The Minority Report

In the minority report, Professor John Murray takes up the two leading arguments of the majority.

The first is what I would call the argument from analogy. Professor Murray argues: "It is not proper to appeal to the divine authorization or warrant we possess as to the content of prayer in order to determine the question as to the content of song. Prayer is one element of worship, singing is another." And, "we may not say that the offering of prayer and the singing of praise to God are the same thing and argue from the divine authorization we possess respecting the one to the authorization respecting the other."

The whole committee agreed "that some Scripture songs may be sung in the public worship of God. But these Scripture songs may also be read as Scripture and they may be used in preaching. In such cases the actual materials are the same. But reading the Scripture is not the same exercise of worship as singing, and neither is preaching the same as singing, or reading the Scripture. The same kind of distinction applies to the exercises of praying and singing even when the content is identical."

To express it in our own words, would anyone argue that because everyone is commanded to sing, therefore everyone may preach? Or would anyone argue that because we may compose our own prayer, we may also compose our own text for reading?

The contention of the minority, then, is "that the argument used in the (majority) report . . . to wit, that, since we are not limited in our prayers to the words of Scripture or to the prayers given to us in Scripture, therefore the same freedom is granted in song, is invalid." "The question of the divine prescription regarding the songs that may be sung in the public worship of God must be answered, therefore, on the basis of the teaching of Scripture with respect to that specific element of worship."

What, then, does the Scripture teach?

I. In Matt. 26:30 (Mark 14:26) we read that Jesus and His disciples sang a hymn. But the evidence indicates that this was a portion of the Hallel, consisting of Psalms 113-118. There is no evidence to the contrary.

II. In I Cor. 14:15, 26 "it is possible that they were charismatic psalms. If so, one thing is certain — they were not uninspired compositions." Even "on the hypothesis that they were charismatic psalms, and even on the hypothesis that we have examples of such in Acts 4:23-30, I Tim. 3:16, we are not thereby furnished with any authorization for the use of uninspired songs in the worship of God."

III. With respect to Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 the following observations are pertinent. a) "We cannot determine the denotation or connotation of psalms, hymns and Spiritual songs by any modern usage of these same words. The meaning and reference must be determined by the usage of Scripture." b) The use of these terms — psalm, hymn, song — in the Greek Septuagint Version, current in the apostolic church, is not to be ignored. There is no doubt that these terms were the familiar designations for various selections in the Psalter. c) There is not use of these terms in the New Testament where it can be shown that they designate other than inspired compositions. Most references are clearly to the book of Psalms. Even where it can be shown that they are not (i.e., Rev. 5:9), they are not used with reference to uninspired compositions.

d) But more important than anything else is the fact that "the book of Psalms is composed of psalms, hymns, and songs." And when we consider this fact, along with the fact that "we have no evidence whatsoever that a hymn, in the usage of Scripture, ever designates an uninspired composition," we are driven to the conclusion that when Paul wrote about psalms, hymns and Spiritual songs, he would expect . . . his readers to think of what were, in the terms of Scripture itself, psalms, hymns, and Spiritual songs, namely, the book of Psalms." e) Professor Murray then deals with the word Spiritual in connection with these psalms, hymns and songs. Does this word mean "such as were composed by spiritual men," as Trench contends, or does it mean "inspired by the Spirit," as Meyer says? Professor Murray argues that it means "inspired by the Spirit," just as it does in I Cor. 2:13.

But then the question arises whether this word qualifies only the songs, or all three of the designated types of praise. Professor Murray argues that the former is the more natural interpretation. But even if we opt for the latter, he insists that the conclusion will be the same. For a Psalm, by Scriptural usage, is an inspired composition. And by this interpretation so must a song be. But if the Psalms must be inspired, and the songs, then surely the hymns must be too! For "it would be strange to the point of absurdity if Paul should be supposed to insist that songs had to be inspired but hymns not. For what distinction can be drawn between a hymn and a song that would make it requisite for the latter to be inspired while the former might not be?" "The only conclusion we can arrive at then is that hymns in Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16 must be accorded the same 'Spiritual' quality as is accorded to Psalms by obvious implication and to songs by express qualification, and that this was taken for granted by the apostle, either because the word Spiritual would be regarded as qualifying all three words, or because Spiritual songs were the genus of which Psalms and hymns were the species, or because, in the usage of the church, hymns like Psalms would be recognized to be in no other category, as respects their Spiritual quality, than the category occupied by Psalms and songs."

Of all the arguments advanced by the majority, the minority deemed most cogent that which pled the necessity for an expanding content of song to keep pace with the expansion of revelation given in the New Testament. But here again, the regulative principle is decisive.

"If we possessed evidence," says Professor Murray, "that in the Old Testament period the church gave expression to revelation, as it progressed, by the singing of uninspired songs in the worship of God, then the analogy would be rather conclusive, especially in view of the relative silence of the New Testament. But no evidence has been produced to prove the use of uninspired songs in the worship of the Old Testament.

The conclusion, then, to which Professor Murray comes is stated as follows:

a) There is no warrant in Scripture for the use of uninspired human compositions in the singing of God's praise in public worship. b) There is explicit authority for the use of inspired songs. c) The songs of divine worship must therefore be limited to the songs of Scripture, for they alone are inspired. d) The Book of Psalms does provide us with the kind of composition for which we have the authority of Scripture. e) We are therefore certain of divine sanction and approval in the singing of Psalms. f) We are not certain that other inspired songs were intended to be sung in the worship of God, even though the use of other inspired songs does not violate the fundamental principle on which Scripture authorization is explicit, namely, the use of inspired songs. g) In view of the uncertainty with respect to the use of other inspired songs, we should confine ourselves to the Book of Psalms.

At this point I want to make a personal reference. It was the study of this material, some years ago, that led me to believe that only the Psalms of the Psalter should be sung in the worship of God. I came to this because I was first convinced of the regulative principle. But I also came to it because I became equally convinced that the majority report, cited above, did not really do justice to that principle. It did not demonstrate that we are commanded by God to make, and use, uninspired compositions, commonly called hymns. Indeed, it would appear that even the members of the majority sometimes realized that this was so. The Rev. Robert S. Marsden, for example, wrote an article for the Presbyterian Guardian in 1948, explaining the work of the committee. In this article Rev. Marsden makes a very important statement. He says, "it would . . . be impossible to prove that uninspired songs are authorized in the Scripture, and to demand such proof before one can in good conscience sing uninspired songs is to demand the impossible!" Now it always seemed to me that the majority report reflects this admission. But it also seemed evident that the regulative principle — as set forth and defended by the whole committee — demands precisely this very proof. Therefore I can but conclude that prevailing practice at this point overpowered Scriptural exegesis. And we all know how prone the human mind is to find arguments to justify the things that we are loath to change.

I was present at the Denver Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in 1956, when the list of songs was presented to the Assembly for inclusion in the proposed new hymnal. I still remember the fascinating debate about the content of many of these uninspired hymns. Again and again a delegate would stand up and object to the content — and teaching — of such and such an hymn. Often the objections were formidable in my eyes. Yet over and over the objection was denied. I felt that popularity was really the overruling factor. But the thing that remains with me to this day is the fact that when men determine that content of the book of praise for the church of Jesus Christ, there can never be a book of praise against which the scruples of conscience will not remain — unless all concern for truth is dead! Many a man in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church — if the Denver Assembly is any indication — is grieved by the content of some of these hymns. And isn't this fact alone a remarkable argument for the singing of the Psalms of God? For who could possibly be grieved with one of the inspired hymns?

Trinity Hymnal is, of course, a permanent part of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. There is little likelihood of any change in the foreseeable future. I think it should also be noted that few churches have expended the time and care that this church has to make the uninspired songs as Scriptural as they can. Certainly the witness of the minority was not in vain. At least there are many excellent versions of the Psalms in Trinity Hymnal, and there was hardly any such in the old hymnal of the Presbyterian Church in 1936.

Yet the fact remains that the Orthodox Presbyterian Church did not rise to the high standard fixed in its Confession and Catechisms. And well might we take heed to the lessons to be learned from the attempt that was made. To use only the Psalms in worship is not a popular thing. It is "too high" for many in the church today. It is too high for many who seek with all their heart to be truly Reformed. But it is the Scriptural position. And the history of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church shows us again how hard it is to "get back" when once we have fallen from the use of the Psalms in worship. May the Lord give us grace to continue to contend for this truth. After all, even the chairman of the O.P. majority admits that it is impossible to prove that his position is right!

This article is taken from The Biblical Doctrine of Worship, a collection available for $20 from Crown and Covenant Publications, 7408 Penn Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15208-2531, telephone 412-241-0436, Psalms4U@aol.com. Reproduced by permission.