Thanks for the interaction.
For your first question: No, you are not correct in saying that I believe ALL commands in the Psalms are TOTALLY irrelevant regarding our corporate worship. Some of the Psalms are corporate in nature, some are individual. What is appropriate for me to do in individual worship of God may not be appropriate corporately. Also, not everything mentioned in a psalm is normative for worship (either in the Old or New Testament). For example, do you believe that we MUST of necessity bring beds and swords into our corporate meetings in order to obey Psalm 149? I hope not, as the psalm is an ascription of praise for military victory and not a prescription of corporate worship for the people of God. While it would not be wrong to sing psalm 149 in a worship service I do not believe that it mandates Lord’s day corporate sword waving and prone praise from cots. This comment thread is too short a forum to go into all the ins and outs of what the psalms do and do not corporately mandate for our gathered worship. They are not irrelevent, neither are they meant to be taken as a one for one prescription of what must occur in our corporate worship.

Next, I am not pleading for white culture in our worship. The elements of worship and the biblical commands for reverence and awe and EVERYTHING done decently and in order transcends race and culture. If Africans want to worship God acceptably, then they cannot do what “comes naturally” anymore than the children of Israel could when they worshipped the gold calf at the bottom of the mountain. We are only allowed to do what God commands us to do in worship of Him. The elements of worship are set by Him. The clothing of the worshippers (three piece suits vs surongs etc), the time of meeting, how long you meet, whether or not you are wearing shoes, etc, this is all peripheral. As I mentioned in my last comment, I didn’t wear shoes in worship for two years in Japan, but I do here. This is not a difference in who gets to say how we worship but a difference in culture. This is not the main point of Andy’s post. The main point again is God alone tells us the elements of worship that He requires and we are obliged to perform. He also informs us of the heart attitude etc. in worship. The order of worship may look somewhat different from place to place, but the acceptable elements will not be different. I hope you see the distinction I am trying to make. We are to read the Bible, preach the Bible, sing the Bible, pray the Bible and see the Bible (in the sacraments). If we (white presbys in America) sing the Bible (sing things that are true to the Bible, good theology etc) using solid Bible based hymns, and the Psalter in English etc and use tunes and words drawn from over the centuries of Christian worship, that does not mean that other countries who don’t speak English must now learn English and use our tunes and hymn book and Psalter. It DOES mean however, that they must sing things that are good theology, true to the Bible and do it in a way that is with reverence and awe and decently and in order. Your whole point of people worshipping in a way that comes natural to their culture proves the point Andy is trying to make in the original post. It is not what comes natural to us, or is most like our culture, or whatever…It is what pleases the Lord, what does He command in corporate worship. I am not trying to defend white presbyterian southern culture. I am trying to defend the principle that God alone has the authority to tell us what is and is not acceptable in worship, the elements of worship are set by Him and His authority alone and revealed in the Bible. People do not tend to accept this principle first before they begin speaking about this topic. They run quickly to culture, and preference without first settling this ever so important issue of who has the right and the authority to tell us what is and is not acceptable in worship. I hope that is clear.
thanks again for the good interaction.

grace and peace,

mark gibson

Also, I must ask you to step outside of our culture for a moment. The presbyterian church here in America is dominated by white culture. I think this is reflected in our methods of worship. If we go to the Congo, where dancing and singing are probably much more deeply ingrained parts of the culture, then dancing and singing in their worship services would follow quite naturally. It would probably be quite odd for people from such a culture to stand stiff and sing 3 songs from a hymnal. I suggest that this particular tradition of standing quite still and singing with no clapping or dancing is more a reflection of white, non-charismatic church culture than it is a reflection of biblically ordered worship.
We are not only commanded to show reverence and awe. I affirm that those are very essential to biblical worship, however we are commanded to rejoice over and over again. We are commanded to praise, and to show thanksgiving.
And regarding the command that everything be done decently and in order…in the context that is talking about the use of spiritual gifts, which a majority of presbyterians think are longer in existence.
Finally, I agree that everything should be done decently and in order, however “decently and in order” can be taken many different ways by different cultures. I fear that in defending a certain style of worship we unknowingly begin to defend white culture more than the scriptures.

Regarding modern day “charismatic” worship and what we see in the Psalms and elsewhere in the Bible, the two are as far as east is from west. Prayer with arms upraised was a posture of supplication in Bible times(probably done by the individual privately or by the leader on behalf of the gathered body of worshippers). Modern hand raising in charismatic churches (and I have attended many) seems to be individual expressions of “I agree with that” or “Doing this makes me feel spiritual when I sing”. The Psalms describe lots of things but I doubt that anybody seriously wants to bring swords or beds into our meetings to worship God (see Psalm 149). The true biblical prescriptions for corporate worship are “everything to be done decently and in order” (this from Paul to the church in Corinth, a church that was riddled with problems and looked very much like the charismatic churches of today)…and “worship with reverence and awe”. We should not get hung up on whether hands are up or down, or whether running in the isles is somehow more spiritual, but is God honored with worship that is biblical, decent, in order, reverent and full of awe. The externals of posture are not primary (for example, I took off my shoes everytime I worshipped in Japan, I don’t do that here in Texas). Are the elements of our worship clearly commanded in scripture (good and necessary consequence and all that too), and do we draw near to God with our hearts as well as our lips? Basically, I am just trying to say that no matter how superficial the similarities between modern charismatic worship practice and some mention in the Bible of lifted hands, the two are really quite distant from each other, and that we can easily lose sight of the main point (God alone has the authority to determine how He is to be worshipped). Let’s keep our eye on the ball and determine to do only what God has commanded in His worship and to be sure we meet the decent, in order, reverent and full of awe commands before we take up some of the other issues.

grace and peace,

mark g.

Interesting how the Westminister Confession is used, while those who wrote it banned Christmas from England entirely, under Cromwell, and dissenters and “non-conformists” brought the same to early America! (Christmas was always the mark of the persecuting false church, from Rome to England, and still is).

Bringing down Christmas and other false worship is the first work in Reformation, and will be as revolutionary as when Gideon destroyed Baal’s idol on his father’s property, which sparked both revival and revolution. (It begins with home and family first).

Will-worship prevails (i.e. we will worship the way we want!), and the Pharisees will gnash their teeth, again, to defend their “traditions”. Many sheep have been scattered by these bad shepherds that teach the traditions of men. It is the greatest sign of apostasy, which indicts most every church in America, in contrast to Colonial times. “Stiff-necked” cannot be applied to only the Jews but to modern nominal Christians, who take cover under the abused text “Judge not” and perverted “liberty of conscience” that rebels against scripture.

Rob, you and I have been over this ground at length on the Warfield list – for instance in this post, I answered essentially the exact same argument:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bbwarfield/message/19003

I have no desire to turn this blog into an unprofitable battleground where tireless proponents of Exclusive Psalmody can do battle with Inclusive Psalmody advocates. The fact is that I hope this blog will be of use to Old School church planters in both camps. We’ll address the subject of what we should be singing in later posts, and I’ve asked Pastor Herzer to present a paper on Inclusive Psalmody. But to tell the truth, I believe this is precisely the kind of water-balloon fight that diverts our resources away from the more foundational issues.

In the meantime, if you want to form your own blog entitled “Building Exclusive Psalmody Churches” at WordPress then I would encourage you to do so, but I would once again ask that you not attempt to turn this one into just another place to fight over that particular issue.

Thanks in advance.

- Andy

Is Pauls command for men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer a command for lifted hands in worship? Also, what bearing do the commands of the Psalms have on our new testament worship?
It would seem that the worship prescribed in the Psalms and in the command from Paul in Timothy would appear outwardly to be quite charismatic.

I do not need to argue the point: For your article does it very nicely for me here:

Now let me ask you, if it was acceptable for the people to determine how they were going to worship the Lord, what would God’s response have been to all this? If God really shared their presuppositions (and those of many in the church today) He might have said to Moses “Hey, the important thing is that they are worshipping me and enjoying themselves in a culturally relevant fashion that seems to really appeal to all kinds of Israelites.” But he didn’t, instead God was furious with their presumption that they could decide how to worship Him, and it is only the intercession of Moses on their behalf that saves them from being utterly destroyed.

and here,

So Jesus said to them – Matt. 15:8-9 “These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”

and here,

God knew that what they would do is start by adding a little here and a little there, as they borrowed from the worship practices of the surrounding cultures: “O look what they do in Moab on March 12th*, isn’t this a cool ritual, wouldn’t our God be pleased by it? I know it pleases me and my neighbors!” And gradually Israel’s worship would come to be more and more adulterated with the preferences, imaginations and inventions, of men.

The question then comes to mind: Do we interprete “Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” according to the traditions of men (as you seem to indicate) or, do we interpret them by the infallible means of Scripture interpreting Scripture?

Grace and Peace,

Rob Wieland

In answer to your query, when God removes the words “Hymns” and “Spiritual Songs” from Eph. 5:19 & Col. 3:16. I hope you understand that our church sings Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual because we believe that we are explicitly commanded to sing all three in the word of God.

I am very familiar with the EP argument that Paul is essentially stuttering in those verses and saying Psalms, psalms, and psalms, but along with Presbyterian exegetes like Eadie and Hodge I don’t find that argument to be exegetically persuasive, I also don’t think that somehow a wealth of hymnody suddenly appeared the church contrary to the Apostles instruction between the death of John and the time of Clement without an argument being raised anywhere.

In any event, to repeat the former point I sing hymns because I believe that I am commanded to do so, and that therefore that our practice is application of the RPW.

We’ll address congregational singing in a little while. In the meantime I’d appreciate it if you’d hold off on pressing the EP or Textus Receptus arguments. To tell the truth, I’d rather this didn’t degenerate into yet another “majoring on minors” blog. Establishing the importance of the RPW at the present time is more pressing than arguing a particular with those who already embrace it.

- Andy

Grace and Peace,

Rob Wieland

I’ll post something about this in a while, but our desire is to create materials that help and encourage actual congregations – so unless we explicitly state that something is copyrighted or not to be reproduced, please by all means feel free to copy and distribute all the materials on the blog.

- Andy

Another excellent article!

Would it be possible to reproduce this article for the folks at our church here in Wytheville? You can email me with details, if it is agreeable with you.

God Bless!

however, i wonder if this isn’t a tad ahistorical? i don’t mean to champion the mere “traditions of men.” we have a church in town that uses the willow creek model to attract ward and june cleaver instead of the beav. it’s still based on preferences, just the middle-upper, educated and somewhat elite class structures, falling into that awful category “traditional.” so i get that. in fact, my own church leans this way and is bothersome to me.

but your ‘waht about tradition’ category seems wanting and given to be defined by admittedly man-made categories. i have hard time swallowing that the cloud of faithful witnesses that have gone before have little to offer us in terms of how we both understand and enact worship. the principles you begin to lay down here have to have been manifest somewhere in the tradition, somewhere in history. the question becomes, where?

some of what you say seems almost biblicistic. i think it’s a venerated aspect of our reformed tradition to emphasis simplicity, to be quite sure. but just as there is at once a fine line and a wide gap between simple and simplistic, there is also one between sola scriptura and solo scriptura, isn’t there? i think so.

steve