“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.

Reformed Baptists  argue that only the elect have a right to membership in the covenant, speaking as they often do of their commitment to a “truly converted church membership”. Federal Visionists on the other hand want to say that all who have a right to membership in the covenant are elect, speaking of election in the case of unrepentant covenant members in a conditional, corporate sense.  By my light, the former group narrows the covenant administration excessively, while the second group, broadens the definition of election unnecessarily.

Both seem to me to neglect the distinction between the outward and inward administration of the covenant. It is possible to be a covenant member by baptism and not possess the spiritual realities that baptism signifies and seals to us. It is possible to be a covenant member of the visible Church and still be a stranger to the inner reality such membership offers to us, namely, union with Christ by His Spirit.

One may be a covenant member and reprobate; a member of the visible church by baptism but not yet a member of Christ by His Spirit. There is an outward and an inward mode of participation in the covenant. The outward and the inward relate to one another through the means of grace. Thus the grace signified in baptism, for example, is “not only offered but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such, (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.” (WCF 28.6)

So much of this discussion relates to the case of the unrepentant covenant member. The baptist has to say they were never truly covenant members at all, hence, should they repent, they are rebaptized. They make covenant membership, and therefore also the covenant sign of baptism, subjective and conditional on the state of the individual’s heart. If the individual was unrepentant or insincere when they were baptized that renders their baptism invalid. It is a subjective thing entirely.

Typical of this view is 19th century Calvinistic Southern Baptist, Professor P. H. Mell. He wrote, “It is the Savior’s will of precept that the constituents of His churches shall be regenerated persons. He authorizes none to receive the ordinance of Baptism, and to have a lot among His visible people, but those who believe with the heart that he is the Son of God.” (P. H. Mell, Corrective Church Discipline, 1860,  Mark Dever ed. Nine Marks Ministries, 2001, p.422)  Notice the correlation between regenerate membership and baptism. If a baptized person defects from the faith and later repents he is re-baptized, since his former baptism is rendered invalid by his unbelief.

It may be that I am misunderstanding things here. I’ll be glad of any correction I may receive. But the Federal Visionist, unlike the Reformed Baptist, doesn’t make the sacraments subjective.  Objectivity is a key concept for him. Instead the FVist inverts the Reformed Baptist error. He holds to sacramental objectivity, and inserts subjectivity at the level of election instead. Surely he has to say that “in some sense” the unrepentant covenant member’s election (and justification, and union with Christ, etc), while really conferred on them in baptism, was nevertheless conditional, fallible, and is therefore now forfeit.

The classic Reformed position, as far as I can tell, however, argues that when the means of grace, through which the covenant is outwardly administered, are received in faith, the recipient enjoys, not only the outward administration, but the inner heart and substance of the covenant itself, namely union and communion with Christ. When they are not received believingly they are not rendered empty signs, but the curses of the covenant are signified and sealed by them to every covenant member who refuse to embrace Christ as he is offered to them.

The sacraments are not destroyed by the inner condition of the one receiving them at the time of their administration, but neither is the grace signified bound to the moment of administration. It is offered and communicated to believers  throughout their lives in various ways and in differing degrees as God ordains best for their good and His glory. That’s why the Reformed do not re-baptize people baptized in infancy when they profess their faith. The grace signified and sealed to them has been and is being communicated to them by the Spirit. That’s the way its supposed to work.

Dr Clark will speak on Saturday the 30th October at 10am on “The God We Worship”, and after lunch on, “The Covenants God Makes”. During the Sunday School hour on the 31st October, Dr Clark will address “The Covenantal Worship God Requires”, and will also preach  a sermon entitled, ”God’s Peace, His Pastor, and Preparation”, from Hebrews 13:20-21, , in the Lord’s Day morning worship service .

In honor of Reformation Day, our worship will use a slightly modified version of Martin Bucer’s 1539 Strasbourg Liturgy and will feature Psalms from the Trinity Psalter.  There will be a children’s program and a free lunch on Saturday for attendees.

Should you be in the area we would rejoice in your company and fellowship as we feast together on the riches of the gospel and the truth of God’s Word.

Nevertheless, after some prompting, I’m back. I hope to use this space for devotional and theological reflection, and to be more consistent in my use of it.

Instead of everyone talking about being ”missional” (a word without a definition as far as I can tell), how would it be if every church planter coming for evaluation began talking about being confessional? Instead of being ‘in the city, for the city’,  how about, ’here we have no abiding city’ for a new church’s vision statement? How about, instead of reaching the culture shaping arts community (again!), why not long to plant a vanilla presbyterian church that builds a community of disciples with a culture all its own?  How about replacing the drive for ‘relevance’ with a push towards maturity? How about cutting all the hubris about starting a church planting ‘movement’ when we haven’t even gathered a ‘core group’, and settle down with the more modest aim of preaching the gospel and gathering believing sinners into a single, healthy, orthodox, local assembly and equipping local shepherds who will do the hard work of caring for the sheep?

Just wondering…

In a sentence one might say “The congregation stared at the anomalous thing (there’s the hypernym) standing before them and declaiming from their pulpit as though never having heard a preacher announce the gospel before.” In this sentence, ‘anomalous thing’ is a hypernym of ‘preacher’.

In the same way, ‘God’ is a hypernym of every descriptor used to define Him. When we say “God is good”, ‘goodness’ does not exhaust the definition of ’God’. We might go on piling up adjectives, all of which speak truly about God, yet we will run out of words long before we ever  conclude a satisfactory exposition of the god-ness of God.

I cannot help think that the great occupation of saints and angels in glory will be the unceasing exposition of the deity; unceasing because it will never exhaust the fresh vistas of glory that will break upon our consciousness as we meditate on the Majesty in whose nearer presence we have come to dwell.

Gathered around the throne, the redeemed of every tribe and nation will pour forth adjectives in every tongue and language in adoration of the multifaceted glories of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. On that day we shall join our voices in a ceaseless paean of praise to sing the eternally new song in answer to each new discovery of the Reality to which all faithful liturgical and theological speech points us.

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol III, p583

Sebastian Heck is seeking, under God, to establish a confessional Reformed work in Heidelberg, Germany. One major issue has been securing premises for the nascent congregation to worship in. In answer to prayer, God has provided.

Sebastian writes,

“There is indeed much reason for praise to the Lord! I just returned from signing the lease agreement on the Landfried Complex Property. From the first time I laid my eyes on this building in September ’09 until today, the Lord has proven His faithfulness and provision in amazing ways! I could tell you story upon story of amazing things that fell into place by God’s sovereign and masterful providence! (Most recently, I put up a sign outside my current office “For Rent!” – and within 24 hours I found a new tenant willing to take over my lease agreement.)

Grace Presbyterian Church
5000 Stewart Mill Road
Douglasville, GA 30135

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

HT Nic Batzig