Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. (Col. 3:16)

On the surface, Colossians 3:16 seem to militate against exclusive psalmody, and its variants. Yet the exclusive psalmodists have a way around this. They interpret this phrase "psalms, hymns and spirituals songs" as essentially meaning "psalms, psalms and psalms." Of course the whole thing sounds ridiculous, yet there is evidence that make this interpretation plausible.

Now, on the one hand, the contemporary notion that "psalms" refer to the 150 Psalms, "hymns" refer to older worship songs composed by songwriters like Isaac Watts, Charles Wesley and Fanny Crosby, and "spiritual songs" refer to contemporary Christian music (CCM) is anachronistic and misguided. Yet, on the other hand, the idea that Paul would waste ink to write 3 terms for one concept sounds stupid. Of course, we have to wrestle with how the words are used in the LXX. But even if the terms are sometimes used synonymously, does that necessarily imply that one is the same as the other? Does an overlap in semantic range imply total equation of meaning? I would suggest not!

Just because some psalms are hymns, some hymns are psalms, does not mean that all hymns are psalms; that is basic set theory. That is the problem with the traditionalist interpretation of the phrase as "psalms, psalms and psalms." What is needed is not a mere proof that some hymns are psalms, some psalms are spiritual songs, or whatever uses these terms have in the 150 Psalms. What is needed to prove their case is that the Scripture teaches that there are no hymns which are not psalms, or something to that effect. Otherwise, if all that can be proven is that some psalms are hymns, it just means that the categories of "psalms," "hymns" and "spiritual songs" are not distinct categories set in stone. One could very well be singing a hymn which is a psalm (of which there are quite a couple in the Trinity Hymnal). One could claim that we are singing a new "psalm," not one of the 150 Psalms, or a "hymn" or a "spiritual song" when we sing a contemporary song with lyrics derived from Scripture.

Work has to be done on the precise manner the three phrases have been used in the Greek, but the main point here is that it is unlikely the Greeks came up with the word hymnos to make it equivalent to psalmos or ode, words which predate the LXX I might add. Colossians 3:16, whatever it is precisely referring to, should certainly include the 150 Psalms, but it is not limited to them, unlike what the Traditionalists believe.

The RPW as ontological, or teleological

As I began to put more thought into the issue, it seems to me that the two competing interpretations of the RPW as to its application mark the difference between the traditionalist understanding, and my proposed understanding of the principle. The traditionalist understanding of the RPW deals with things (i.e. "instruments," "psalms," "timing," etc), and thus could be properly termed ontological. The focus of the traditionalist understanding of the RPW has the adherent looking for things. Is the thing "X" commanded in Scripture? If it is, then yes, we can use it in worship. If not, then it shouldn't be used in worship. This is how the traditionalist tries to justify archaic positions such as "no instruments" and exclusive psalmody. They argue that instruments are not mentioned in the New Testament (simplified argument here), and thus they shouldn't be used in the worship of the church. Inasmuch as the principle is applied to things, their arguments seem plausible.

However, if we look at Scripture, the focus seems to be on principles rather than on things. One would be hard pressed to prove that God is concerned with things in and of themselves as much as He is concerned with principles regarding the usage of things, even in the Old Testament. When God prohibited the strange fire in Leviticus 10:1-3, God wasn't saying there was something ontologically evil with the strange fire. The problem lay in a violation of the principle of coming before God in a way He has not authorized, not that there is anything ontologically evil in incense, fire, censors and anything else. In another example, even the holy bread that was "desecrated," as it were, in 1 Samuel: 21:6 proves that the bread in itself was not inherently holy. It was their proper usage that is necessitated, which in that particular exigency it became proper for David and his men to partake of it. Thus, we see that holiness is not ontological, and thus worships is not about ontology, but principles.

If principles are what Scripture is concerned about, then the RPW should be teleological and not ontological. The whole traditionalist application of the RPW is thus misguided at its very core. They are preoccupied with the wrong things (pun intended), and read things into Scripture that are not there. Take the issue of instruments and note how little the Scriptures actually speak about them in comparison. The absence of instruments in the NT is taken to be a sign that instruments are prohibited under the New Covenant, but that is an argument from silence. Perhaps the absence could be that instruments are seen as indifferent (i.e. adiaphora), as opposed to their role in theocratic Israel? Now, a mountain is made out of a molehill and so much ink is spilled on so little biblical data.

We note one major proof-text for the "no instruments" position in 2 Chron. 29:25-30, which I had refuted in the past. As I had said back then, to claim that there were no instruments in the second part is an argument from silence. Furthermore, the whole narrative is descriptive, so it's ludicrous to even think that this text has any implications at all on the issue at hand. The whole argument that instruments are linked with sacrifices only proves that instruments were used when sacrifices were offered. But since sacrifices are offered during the "worship services," why link instruments to the sacrifices instead of to the worship? In other words, are the instruments there because of worship, or there because of sacrifices? To link it necessarily with the ceremonial law is an exercise in spurious association (otherwise known as "Guilt by Association"). Worship in the Old Covenant is also correlated with sacrifices, yet no one has ever suggested that worship is linked to the ceremonial law and done away with, as they have done with instruments.

A natural way of reading the Bible therefore suggests that God is focused on principles rather than things. Therefore, the RPW must be applied teleologically not ontologically. That of course means that worship is not an eternalist activity, but it actually changes with the cultures and the times, an altogether present truth that traditionalist minimize by calling any changes they'll accept "accidents."

Worship, RPW, Time and Culture

For some reason, Dr. Clark has been repeatedly promoting his "Scripture-only" position of worship on his blog the past couple of days. If Dr. Clark or any congregation wishes to worship with Scripture-only or even exclusive psalmody, that is their prerogative. They can burn the organ, piano or guitar in a bonfire if they so wish. But the problem comes when they want to universalize it for all churches and all Christians, such that not worshiping as they supposed worship ought to be done is a sin. Such a position of course has always been the position of many within the history of the Church; no doubt about that. But that does not make it necessarily right.

Christianity consists of two main parts: belief (doctrine) and praxis (life), or just life and doctrine. One believes what Scripture teaches, and then implements it in life. When it comes to worship, there is also the doctrine of worship found in Scripture, which is the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW). Then one has to apply this doctrine to the actual practice of worship. The issue when we come to the issue of instruments and the songs used for worship is that these are all applicational questions. Nowhere in Scripture do we find the commandment, "Thou shalt sing only the 150 psalms of David." No, such is a deduction exclusive psalmodists claim to be the conclusion of the RPW. Whether that is a valid deduction from the RPW however is what those of us who reject exclusive psalmody dispute. As we can see therefore, one cannot just claim "RPW" as if the RPW itself necessitates either exclusive psalmody (EP) or "Scripture-only."

A major factor ignored in much of the discussion over the issue is the failure to see one's historical situatedness and cultural standing in such debates. We have already established that the RPW is not the issue, but its supposed application by traditionalists. While I disavow the idea of a "non-white theology," it is true that those who are not from a European culture and coming from a non-Reformed background could see things that those within it might have missed. In such debates, why it is assumed for example that the metric is the way to sing the Psalms? Since the RPW in the hands of the Scripture-only and EP guys, everything that is not found in Scripture, every "element" which somehow includes instruments as an element, must be thrown out, why shouldn't we throw out the metrical rhythms, and the metrical tunes? Let's go back to Hebrew cantical notations (i.e. the "Selah" you see in the psalms) instead, since these are most certainly found in Scripture. Concerning instruments, why even use a tuner to establish the first note of the song? Those are instruments too, since they produce one or a few musical notes. Speaking of which, I sure hope those promoting EP and Scripture only are promoting singing in unison, not in 4-part harmony, since I am sure the Psalms in Hebrew do not consist of Soprano, Alto, Tenor and Bass parts!

One might object that one has to somehow sing, and thus the metrical tunes are necessary. But why not just chant the Psalms? No metric needed here! We can eliminate another "element" from worship, the variations of metrical tunes that are "not expressively commanded in Scripture."

The problem with the traditionalist argument here is that, in its desire to be specific in opposing something that others want to utilize for worship, the RPW has been used as a catch all concept to justify the prohibition of using whatever it is (other) people are utilizing, while at the same time the stuff Reformed people currently use (i..e metrical tunes, tuning fork, pipes etc) are blindspots exempted from the "rigorous application" of the RPW. If those using the RPW in this manner were to be actually consistent, they should just stop the usage of tunes of any kind. Go back to chanting, and by that I do NOT mean Gregorian chants (which is still music). I mean the type of chant where there is little inflection of voice besides what is necessary to mouth the words, monotonal (any variations of tone would make it musical of sorts), and basically as far away from musical tunes as possible, since we are not given any biblically inspired tunes for the Psalms except for Hebrew cantical notation which we don't exactly know how to interpret and utilize.

If that strike you as being rather ridiculous, I'm just stating what the logical implications of holding to such a "rigorous traditionalist application" of the RPW are. If one doesn't want to bite that bullet, one has to reject the EP and Scripture-only positions. I for one are not going to bite that bullet, not because of aesthetics but because I don't even think the manner of applying the RPW has been properly framed. So yes, I am going on record as saying I disagree with the traditionalist manner of framing the argument with respects to worship, even if that means going against most of church history.

The problem with the traditionalist arguments is that the wrong questions are asked, so therefore one gets all the wrong answers. The questions are not: Which elements Scripture approves of? Is that an element or a circumstance (accidence)? Those are necessary to be asked, but such should not be the starting point of the debate. The question Scripture poses is: What principles God calls for in His worship? Is X congruous or incongruous to the maintenance of any and all the principles taught in God's Word concerning acceptable worship?

Our first attempt is not to use Aristotelian categories and ask the question, "Is this an element or an accidence?" God is NOT an Aristotelian. Last I know, there is no Book of Aristotle in the Bible. This does not mean that Aristotelian categories are not useful, but that is not where we go to first. Within each principle taught in Scripture concerning worship (i.e. the dialogical principle, reverence, God's speech of forgiveness or absolution etc), one can then pose the question as to what is a matter of indifference with regards to the maintenance of the principle (i.e. accidence) and what will affect the maintenance of the principle (i.e. element). Note here how the Aristotelian categories are re-tooled in a proper way. No more do we begin with Aristotle and ask a blanket question of what is element and what is accidence. Instead, we start with Scripture and let Scripture determine how we are to use philosophy to clarify how what the Scriptures says about worship are to be implemented.

Matters of application are always culturally and time-conditioned. That is just the way the world works. Head coverings in the first century AD were certainly not nice ladies' hats worn in the Victorian era, just to mention how the principle of head coverings has changed in its implementations. Similarly, the RWP does not have to be tied to 16th/ 17th century European worship, or even European worship in general. Like it or not, times change. Yes, people are still sinners. Yes, sin and wickedness do not change. But cultures do change, and the change in culture between 16th/17th century Europe and North America to the modern 21st century world is many orders of magnitude greater than the change in culture between 16th century Europe and the Ancient Near-East. To attempt to go back to 16th/ 17th century or even 1st century culture is naive. It only reinforces the cultural insensitivity of the church, and give people the portrayal of total irrelevance. Going to a church practicing these almost seems like a trip back in time, a reconstruction of the past almost. Now, if I want to see history, I go to a museum. Why do I have to go to church to worship the living God who still IS in the 21st century, by trying to go back in time to the 16th century? Do I not have museums to go back into time?

I hold on to the RPW. However, that does not mean I hold on to the traditionalist application of the RPW. Time is unidirectional, and while there is nothing wrong with people worshiping God like He only desires 17th century forms of worship, such is certainly not mandated by Scripture, much less do I think it wise.

Ritual and ritualism

Ritual is the repeated outwards performance of an act. Religious rituals provoke the senses. In Roman Catholicism, as in many non-Christian religions and sects, the smells and bells offer worshipers with an encounter, a mystical encounter, with the divine. Protestant Christianity has or had rightly rejected the mysticism in both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, and it's only due to the infection of Liberalism that a focus on liturgy has returned in the apostate mainstream denominations.

Since Christianity is a revealed religion centered on the Word, true Christians should be highly skeptical of ritual. Ritual and liturgy in apostate Christianity has become a substitute for Christ and His revelation. Like the strange fire in Lev. 10: 1-2, such "rituals" and "liturgies" are abominations before God since they violate God's commands on how Man is to approach him. Since the Creator-creature gulf is so great that God must condescend to His creatures in order for us to know Him, such man-made will-worship does not bring any person to a true encounter with the true and living God.

Yet there is no escaping from ritual and liturgy. No matter how one organizes a worship service, one cannot change the order of service from week to week, or all would be chaos. Such a fixed pattern is indeed a liturgy, even though it is not called one. The stuff done are also rituals, although they may be called "cool." The "contemporary" church has its own liturgy all right, even though they do not call it one.

The reason why [older] liturgies are rejected while people flock to the "contemporary church," or whatever type of church they might fancy, is basically a matter of taste. The newer low-church liturgies are appealing to them in ways that the "old-fashioned" ones aren't. But what they embrace is still a liturgy. In "contemporary" megachurches, the usage of CCM, strobe lights, smoke machines etc are high-tech versions of the smells and bells of "old-time" religion, and similarly their usage is meant to create an environment where worshipers can have a mystical encounter with God. It is ironic therefore that we have come full circle. To those in "contemporary" churches, why is it that they have no problems with their modern rituals, but are highly skeptical of ancient rituals? And just to show that rituals are not just in "contemporary" megachurches, why is the ritual of the altar call sacrosanct?

Ritual and liturgy is unavoidable. So the question is: What ritual(s) and liturgy(ies) should be adopted? On this we consider that precisely because we should be skeptical of ritual, therefore we should only do the rituals/liturgies that are necessary, and what is necessary is commanded by God (Regulative Principle). The skepticism of ritual should bring us to be skeptical of all rituals that God has not ordained. And through our skepticism, we come to find out that God has condescended to us even in our senses. While proscribing all other forms of smells and bells, God condescended to the weakness of our flesh in giving us His two sacraments: Baptism and the Lord's Supper, in which we receive the grace of God through the Spirit. In the simple act of sprinkling, pouring or immersion in the triune name, we are visibly named as part of the people of God. In the simple act of eating the bread and drinking the wine corporately in remembrance of Christ, we partake of Christ's body and commune with Him spiritually. These two sacraments are the only two "rituals" that involve more of the senses, and are God's condescension to us.

Biblical Christians ought to be skeptical of ritual, and not just ancient but modern rituals. It is precisely this antipathy towards ritual that guards against ritualism. At the same time, precisely because we are skeptical of ritual therefore we must strive to follows those which Christ has ordained, for otherwise we would just have swapped the ancient or modern rituals for "non-ritual rituals" of our own designs.

Psalms in worship

O Wherefore do the Nations Rage

O wherefore do the nations rage,
And kings and rulers strive in vain,
Against the Lord of earth and heav'n
To overthrow Messiah's reign?

Their strength is weakness in the sight
Of him who sits enthroned above;
He speaks, and judgments fall on them
Who tempt his wrath and scorn his love.

By God's decree his Son receives
The nations for his heritage;
The conqu'ring Christ supreme shall reign
As King of kings, from age to age.

Be wise, ye rulers of the earth,
And serve the Lord with godly fear;
With rev'rent joy confess the Son
While yet in mercy he is near.

Delay not, lest his anger rise,
And ye should perish in your way;
Lo, all that put their trust in him
Are blest indeed, and blest for aye.

[Hymn 314, from the Trinity Hymnal]

Christians should sing psalms, together with hymns and spiritual songs (Eph. 5:19). I am certainly for the singing of psalms, but I am also for the singing of all songs with comprehension. One issue I typically had is that the psalms I have previously looked and heard were hard to comprehend, and the tunes were either hard to grasp, or re-used tunes that were previously matched to other hymns which resulted in cognitive dissonance (since I associate words and songs with tunes).

I had given an exhortation on November 3rd, and us interns had to choose songs for the service. One of the songs I chose was Hymn 314 seen above, which is a psalm based upon Psalm 2. The reason why I chose it was that the theme matched the dissonance I wanted to create in contrast to the beginning song which was about the kingship of God, and the tune was in a minor key which does possess the dissonance feeling. The words are not overly complex and archaic, and Psalms 2 (besides a few others like Psalm 1, 8, 119, 139 etc) is straightfoward in meaning, thus a slight paraphrasing is sufficient .

The issue I'm driving at here is that I, as I suspect with many others, are not against the utilization of Psalms for singing. But I am against terrible renditions of psalms, and against the idea that just because it is God's Word therefore God's people should be forced to sing them. I am not even necessarily for using modern musical tunes for the psalms; gravity after all is important to be maintained especially for psalms of lament. Rather, I am for the simplification of the psalms, having modern wordings, and the usage of appropriate unused tunes (Do not reuse tunes!). I am sure that would make psalm-singing much more desirable.

The service is a covenantal drama, a meeting of God with His covenant people. If we believe that the Psalms embrace the whole range of emotions, it shouldn't be hard for the minister to integrate appropriate psalms into the liturgy, and by that I don't mean just the context of the psalm, or its mere wording. A good psalm should be one with not just appropriate words, but with the appropriate tune. For example, I doubt I would have chosen Hymn 314 if not for the minor key tune. And instead of having one psalm with two tunes or many tunes to choose from, which would certainly create all manner of dissonances for people like me, why not rework the lyrics for two or more different songs? It is interesting to me that certain CCM are based upon parts of psalms and many songs could be made, so I would think that many variations of a psalm could be composed and set to appropriate original music.

Perhaps, instead of attacking those who use hymns and CCM, it would be much better for psalm-singers to win the rest of believers over with psalms and songs based upon the psalms that are just as singable and much more centered upon the Christian faith than hymns and CCM. I honestly do not believe that believers hate the psalms. Attract believers aesthetically, and I am sure they would sing them.

CCM and worship

An argument against CCM is that it cannot be used for worship apart from a worship band. Perhaps that may be the case for some CCM and for some people, but it is astonishing to me when I know that some of them could certainly be used in personal worship, a capella even. It seems to me that, no matter what one's position on CCM is, the argument that it cannot be used apart from a praise band needs to be thrown out.

The Regulative Principle and the issue of culture

On the 9Marks blog, Trip Lee has posted an interesting article concerning the Regulative Principle as it relates to culture, reflecting on the similarities and differences in worship of his church in America, compared to the church in Zambia, Africa [HT: The Aquila Report]. His main point is that the Regulative Principle will ensure much similarity in worship, but also it allows for much diversity as well. As he puts it,

While our churches should not be innovative in the content or the components of our services, the way we carry those things out is, to some degree, up to us. Scripture gives us the “substance” and the “elements,” but within broad biblical guidelines, the forms are flexible.

Now, as a non-white non-European person, I do think that culture does play a part in the way Christians worship. I do not think that the whole world should worship with one uniform Scottish Psalter (and translations into different languages) from the 17th century with its corresponding liturgy. Nevertheless, that does not mean that one can re-cast the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) as one sees fit, and then claims diversity is allowed under the RPW based upon one's interpretation of it.

We see immediately that Lee has an interesting idea of the RWP. In his scheme, the "elements" merely refer to events as a composite whole, thus "praise," "sermon" etc. Those events as a composite whole are "elements," while the manner of doing those events, the "forms," are totally flexible. Thus, the forms, are "accidents" like a "six-piece band of talented musicians" and who knows what instruments and musicians were used in the Zambian church?

The issue is not whether diversity is allowed under the RPW. I for one am under no illusions that the manner in which people worship is shaped in some measure by culture(s), which may be good or bad. To go back to a 17th century Scottish Psalter with its "thees," "thous," and "ye's" and language that is not understandable by anyone without a working knowledge of 16th century English literature in this modern age is ridiculous. There is after all nothing sacrosanct about the 17th century, or the Scottish culture of the 17th century. But that does not mean that one can drive a truck through the RPW as if regulation merely applies to events as a composite whole.

The Regulative Principle is a regulative principle. Forms are not totally neutral, and are to be regulated by Scripture as well. If anyone claims that form is totally neutral, why shouldn't anyone sing a psalm a capella with a heavy metal "melody" and "beat"? So on the one hand, against those like Lee who sees the Scriptures as allowing for any form, this counter-example is enough to disprove his assertion that the RPW does not govern forms. On the other hand, for those who are fastidious about applying the RPW under a strict Aristotelian taxonomy about "elements" and "accidents," this also is a counter example. Asserting exclusive psalmody and no instrumentation solves nothing, because the underlying assumptions are still very much based upon an early modern European cultural framework. Again, is there anything wrong with singing Psalms 2 with a heavy metal beat? What "elements" and "accidents" categorization could solve the issue of beat and accompanying music? What Aristotelian category does the "metrical rhythm" fall under? Or should we just chant the Psalms? Oh wait, chanting does have a beat too! Asserting the "wisdom" category does not solve the problem for the usage of Aristotelian taxonomy, for if we have "elements" and "accidents" only, where does "wisdom" fit in? And if we say wisdom is required to reject heavy metal beat etc, then the usage of Aristotelian taxonomy is only seen to be self-serving in the interests of conserving white conservative Caucasian cultural preferences, for why is wisdom used to reject heavy metal beat, whereas CCM are rejected in toto even when some of them are paraphrases of Scripture and even if they are sung a capella?

Against those who broaden the RWP so that it becomes almost like the Normative Principle, and against those who restrict the RPW so that it becomes the mere rationale for cultural imperialism, we should strive to see and apply the RPW afresh. The RPW is a regulative principle, and thus it governs all parts of worship. It is a regulative principle, and not law. Against those who claim that forms are flexible, the RPW informs us that forms are also to be governed by Scripture. No part of worship can be said to be free from what Scripture has said. At the same time, the RPW does not give us the exact forms to use; it is not a law, but a principle. There can be thus diversity in forms, but a diversity that occurs as people govern their worship with its forms according to the Scriptures. How that looks like will defer in various social and cultural contexts, but each church needs to wrestle with what Scripture teaches concerning forms as it reforms its worship according to Scripture.

On diverse tunes to be used for worship

In conservative circles which use psalters and hymnals, there is a tendency to use the same tunes to sing different psalms/ hymns. In one church, which I shall not name, the psalms weren't even tagged with any single tune. Rather, based upon the meter, a tune is chosen with the same meter as the verses to be sung, from a selection of tunes matching that meter.

Singing is an activity which engages the emotions, or at least it should. Worship should be from the mind, of the will, and then with emotions arising from the heart caused by the truths sung. We are after all to love God with ALL our heart, soul, mind and strength (Mk. 12:30), and while the intellect and will are primary, yet emotions are not therefore to be neglected. In this light therefore, matching different tunes to different psalms and hymns is actually a better practice. If music is to help us to praise God, then having a fixed tune to a fixed psalm/ hymn would make it easier for us to remember the particular psalm/ hymn/ song, and through this, it would be easier for believers to match them and so remember the psalms /hymns/ songs. After all, shouldn't the goal be for believers to internalize them so they can praise God throughout the week, and not just on Sundays since they can't remember the words and tunes of the psalms/hymns if there aren't holding psalters or hymnals with them?

During the Reformation, the Reformers compose new tunes to go along with their psalters. The new tunes were to facilitate the worship of God. Strangely, some of those in conservative circles cease to compose new tunes, but instead there is a tendency to reuse old tunes for new psalms or hymns. I have even heard of reusing hymn tunes for singing psalms. Historically, even the stricter Reformers who advocated for exclusive psalmody composed, or had someone composed, new tunes for the psalms to be sung in worship. This preference to reuse old tunes is strange, especially since it is not using an old tune which is no more in use, but using a tune for multiple songs.

While there is nothing inherently wrong about using one tune for two different songs, it is much better in my opinion to have one tune to one song. Such will make it easier for believers to own the psalms/hymns/songs as their own, and use it to worship God throughout the week.

Hymn: I Greet You, My Sure Redeemer Are

This is my modernization of the hymn I Greet Thee, My Sure Redeemer Art, as found in the OPC Trinity Hymnal here. It would be very helpful to remove as much as possible all the Thees and Thous from hymns, as I believe we do not live in the 16th - 18th centuries anymore. Also, does anyone know why the choice of a slow tempo for hymns?

---

I Greet You, my Sure Redeemer Are

1:

D G Em A D
I greet You, who my sure Redeemer are
G Em A
My only trust and Savior of my heart,
D Bm E A
Who pain did undergo for my poor sake;
D G A D
I pray You’ll from our hearts all cares to take.

2:

You are the King of mercy and of grace,
Reigning omnipotent in every place;
So come, O King, and our whole being sway;
Shine on us with the light of Your pure day.

3:

You are the life, by which alone we live,
And all our substance and our strength receive;
O comfort us in death's approaching hour,
Strong-hearted then to face it by Your pow'r.

4:

You have the true and perfect gentleness,
No harshness You have and no bitterness;
Make us to taste the sweet grace found in Thee
And ever stay in Your sweet unity.

5:

Our hope is in no other save in Thee;
Our faith is built upon Your promise free;
O grant to us such stronger hope and sure
That we can boldly conquer and endure.

"An Open Letter to Praise Bands"

Professor James K.A. Smith has written a succinct open letter that expresses the practical problems with most of contemporary worship in evangelical churches, which can be seen here. An excerpt:

Dear Praise Band,

I so appreciate your willingness and desire to offer up your gifts to God in worship. I appreciate your devotion and celebrate your faithfulness--schlepping to church early, Sunday after Sunday, making time for practice mid-week, learning and writing new songs, and so much more. Like those skilled artists and artisans that God used to create the tabernacle (Exodus 36), you are willing to put your artistic gifts in service to the Triune God.

[more]

Exclusive Psalmody, Ipsissima Verba and singing the name of Jesus

Lane Keister has rounded up his discussion on the subject of worship here, after interacting with Dr. R Scott Clark on this topic. In the comment section of his concluding post, a link was placed to an article on whether Exclusive Psalmody allows for singing the name of Jesus. Not surprisingly, the answer given by the author was yes. However, is that really the case?

The main thrust of this article is that the title "Messiah/ Anointed" (which is translated as Christ in Greek) is fond in the Psalms. Also, the cognate word for "salvation" is the meaning of the name Jesus — Yeshuah. For example, in Ps. 3:8 (Ps. 3:9 in the LXX and the MT), the cognate noun הַיְשׁוּעָ֑ה (hayeshu'ah) is used to denote salvation. Therefore, the author of this article contends that we can indeed sing of Jesus Christ in the Psalms.

The argument looks good on the surface, until we realize that no Jew living before the time of Christ, even King David while he was on earth, while singing the Psalms are going to think of Jesus Christ. In fact, when Jesus did come on to the scene of history, the majority of Jews rejected him. Reading the Psalms according to its historical context therefore does not give us the name or person of Jesus Christ, just a promise of a Messiah who saves.

Biblical revelation is organic and progressive in nature. No saved Jew before Jesus (not Abraham, not Moses, and not David, Daniel, or Isaiah) could have known that the second person of the Trinity would come down from heaven, incarnate himself as a human baby, grow up as an ordinary human being, and die on a Roman cross by the shameful death of crucifixion. Would they recognize Jesus as the promised Messiah if they see him? Were they looking forward to the coming of Jesus Christ? Of course. After all, "Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad" (Jn. 8: 56). Yet,

"Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories" (1 Peter 1:10-11).

The patriarchs and prophets knew only in part, not the full revelation which we now have in the completed revelation of Jesus Christ (Heb. 1:1-2, Col. 1:19).

It is in this light that the article fails if one wishes to defend some form of Exclusive Psalmody. Since the historical context does not allow for seeing Christ in the Psalms, reading the title of Christ and the name of Jesus in the Psalms is an interpretation of the Psalms not a mere ipssisima verba (the very words) of the Psalms. Now, do the Psalms speak of Christ? Of course they do. They speak of Christ however not according to the historical context it was written, but by looking at them in the redemptive canonical context of Scripture and its redemptive history. To say that the Psalms speak of Christ in this manner is to concede that interpretation and therefore some paraphrase of the Psalms is required in order for the full truth of God's word (in this case the name of Jesus Christ) to be expressed and sung.

Ironically, this reasoning by the Exclusive Psalmodists makes the point that interpretation and paraphrasing/ systematizing of biblical truths for singing is acceptable for public worship. The Scripture-only position, being open to singing all of Scripture, is not susceptible to this particular line of argument. Since interpretation and paraphrasing is acceptable for songs for public worship, the Exclusive Psalmodists through this argument has already contradicted and conceded their position on the topic, and therefore we should reject Exclusive Psalmody as being contrary to the spirit of the Scriptures.

Worship and the RPW?

Dr. R Scott Clark is a proponent of Scripture-only worship, which is very similar but still distinct from Exclusive Psalmody. In this two posts here and here, he briefly argues for his position of Scripture-only worship, a position which he expounded in some detail in his book Recovering the Reformed Confessions. Lane Keister has posted two responses, with the former being replied to by Dr. Clark.

I have previously responded to a pamphlet promoting Exclusive Psalmody here, and I do not think my position has changed much since. In this light, I think that Lane Keister's second response bring up some of the points I would have brought up if I were in his shoes.

First of my objections to Clark's position is the translation problem. All Bibles in English and any language except Hebrew (OT) or Greek (NT) are translations, and all translations are interpretations. While the so-called Functional Equivalence (F-E) crowd used that to advocate for pure meaning translation, as if meaning can exist apart from words, the Formal Equivalence model is simplistic, as if languages function like codes. All Bible translations therefore have lexical interpretations in them, and the good translations attempt to have only lexical interpretations and not "meaning" interpretations found in those translations following the F-E model.

Within the good translations and not-so good translations of the Bible we have a variety. The relevance this has for both Exclusive Psalmody (EP) and Scripture-only (S) positions is that there already is some form of interpretation or paraphrase depending on the version of Scripture that is followed. For example, for Psalters, are we going to have a ESV-Psalter versus the NAS-Psalter versus the KJV-Psalter? If these are all acceptable, then we are essentially saying that interpretation/ paraphrase is acceptable as long as the words convey the meaning of the Psalms. The only thing that the EP/ S crowd is fighting for is limiting the quantity of interpretation/ paraphrase to the bare minimum. After all, no Reformed Christian holds that we are to sing non-Scriptural  hymns and songs to God. The controversy is thus the amount of interpretation/ paraphrase acceptable.

Secondly, since Reformed worship limits itself to what is biblical, the difference I would have with Dr. Clark is that he denies that rearrangement and systematization of biblical truths and our biblical responses to these truths cannot be sung. But surely, are we saying that we can confess biblical truths like the Trinity but not sing them? If the concern is about imposing them on the congregations, the same could be said of the creeds and confessions. For most certainly, these are to be confessed by the entire congregation, yet none of the Church's creeds and confessions are directly lifted from Scripture as a single unit. For example, you would not find the Apostle's Creed or the Nicene Creed in Scripture. You will find the contents, but not the form. Similarly, when we sing biblical truths of which the form is not found in Scripture, but the contents are, are we not doing the same?

Lastly, I would be very interested to know if Dr. Clark approves this song/ Psalm(?) by Deb Fung entitled For You Created, based ad-verbatim on almost the whole Psalm 139 as found in the NIV, and the reason why or why not:

Song: Once Again

I have just looked through my own prepared worship music scores, and I have found a translation I did of the song Once Again by Matt Redman more than 5 years ago. I wonder if anyone else has ever translated the song into Chinese, but anyway just thought I will share it here — English first then Chinese.

Song: Speak O Lord

I was asked to lead worship for cell yesterday, and have decided to use a couple of songs one of which was the contemporary hymn Speak O Lord by Keith Getty and Stuart Townend. The lyrics of the song are as follows:

Speak, O Lord
by Stuart Townend and Keith Getty © 2005 Thankyou Music

1:
Speak, O Lord, as we come to You
To receive the food of Your holy Word
Take Your truth plant it deep in us
Shape and fashion us in Your likeness
That the light of Christ might be seen today
In our acts of love and our deeds of faith
Speak O Lord and fulfill in us
All Your purposes for Your glory

2:
Teach us, Lord, full obedience
Holy reverence, true humility
Test our thoughts and our attitudes
In the radiance of Your purity
Cause our faith to rise,
Cause our eyes to see
Your majestic love and authority
Words of power that can never fail
Let their truth prevail over unbelief

3:
Speak, O Lord, and renew our minds;
Help us grasp the heights of Your plans for us.
Truths unchanged from the dawn of time
That will echo down through eternity.
And by grace we'll stand on Your promises,
And by faith we'll walk as You walk with us.
Speak, O Lord, till Your church is built
And the earth is filled with Your glory.

In this episode of New Song Cafe, Keith and Kristyn Getty together with Stuart Townend teach us how to play this contemporary hymn, a song which has meaningful lyrics and beautiful music.

Matt Redman on romantic language in worship

Matt Redman weighs in on the isse of using romantic language in worship.

I couldn't agree more.

[HT: Worship Matters]

Song: Your Grace is Enough

YOUR GRACE IS ENOUGH
by Matt Maher and Chris Tomlin © 2003 spiritandsong.com (BMI)

1:

Great is Your faithfulness oh God
You wrestle with the sinner's heart
You lead us by still waters into mercy
And nothing can keep us apart

Pre-Chorus:

So remember Your people
Remember your children
Remember Your promise oh God

Chorus:

Your grace is enough
Your grace is enough
Your grace is enough for me

2:

Great is Your love and justice, God
You use the weak to lead the strong
You lead us in the song of Your salvation
And all Your people sing along

Chorus 2:

Your grace is enough
Heaven reaching down to us
Your grace is enough for me
God, I see Your grace is enough
I'm covered in Your love
Your grace is enough for me
For me.

Song: Everlasting God

Interesting song.

---

Everlasting God
by Brenton Brown, Ken Riley © 2005 Thankyou Music

Guitar: 4 frets up

Strength will rise as we wait upon the Lord
We will wait upon the Lord
We will wait upon the Lord (repeat)

Pre-chorus:
Our God You reign forever
Our hope our strong deliverer

Chorus:
You are the everlasting God
the everlasting God
You do not faint, You won’t grow weary
You’re the defender of the weak
You comfort those in need
You lift us up on wings like eagles

Please click here for chords.

Song: Indescribable

I had placed this video over at my personal blog for some time, but anyway, here is it:

And here are the lyrics:

Indescribable
by Laura Story and Jesse Reeves © 2004 EMI Christian Music Group

1:
From the highest of heights to the depths of the sea
Creation's revealing Your majesty
From the colors of fall to the fragrance of spring
Every creature unique in the song that it sings
All exclaiming

Chorus:
Indescribable, uncontainable,
You placed the stars in the sky and You know them by name.
You are amazing God
All powerful, untamable,
Awestruck we fall to our knees as we humbly proclaim
You are amazing God

2:
Who has told every lightning bolt where it should go
Or seen heavenly storehouses laden with snow
Who imagined the sun and gives source to its light
Yet conceals it to bring us the coolness of night
None can fathom

Chorus 2:
Indescribable, uncontainable,
You placed the stars in the sky and You know them by name.
You are amazing God
All powerful, untamable,
Awestruck we fall to our knees as we humbly proclaim
You are amazing God
Indescribable, uncontainable,
You placed the stars in the sky and You know them by name.
You are amazing God
Incomparable, unchangeable
You see the depths of my heart and You love me the same
You are amazing God

The chords can be seen over here.

Song: Licht dieser Welt (Here I am to worship)

This was just too intersting to ignore, and no, my German is too rusty to understand the words (well, except for "Gott", "mir", "welt", "ich", "du", "dich", "nur", "kann", "gut", "zu" and maybe a few more; forgotten most of my vocab...).

[Song seems to be translated by Andreas Waldmann. Original of course is by Tim Hughes]

Songs: Count your blessings

I have been updating my song database as time affords, and have found this song which I would like to share here.

Count your blessings

Words: Johnson Oatman, Jr., 1987
Music: Edwin O. Excell

1:

When up on life’s billows you are tempest-tossed,
When you are discouraged thinking all is lost,
Count your many blessings name them one by one,
And it will surprise you what the Lord hath done

Chorus:

Count your blessings name them one by one;
Count your blessings see what God hath done;
Count your blessings name them one by one;
Count your many blessings see what God hath done.

2:

Are you ever burdened with a load of care?
Does the cross seem heavy you are called to bear?
Count your many blessings every doubt will fly,
And you will be singing as the days go by.

3:

So amid the conflict, whether great or small,
Do not be discouraged God is over all;
Count your many blessings angels will attend,
Help and comfort give you to your journey’s end.

And in Chinese:

数算主恩

1:

有时遇见苦难如同大波浪，
有时忧愁丧胆几乎要绝望，
若把主的恩典从头数一数，
必能叫你惊讶立时乐欢呼。

副歌:

主的恩典样样都要数；
主的恩典都要记清楚；
主的恩典样样都要数；
必能叫你惊讶立时乐欢呼。

2:

有时挂念世事如同挑重担
有时背着十架觉着苦难堪
若数主的恩典疑惑即消除
必能叫你快乐立即赞美主。

3:

每逢遭遇战争不论大或小
不要丧胆因主早已得胜了；
深知主有恩典必甘愿辅助
安慰引导我们一直见天父。

For the chords, see here.