There are five articles written in response to exclusive psalmody that I have found particularly helpful: one (in two parts) by Dr. Vern Poythress of Westminster Seminary, two by Dr. T. David Gordon of Grove City College and ordained in the PCA, one by Scott Sanborn of Northwest Theological Seminary, and one by Lee Irons who is a PCA minister in California. Two themes are present in both of these articles that make them particularly valuable.

  1. Each man is committed to the regulative principle of worship (RPW) and seeks to worship God in the way that honors Him. Moreover, each author holds to the great value of singing from the Psalter psalms and would see the singing of inspired songs as a requirement for Christ’s church (though not exclusively).
  2. Each of these men argues that exclusive psalmody is not only not required, it is also not a biblically permissible position. With that, each author, in his own way, presents a positive case for “uninspired” hymnody that praises God for and teaches others about the continuing acts of God; at the same time, they each critique the claim that the only songs permissible for Christian worship are the 150 chapters of the Book of Psalms.

I have written here a brief summary of the content and arguments of these essays.

Some Thoughts on Exclusive Psalmody

  • Dr. T. David Gordon. Some Thoughts on Exclusive Psalmody. Unpublished report.

Dr. Gordon’s essay consists of two parts. First, he states positively “why believers should sing to God a full range of praise and thanks for His nature and works, unrestricted by or two the canonical psalter.”. Second, he provides “a brief analysis and critique of Michael Bushell’s Songs of Zion.”

The first part consists of categories of biblical texts that indicate Christians are obligated to sing more than the canonical Psalms.

  1. “Texts that appear to indicate that God desires His assembly to sing praise to Him, without specifying that the words of such sung praise be restricted to canonical psalms.”

    Scripture and, in particular, the canonical Psalms themselves command us to sing of all of God’s deeds “which presumably include His incarnate deeds”. Dr. Gordon provides examples from five categories of such texts. As a brief excursus, he discusses Psalm 42:8, a text that appears to blur the distinction between singing and praying. (Calvin and Bucer, among others, also noted that connection.) Moreover, he notes that many of the “Psalms” self-identify as prayers, not songs.

  2. “‘Eschatological song’; song that the entire created order will sing.”

    The exclusive psalmist must argue that the heavenly songs recorded in Revelation are not fit for singing in Christian worship in this life. However. “If we are to ’ seek those things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God,’ (Col. 3:1) then the heavenly assembly is indeed instructive for the earthly assembly.”

  3. “NT Texts”

    Dr. Gordon agrees with Michael Bushell that “neither Colossians 3 nor Ephesians 5 are directly germane to the discussion”; thus, he does not address the meaning of “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.” This point will be contested by the other authors mentioned in this summary (Poythress, Sanborn, Irons). He cites and discusses two other key NT texts regarding singing in public worship. The reformed have usually taken Acts 2:41-42 as typical for describing the content of New Covenant worship. However, Luke does not tell us that the early Christians sang corporately. Gordon argues that singing is rightly grouped with praying in this text. He also discusses 1 Corinthians 14:26: “When you come together, each one has a hymn….”

The second part of his essay turns to a five-part critique of The Songs of Zion; each section discusses an aspect of Bushell’s argument that Gordon finds unpersuasive.

  1. “The Progress of Revelation (and of Redemptive History)”

    “Throughout Israel’s history a three-fold pattern is evident: Deed-Prophetic Interpretation-Song. God acts, His prophets interpret his acts, and the people respond with appropriate song.” Without argument for his point, Bushell assumes this pattern ceases upon the completion of the book of 150 Psalms. “The song of Revelation, ‘Worthy is the lamb that was slain…’ is precisely what one would expect. And yet, ostensibly, we must await heaven to sing the song.”

  2. “A Mechanistic View of Interpretation”

    Exclusively psalmists use the term “hymn of human composition” pejoratively. And yet, all of the songs of the OT (in the Psalter or not) are hymns composed by humans. Moreover, “There is nothing in the orthodox doctrine of inspiration to suggest that, under inspiration, people wrote better prose or verse than they did on other occasions. … The capacity to compose worthy devotional material is due to the wonder of our being created in God’s image; not the wonder of inspiration.”

  3. “Bushell’s View of the Sufficiency of Scripture”

    “Bushell’s view of the sufficiency of scripture differs from that of the majority of the Reformed tradition by coming dangerously close to suggesting that OT scriptures are sufficient without the addition of the NT. Consider this: ‘The way of salvation finds expression the psalter in terms every bit as clear and forceful as those in the New Testament.’” This view misses the progressive revelation of Scripture. “When the Ethiopian eunuch came to Philip, with questions about Isaiah 53, why didn’t Philip simply shrug and say: ‘I don’t know; that’s as clear and forceful as I could have put it myself’?” According to Gordon, Bushell “confuses what is inspired with what is sufficient.”

  4. “Bushell’s View of the Regulative Principle”

    Bushell has the categories of “elements” and “circumstances” of worship but appears to reject or ignore the category of “forms” of worship. Gordon argues that the distinctive linguistic content of an element of worship is an essential part of the biblical and Reformed doctrine of the regulative principle of worship. Because Bushell does not have a category for forms, the content of a song must either be an element or circumstance. Because Bushell determines the content is elemental, songs “do not lie within the realm of the discretionary power of the Church.”

  5. “The Arbitrariness of regulating the words of one element of worship differently than the words of other elements of worship”

    Gordon suggests that it is arbitrary to restrict singing to “inspired” songs while allowing sermons “of human composition” and prayers “of human composition.” He suggests that prayer is particularly troublesome because Scripture (including the Psalter) does not clearly distinguish prayer from singing.

The Israelites Were Not Exclusive Psalmists (Nor Are We)

In this brief piece just posted in the OPC’s online journal for church officers, Dr. Gordon argues that the 150 canonical psalms were never the exclusive songbook of God’s people. Incidentally, he calls into question the idea that the early reformers were “exclusive psalmists”. Calvin’s Strasbourg liturgy included singing the Apostle’s Creed; “Zwingli removed all music from worship entirely”; and Luther and his followers wrote many “uninspired hymns”.

His argument against the view that the Old Testament saints were exclusive psalmists consists of five points.

  1. “The Lexical Issue”

    “‘The Psalms’ is an unfortunate designation for this body of literature because there is no secular equivalent in our speech to ‘psalms’.” A more fitting title might be “Praises.” This calls into question whether the Psalms should be considered a priori, a “songbook,” or the songbook of God’s people.

  2. “OT Songs Not in the Psalter”

    A number of inspired songs occur in the Old Testament that are not included in the Psalter. “Had [the compilers of the 5 books of Psalms] thought that their collections would have been regarded as exclusive, they almost certainly would have not excluded such well-known songs.”

  3. “Five Collections of Psalms”

    The book of Psalms consists of five sub-books of largely non-overlapping texts. Each of these is said to “end”, “but whatever ’ended’ means here, it did not mean that an entire canon of exclusive psalms ended, because over seventy-five more followed it.”

  4. “The Psalter Itself Grew”

    The book of Psalms itself was produced over many, many generations. “During that process of composing psalms, one would have assumed that the process of composing such praises or prayers would continue as long as God continued to judge or deliver. If, therefore, Christians regarded the cross as God’s judgment and the resurrection as God’s deliverance, we would surely expect prayers and praises to be composed to commemorate and celebrate (and lament) as such.”

  5. “The Psalter Commands Praising God for All His Works”

    Gordon again lists a number of passages in the Psalter itself calling believers to sing of all of God’s works. The concluding paragraph helps in listing how some modern hymns praise God for Christological works that are, at best, presented in the Psalms in types and shadows.

In conclusion, Gordon argues that New Testament saints are not to be exclusive psalmists but, along with OT songs, are to sing of the continued works of God. Notably, he also questions the claim made by G.I. Williamson that there is no record of singing in the early church outside of the psalter: Pliny the Younger wrote to emperor Trajan that worshiping Christians “sing a hymn to Christ, as to a god” (circa AD 110).

Exclusive Psalmody or New Covenant Hymnody?

Lee Irons’ brief essay is the most helpful single piece I have found on this topic. Like the other authors, Irons expresses a firm commitment to worship regulated according to Scripture. He argues that this commitment does not prohibit the use of “uninspired hymnody” but instead requires its use. His argument proceeds under three headings.

  1. “The Presence of Other Hymns in the Canon”

    As Gordon discussed, Scripture includes many other songs, both in the New Testament and Old Testament. Moreover, Scripture requires at least some of the hymns for use in the public assembly of God’s people (e.g., Deut. 31:19, 22).

    “Exclusive psalmody assumes that the Book of Praises is the God-ordained hymnal for use by the covenant community in worship. … But this assumption cannot be correct if God commanded his people to sing other hymns (e.g., Deut. 32), and if the apostolic church did as a matter of fact sing other hymns besides the 150 Psalms, as 1 Cor. 14:26 indicates that they did, and as the presence of new songs in the NT suggests.”

  2. “Paul’s Command in Col. 3:16 and Eph. 5:19”

    Contra Bushell and Gordon, Irons argues that the discussion of “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” in Colossians and Ephesians is relevant to public worship. Irons’s argument is essentially a condensed form of a much longer argument in Scott Sanborn’s paper mentioned below.

    Williamson connects the Greek words for “psalms, hymns, and songs” to the superscriptions in the Septuagint and concludes that Paul must be speaking of those OT texts. Irons correctly notes that “this only proves that Paul may be referring to the Psalms, but it does not prove that he is.” Irons also questions the commonly heard exclusive psalmist argument that the “spiritual” in “spiritual songs” necessarily means “inspired”. However, this is inconsistent with Paul’s use of the word elsewhere, including Colossians itself. In 1:19, “spiritual” modifies “wisdom”, i.e. the wisdom all believers have by the Spirit. Poythress also discusses the word “spiritual” in section 11 of his paper.

    The singing of Psalms here requires believers to have “all wisdom” as they sing of the mystery “that has been kept hidden from previous generations but is now disclosed to all the saints” (Col. 1:26). Irons also draws a connection between the “admonishing… teaching… with wisdom” related to singing in Colossians 3 with the identical terminology used in Colossians 1:28 to describe preaching; no Christians argue against the use of “uninspired preaching”, but instead recognize that the preacher is the teach the full counsel of God with “all wisdom”.

  3. “The Progress of Redemptive History”

    Irons argues that “every major epoch of redemptive history is marked by an outpouring of new songs, as well as the updating of old songs, to celebrate God’s most recent mighty acts of redemption and deliverance for his people.” Thus, “the picture [of Scripture] is not one of a static hymnal given by God for all time; rather it is the dynamic picture of God continually doing wonderful deeds and his people responding to them with shouts of praise.”

    The exclusive psalmist generally argues that because all of Scripture speaks of Christ and His redemptive work (which is true) and because the current epoch of redemptive history is that between Christ’s resurrection and His second coming, then the Psalter is sufficient for singing in this age. However, as Ephesians and Colossians (and Hebrews and elsewhere) argue with great force, “the Psalms [and whole OT] present Christ in the ‘shadows’ (Col. 2:17), in terms of the incomplete revelation of the Old Testament period (Heb. 1:1-3). … Doubtless there are anticipations of [the fullness of Christ] in the Psalter, but Christian worship demands more than the language of anticipation” (John Frame).

    Irons concludes with a plea for the frequent and regular singing of inspired Psalms and hymns, a practice lost in many churches (even reformed) today. Moreover, he argues that much of our “uninspired” hymnody should have a psalm-like character (a point Gordon agrees on). Moreover, against the exclusive psalmist argument that use of uninspired songs would result in free-for-all attitude, “The Lord has given the church the fullness of the Spirit – the anointing (1 Jn. 2:20, 27) which allows us to discern what is good, and acceptable, and the perfect will of God (Rom. 12:2). The spiritual man discerns all things because he has the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:15-16).”

Inclusive Psalmody: Why psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs Refer to More Than the Old Testament Psalter

Scott Sanborn published his article in Kerux, the journal of Northwestern Theological Seminary, in December 2008. In it, he argues “that the regulative principle, far from supporting Exclusive Psalmody, demands that the church sing more than the Psalms in public worship.” He makes this case through extensive biblical-theological exegesis of Ephesians and Galatians. Instead of restricting his analysis to the phase “psalms hymns, and spiritual songs” or to the immediate context around those verses, Sanborn discusses Paul’s command in the full context of Ephesians and Colossians. This paper is lengthy, and the argument is complex; however, it is well worth considering.

Sanborn defends his thesis in Ephesians with four main points:

  1. “The revelation of the mystery in Ephesians 3:4-6 is the basis of the praise of 5:19.” The “mystery” of the fullness of Christ “not made known to the sons of men in other generations [including by the Psalter!] as it has now been revealed.”
  2. The mystery “is that (in the kingdom age) Jews and Gentiles would be united in one body.” And “thus, Paul is calling Gentiles… to explicitly praise God for the accomplishments of Christ’s work.”
  3. Membership in the household of God makes all believers equal participants in God’s semi-eschatological, spiritual temple. “Thus, in public worship, the church is called to sing songs that correspond to the way in which she now (more fully) participates in that heavenly temple.”
  4. “Finally, Paul’s exhortation to sing follows a series of commands in Ephesians that are dependent on the new revelation of the mystery that has come in Christ” (emphasis added). The flow of the text indicates that singing, too, is dependent on the new revelation of the mystery in the New Testament.

The author anticipates the counter-argument that because the Psalms speak of Christ, “the Psalms alone are sufficient to satisfy” Paul’s requirement that we sing of the fullness of Christ’s work. He contends that Paul calls Christians to objectively teach [i.e., explicitly teach] one another the fullness of the mystery in their vocal music" and that the Psalms only speak of Christ subjectively (that is, understanding the full Christological teaching of the Psalms requires full knowledge of NT revelation). “If we only sing the Psalms, we are not objectively teaching one another the fullness of the wisdom of Christ. Instead we are relying on the subjective understanding of the hearers to supply appropriate insight into the Psalms.”

The argument from Colossians continues along similar lines. While Ephesians speaks primarily of the mystery once hidden and now revealed, Colossians contrasts the wisdom of Christ to OT revelation. Thus, when Paul admonishes believers to teach one another all wisdom and knowledge through singing, he refers to more than the OT, more than the Psalter. “Exclusive Psalmody provides us with an objective inadequacy and tries to make up for it with the subjective understanding of the recipient. But in so doing, it does not follow the pattern of redemptive-historical teaching (found throughout Scripture) in which the objective presentation always precedes the subjective appropriation.”

Again, Sanborn anticipates and answers several objections to his thesis and concludes that “whatever ‘psalm, hymns, and spiritual songs’ are, they must of themselves (considered as a whole) objectively teach the fullness of the revelation of the mystery of Christ.” In an analogous manner, “the preacher should never preach Old Testament passages and simply let his congregation subjectively supply the New Testament conclusions to the story–drawing the appropriate conclusion only from their own previous knowledge.”

Even if one still disagrees that Paul is speaking about public worship in these texts, Sanborn’s analysis should convince the reader of the hermeneutical point that the OT speaks of Christ in types and shadows, and the NT is required for a full understanding of Christ’s work; thus, the Psalter is not a sufficient work for understanding the depth of Christology and Soteriology.

Ezra 3, Union with Christ, and Exclusive Psalmody

Dr. Poythress’s analysis, while two articles, is simply a single paper split into two pieces for publication. The reader may find the flow of the argument to be somewhat disjointed; however, the author makes makes a number of excellent points, and the piece is well worth considering. Particularly helpful is Poythress’s defense of a position he calls “the didascalia (teaching) position”. Contrary to the assertion of many exclusive psalmists, the alternative to inspired psalmody is not a free-for-all in which any song can be sung in worship; Poythress demonstrates that songs fit for worship are those that communicate the teaching of Scripture. Like all our worship, the songs that we sing are to be selected with the discernment of elders who are filled with the Spirit.

Poythress’s study revolves around the events of Ezra 3. He demonstrates that the dedication of the new temple is worship carefully regulated according to God’s law. He also shows how this worship points forward to new covenant worship. However, the brief song that is sung (“For he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever toward Israel”) does not occur in the Psalter. Poythress extends this by showing several places in Scripture where Christ, who is always a great worship leader, sings songs that are not in the Psalter. Thus, “Inasmuch as we are in Christ, our singing before the congregation can be as wide as his.”

In the second part of the paper, Poythress examines how singing in Scripture is a form of teaching. In fact, 1 Corinthians 14:26 puts singing in the same category as “a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation”, that is, all things for building up. The author goes to great lengths to demonstrate that the singing/teaching category distinction is blurry throughout the New Testament. Poythress’s argument that teaching and singing are overlapping categories, along with Gordon’s argument that praying and singing overlap, should make exclusive psalmists hesitant to draw such black-and-white distinctions between these three elements of worship.

Finally, Poythress responds to three objections G.I. Williamson has made to the use of “uninspired hymnody”. First, Williamson suggests that the use of uninspired hymnody violates the conscience because hymns must be selected by fallible men. However, “problems of judgment arise in connection with any application of the word of God. Such problems need not be insuperably more difficult in the case of teaching by singing than they are in the case of ordinary preaching.”

Second, Williamson argues that because God does not change, our songs need not change. Again, Poythress notes that Williamson inconsistently applies this objection to singing while, if true, providing equal problems for preaching and praying.

Third, Williamson suggests that there is no “express command” to sing anything beyond the 150 psalms. Poythress objects to Williamson’s rejection of inferences (i.e. good and necessary consequence) and again demonstrates how Williamson inconsistently applies his own argument.