The Seeds of Change: What should we make of the Free Church decision on worship?

At its recent plenary assembly my beloved former denomination, the Free Church of Scotland, voted by a narrow margin to change its stated position on worship. In 1932 the denomination decreed that the following should be read by the presiding minister at every ordination service,

“It is my duty to explain to you, and also to the Congregation here present, with reference to that part of the question which will be put to you as to ‘Purity of Worship as presently practiced in this Church that, in 1910, the General Assembly reaffirmed the legislation of the Church as to uniformity in public worship going back to the year 17-7; and that, in accordance with that legislation, it is the present practice of the Free Church to avoid the use in public worship of uninspired materials of praise as also of instrumental music. Such present practice determines the purity of worship to the maintenance of which the Ordinand pledges himself.”
(Act V, 1932: Act Anent Requirements at Ordinations and Inductions, The Practice of the Free Church of Scotland, Knox Press, Edinburgh, 1995, 150)

The practice and legislation of the church was riddled with problems, however. Since the Disruption, the Free Church always had officers who did not believe in exclusive unaccompanied scripture singing in public worship. Indeed, it boasted among her ranks some of the finest hymn writers of Christian history. Chalmers, Candlish, and the Bonars were, to name a few, quite unconvinced of the exclusive psalmody position. In addition to this, some of the staunchest defenders of the exclusive psalmody position happily used evangelical hymnody in fellowship meetings immediately following the worship services, leading to widespread confusion about what the ordination vows really entailed.

Thus, from the start there were at least three positions widely held in the post Disruption church. There was the unaccompanied exclusive psalmody position -  what I’m calling the “UEP-Basic Package”. This view prohibited offering to God in sung praise, on any occasion, anything other than the songs he has provided for us in Holy Scripture. As far as I can tell this has always been a minority position. Then there was the position that held to unaccompanied exclusive psalmody only in stated public worship services on the Lord’s Day – what I’m calling the “UEP-Plus Package”. This effectively permitted hymns once the benediction had been said. This has generally been the majority stance. Then there was the position that maintained unaccompanied exclusive psalmody for the sake of peace and unity. These dear brothers were content with the historic position of the church but did not think orthodox hymnody to be an abomination, happily sang hymns when visiting other churches, and used them at camp and in informal fellowship times. We’ll call this the “UEP-Lite Package”.

In the mid-19th century the Free Church changed its position on this matter to permit hymnody and instruments. After the 1900 union of the Free Church majority with the United Presbyterian Church, the remnant of the Free Church reaffirmed the exclusive psalmody position in language that gave rise to the Act quoted above. The 1932 Act, while narrow, nevertheless contained within it the necessary “wiggle room” to allow the three positions outlined above to thrive once more.

The post-2000 Free Church was a coalition of these three groups. The third group, the UEP-Lite guys, however, found the position of their UEP-Plus fellows totally inconsistent. What is it about a benediction that renders Thine Be The Glory on the lips of the same group of folks acceptable to God, when only minutes before it was out of bounds? Nevertheless, by default, if not always by formal statement, the majority position in the denomination continued to be the exclusive use of Scripture only in sung praise between the call to worship and the benediction, but bring on the Fanny Crosby after that!

Under these conditions, it is unsurprising that the center could not hold. Demands were made for a clear, biblically satisfying statement of the Free Church’s position on worship; one that was not driven by an attempt simply to keep the peace at all costs, that explained where public worship began and ended, and why what is not acceptable at one moment is suddenly acceptable the next. When the relevant committee appointed to produce a report on the matter could not provide a satisfactory answer, the whole debate rapidly gained momentum. It kick-started a process of theological reflection across the denomination, leading eventually to the momentous decision, taken at this year’s Plenary Assembly, to repeal the 1932 Act and enact permissive legislation giving liberty to local Sessions on the matter of hymnody in its place.

If at least the broad brush strokes of the controversy sketched above are correct then there are a number of important conclusions to be drawn:

1. It simply will not do to point to a perceived growing pragmatism in the Free Church as the cause of the recent changes. The seeds of change were sown at the Disruption, and in the ambiguous wording of the 1932 Act that arbitrarily distinguished the sung praise acceptable in public worship from that acceptable in a gathering of the very same congregation in another room immediately after the worship service was concluded. To many this was nothing better than what one wag termed “hymnological transubstantiation”.

In fact, it might be argued that the seeds of the current change lie at the roots of the Scottish Reformed Church itself. At the Westminster Assembly for example, debates on worship involved the Scots practice of sitting at tables for communion, and the use of (uninspired) Trinitarian doxologies to conclude the singing of the psalms. While there is no evidence that a collection of Christian hymns called The Gude and Godly Ballatis were ever sung in the church in Scotland, their printing along with the psalms evidence the general openness of the Scots to hymnody in family worship and personal devotion. In other words, while no right thinking person can deny that exclusive psalmody has been the majority report of the Scottish Reformed Church, the Scots sang other things, like uninspired doxologies in Church, and hymns at home. The seeds of the changes embraced by the 2010 Plenary Assembly of the Free Church were planted deep in the history and tradition of the Scottish church itself. (For a good overview of the presence of doxologies, paraphrases and some hymns in early psalm books in Scotland see this helpful site).

2. Neither will it do to accuse the Free Church of abandoning the regulative principle (RP). None of the men advocating hymnody of whom I am aware reject the RP. We may well dissent from their understanding of its outworking, but they do not resort to Framian ‘circumstances’ to import into worship songs of merely human composition. They believe that the bible regulates worship, such that whatever is not commanded is forbidden. They further believe that we must sing psalms (witness the new legislation that requires the singing of psalms in every diet of worship in the Free Church). They also believe that sung praise, like prayer, of which they think sung praise is a subset, may be offered according to the forms provided for us in God’s word, as in the Lord’s Prayer or the Psalms, for example, or in words composed by uninspired authors in full consistency with the teaching of Holy Scripture.

To be clear, it is not my purpose here to re-open the debate or engage in polemic with my exclusive psalmody brothers and sisters. I’ve been around that merry-go-round quite often enough thank you! I simply wish to point out that these brothers do believe that whatever is not commanded is forbidden. They believe that we are commanded to sing praises and that scripture commands psalmody and other forms of sung praise that express the whole counsel of God revealed in his Word. We may reject that conclusion, but let’s holster our weapons for a moment or two, please, and stop with the “ready, fire, aim” rhetoric about the denomination denying a principle that defines what it means to be Reformed in any sense at all.

The Regulative Principle is what both sides in this debate understood themselves, and each other, to be fighting for. Indeed, it is this mutual understanding that, I rather suspect, stands behind the irenic tone of the whole debate from the outset, and it’s probably what accounts for the continued peace of the church in the aftermath of the decision as well.

3. The Free Church models change in a confessional denomination. Granted that the pace of change has frustrated many. Granted that the nature of the debate has often been difficult and complex. Granted too that some will find the conclusion deeply disappointing. Nevertheless, the whole process needs to be lauded as a good example of Confessional brothers wrestling with an issue with serious consequences at stake in a churchly manner.

There were brothers who raised serious questions about the position of the denomination on worship. They did not create a pressure group to lobby for their position. They did not moan about how awful everything is on blogs because no-one sees things ‘my way’. They raised their concerns in the courts of the church. The church instituted a process, set up committees, produced papers, consulted presbyteries and invited every teaching elder and a corresponding ruling elder to a special plenary assembly addressing only this matter (the Free Church usually has a delegated assembly). The debate process has been going on now for several years and the outcome of the discussion, whether you like it or not, seeks to protect the consciences of ministers who hold to the exclusive psalmody position while allowing liberty within certain constraints to local congregations, sessions, and pastors. The fathers and brothers of the Free Church are to be congratulated on the way in which this affair has been conducted. It was biblical Presbyterianism in action and I cannot be prouder to lay some claim to connection with it.

4. The “thin-end-of-the-wedge” prophets of doom, who suggest that ‘now its the psalms, next it’ll be ordaining women and homosexuals’, need to learn some nuance. While I’m sure we can all point to denominations who have made some liturgical choices – to allow hymnody for example -  and who have since moved in increasingly liberal theological directions (The Christian Reformed Church in America comes to mind here), and while there may in fact be a connection between the move towards hymnody and the move towards liberalism in certain cases, t’aint always so! The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy must not be forgotten, lest we be found guilty of scaremongering. Suppose a denomination after embracing hymnody for a few years, proceeds to ordain a lesbian minister. Are we really to conclude that singing A Mighty Fortress is what got them there?

5. Finally, I hope no-one in the Free Church is looking at this change as a silver bullet that will slay the dragon of ‘irrelevance’ and generate sudden growth, as if revival could be coaxed from heaven with a few choruses of Just As I Am. We’ll never cause spiritual growth to rain down upon us simply by tinkling the ivories and belting out In Christ Alone. Hymnnody is no rain dance. I pastor an ‘inclusive psalmody’ church, and while bad hymns and poorly sung psalms may keep people away, the presence of an organ or a piano, or, I dare say, even guitars and drums, has never led anyone to the Lord.

May God help the Free Church, and help me, to get busy with the ministry of Word, sacrament, and prayer. May the Lord visit his church with the outpouring of his Spirit, that “the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption” might be blessed to the nourishment and growth of the saints, the in-gathering of the elect, and the exaltation of the King and Head of his Church, who alone gives the increase.

Advertisement