to being (EP).  And I am not about to advocate that there should be a renewed vigor into exploring the question for the PCA, or any other Reformed church who does not currently practice (EP).  I am going to give a few more reasons, hopefully a little more thought out reasons, why I'm not (EP).  At the same time I want to do a little more justice to the position that so many faithful churches practice. 

Okay now for some of the reasons that I'm not (EP).  One is a great quote from Ian Murray. 

He said, "Where is the proof in Scripture that God appointed the one-hundred-and-fifty Psalms of David for the public worship of the Old Testament church?¹ 

I think that is probably the best question when it comes to this debate.  A question that I don't believe has been appropriately answered.  But the fact that some churches do practice (EP) means that there is probably a good logical explanation of their position.  That reason is the regulative principle.  The Regulative Principle of Worship, (RPW) which teaches that how we worship, and what we do in worship must be prescribed by God. In other words, we must have biblical warrant for what we do. The Westminster Confession of Faith says, "the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture" (21.1). There is no disagreement over this among the reformed churches. 

The disagreement comes from how we see what those prescriptions are.  There are songs that are outside the Psalter for instance. Hannah's song in 1 Samuel 2 resembles the Magnificat, (Mary's song Luke 1:46-55) which is sung by some Christian denominations even to this day.   Another example is the song is Deuteronomy 32.  After which the text says, "(44) Moses came and recited all the words of this song in the hearing of the people, he and Joshua the son of Nun."  So we have "inspired" songs in the OT that according to my (EP) friends would not do for the worship of God on the Lord's Day.  Again, as Professor Murray asks, "Where is the proof in Scripture that God appointed the one-hundred-and-fifty Psalms of David for the public worship of the Old Testament church?". 

That also means that to sing Rev. 4:8 would be out of bounds:

“Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty,
who was and is and is to come!”

So the saints of old and even the Angels are permitted to sing Rev. 4:8, but not the Church?  This is problematic for me.  But some of our (EP) friends still point to the (RPW).  For instance they point to Psalm 105 which I alluded to earlier. 

Sing to Him, sing psalms to Him;
talk of all His wondrous works! (Psalm 105:2).

The command is to sign psalms to Him and to sing of all His marvelous works!  To be true to the (RPW) imop we would have to sing of the Cross wouldn't we?  Isn't the culmination of all his marvelous works the Cross?  Are we bound to keep the Cross in the shadows? 

The main argument against singing songs outside the Psalter seems to me to be the way that our (EP) friends view Col. 3 and Eph. 5.  We have this trio of words: Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs to deal with.  Some say that these terms refer exclusively to the Psalter.  That is problematic for me as well.  To be sure they didn't have the red "Trinity Hymnal" used by the PCA or any other Baptist hymnal.  Some scholars have worked hard to prove that the trio of words mean the "Psalter".  But could it also mean other sacred songs outside the Psalter?  It seems to me that the Church at Corinth had their own songs.  1 Corinthians 14:26 "What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up."  Was this Church bound by the Psalter?  It doesn't seem logical to me that they were.  There seems to have been some freedom to compose their own music.

One of the other things that has bothered me is the non-use of the original language in the use of (EP).  Here's what I mean.  Sometimes even our (EP) friends change some words for "artistry" or to make it sound a little better in terms of meter or rhyme.  But sometimes even the Psalter adds words in English that are not there in the original language.  I think to be consistent, to be (EP) one would have to learn Hebrew.  If not then you run the risk of singing something that is "uninspired" and "unprescribed". 

Some have argued that Calvin was in favor of (EP) as proof of their right adherance to the (RPW).  But the Genevan Psalter (1543) only had 49 Psalms.  It also had musical versions of the Ten Commandments, the Apostles Creed and the Lord's Prayer.  It seems that even Calvin composed a hymn called "I greet Thee who my sure Redeemer art"^2. 

I for one am grateful to those who are convinced of (EP).  The (EP) crowd has helped us in insuring that our worship, the words we use, and the songs we sing be "Biblical" and not just sung because we "prefer" them.  Although I am not advocating (EP) I love the Psalms.  The Psalms are a great source of music used in the worship of God.  I am not convinced of (EP) as a matter of fact, I am probably convinced otherwise.  I do love the idea that there are men and women out there who do their best to preserve the honor of God's commands and prescriptions in worship.  I believe we have enough Biblical warrant for the use of the Psalms.  We should use the Psalms, and we don't do enough of that in my opinion.  But I haven't seen a good argument for their exclusive use.  Not yet anyway.  To not be able to sing what the Saints of old and the angels sing in Heaven seems odd.  To not be able to sing of the cross seems odd.  To limit the "prescribed songbook" in my opinion actually goes against the (RPW).  Can we not tell and sing of ALL His marvelous works?  I think we must if we are to utilize the (RPW).

Gage Browning

Post Tenebras Lux

1.  Iain H Murray, The Psalter – the Only Hymnal?, Banner of Truth, 2001, page 7

2.  Nick Needham, The Westminster Confession, into the 21st Century, Volume 2, Mentor, 2004, page 256.