Distinctions, Inferences and Metaphors

We have shown with what care the Westminster divines distinguished among things that differ respecting the worship of God. In contrast to this is the energy with which American Presbyterians have applied themselves in our generation to wiping out those distinctions. We have already reviewed Poythress' claim that the various elements of worship cannot be distinguished. It is instructive to observe how freely he uses the argument from analogy, and with what results.

Poythress makes the common attempt to justify taking circumstances specific to one ordinance, and transferring them to ordinances where the Bible has not attached them. The rationale which is pleaded is that the activities have some functional similarities. "Paul puts singing in the same general functional category as prophesying and teaching," and therefore Paul "applies to them the same principles for verbal utterance in worship."(76) This resembles the claim we met with in Coppes, that there is nothing in the Bible which significantly distinguishes singing from other forms of communication.

Because Poythress does not use the confessional hermeneutic, which finds in Scripture a distinct warrant for each action of worship, he suggests that if one insists on a canonical text for worship song, it is as easy to demand one for preaching the Word. "From the exclusive-psalmist viewpoint, the same literalistic, narrow-regulative-principle arguments used to prove exclusive psalmody can be used with (superficially) excruciating successfulness to prove exclusive-canonical-words preaching."(77) The reason this is invalid is because, as we have noted, the argument from analogy has no basis in Scripture. But Poythress imagines the "literalists" asking whether an approved example in Scripture can be found, in which uninspired words are preached; what Poythress doubts is a content-specific warrant from the Scriptures. But one obvious instance is Neh. 8:7-8, which represents part of the long tradition of the Levites teaching the people by interpreting a law which had already been given (Lev. 10:8-11; Deut. 17:8-13; 24:8; 31:9-13; 33:8-10; II Chron. 15:3; 17:7-9; 19:8-10; 30:22; 35:3; Ezra 7:1-11; Ezek. 44:15, 23-24; Hos. 4:6; Mal. 2:1, 5-8).(78) That this was to continue after the apostles and prophets had laid a further foundation, is evident from the provision of pastors and teachers who are to preach the Word to subsequent generations, by expounding the prophetic word formerly deposited in the church (II Timothy 1:13-14; 2:2, 15; Titus 1:9; 2:1). In both Testaments there were inspired prophets who delivered revelation with infallible utterance, and also uninspired expounders of Scripture.(79)

As he continues to erase distinctions, Poythress goes on to devalue a discrimination between translations of Scripture and sermons. "The Bible does not allow for a rigid distinction between words of a translation on the one hand and words of preaching and counseling on the other. We believe that the difficulty here is similar to the difficulty above of drawing a clear-cut line between singing and preaching. Both the translation of Scripture and words of preaching and counseling are phases or aspects of application of the canonical word of God to people."(80)

However, as Bushell observes, translations of Scripture have a nearness to Scripture which sermons do not; we are never to appeal to the words of a preacher in the same way that we defer to an accurate translation of Scripture. It is imperative that the church have a Bible translation characterized by great faithfulness to the original, and whenever this is acknowledged, we have granted that the recitation of the text of Scripture, albeit in translation, is quite a different thing from preaching. "The difference is not simply one of applications. The same method which Poythress uses to blur the distinction between preaching or teaching and singing is thus used to blur the distinction between Scripture and commentary."(81)

Leaving no stone unturned, Poythress next argues that it is linguistically difficult to distinguish between speaking and singing. "Singing is a kind of speaking with extra-systematic pitch and rhythm patterns. Few non-linguists realize that English along with all other human languages has a complex intonational system and rhythmic system. Deviation from this norm toward 'song' is a matter of degree, not of 'yes' or 'no.' The series speaking - responsive reading - chanting - singing can be filled in with infinitesimal gradations of pitch and rhythmic pattern."(82)

Bushell continues his exposure of the defects in Poythress' argument: "The very existence of the spectrum of which Poythress speaks, however, proves that singing and speaking are distinct and clearly distinguishable acts. In the same way one could imagine continui between light and dark, good and evil, beautiful and ugly, and so on. But the existence of such continui does not mean that the terms are not under most circumstances clearly distinguishable. Similar arguments have been used from time immemorial to relativize the discipline of ethics. One might argue that because there is a system of infinitesimal gradations between good and evil, we can never condemn a given act as 'wrong.'"(83)

"When the linguistic shuffle is finished and the verbal smoke is cleared, what we are left with is this: there are no more distinct elements of worship, only various 'means' of performing various 'acts' which in the last analysis are not really distinguishable anyway: there is no more Word of God to be read as an act of worship before the congregation, only a series of applications of a mysterious 'canon' that is not really accessible either. Consistently followed, such an approach would eventually demolish the efforts of the Reformed Church for over four centuries to restore the Church to Biblical patterns of worship, patterns which after all are based on the very distinctions swallowed up in Poythress' approach. Such zeal to defend the use of uninspired hymns in worship can only desecrate God's Word and leave His Church in distinctionless confusion."(84)

Poythress has an additional form in which he presents the argument from analogy. He plays down the exegesis of passages which directly address the question of what the New Testament church should sing,(85) and decries a concern with precepts about worship,(86) in order to elicit a worship pattern from reflections on the believer's union with Christ. Poythress declares that all of the present prophetic ministry of Christ is Christ singing. The heavenly activity of Christ before the Father, the witness, singing and preaching of the church, the inspiration of the Scriptures, and the writing of the law on our hearts, are all Christ singing, Poythress says.(87) Since our preaching amounts to Christ singing in us, the argument runs, and since those who are in Christ may sing in worship anything that Christ sings, then we may use the same sentences in singing that we use in preaching.

The novelty which Poythress gives here to the analogy argument lies in his doubling of the analogy; he suggests an analogy not only between two worship ordinances, but also between what Christ does and what his people are to do. However, like other forms of the argument from analogy, it is presupposed that Scripture does not specifically address the question, so that we have little alternative but to turn to analogies. Moreover, it is said that because Scripture fails to prohibit us from appealing to an analogy, the appeal is appropriate.

We have seen the failure of the argument from analogy to reach any exclusive specification, or to present necessary consequences from Scripture. When so wide a variety of phenomena, ranging from preaching by ministers, to the inspiration of Scripture and regeneration, are all identified by Poythress as Christ singing, we might wonder how anything of a definite character could be determined about worship practice, while using such a model. But this is a construction which is looking for ambiguity; the very purpose of the argument is to represent everything as imprecise, for where there is no stipulation, there is no restriction. This is what an argument from analogy is all about.

Poythress' more elaborate form of the argument from analogy only clarifies what occurs in all such analogy arguments. The Reformed regulative principle is laid aside as the rule for determining acceptable worship practice, and in its place is substituted a new theological method, which is usually defended as just a means of drawing inferences from Scripture. But instead of the Westminster Confession's requirement of "necessary consequence" (I.vi), Poythress wishes to have any surmises stand unless they violate what Scripture teaches. This, again, is the Lutheran principle that we are permitted to invent actions of worship if God's Word does not prohibit them. Poythress says: "We do not think that Scripture gives us grounds for dismissing informal inferences from Scripture, purely on the ground that they are 'mere' inferences. To break the force of an inference, one must give reasons, supported by Scripture, for thinking that the inference is invalid."(90)

In contrast, the confessional Reformed hermeneutic recognizes that God has instituted in the Scriptures those particular sacraments, worship ordinances, church offices, and religious symbols which are to be used in his worship, rather than leaving us to construct a pattern of worship through reflection on the theological data contained in Scripture. With Poythress' method, worship practice is derived neither from divine commands nor apostolic example, but from the supposed implications of the mystical union between Christ and his people. The confessional hermeneutic finds a great deal more directness in Scripture, as indicated by the Confession's enumeration of the worship ordinances and church offices; in this setting, the role of inference is in discerning the necessary consequences of the biblical words of institution. The method Poythress proposes will set the church loose to develop worship forms out of its study of themes in biblical theology.

The disparity between Poythress' argument and the regulative principle is also seen in that, while the confessional principle has the commandment of God as its starting point, Poythress leaves the practice of the church today as the ultimate starting point; this rationale chases its own tail. Poythress equates Christ's singing with our preaching in order to argue that, because we may sing what Christ sings, therefore we may sing anything we may preach.

This leads us to a further difficulty in Poythress' argument. Though he argues that Christ somehow takes up in his singing the words that we use in preaching, Poythress himself has to acknowledge that the singing of Christ he contends for is not literal, but metaphorical.(91) But he does not reckon with the implications of a diversity between the metaphorical kind of singing and preaching which he ascribes to Christ, and the singing and preaching which are worship ordinances in Christ's church. How can a figure of speech provide the answer to a question about such particulars as the text to be used in the church's worship song? Christ is not actually using the words we use, and this use of the same verbal content is what the argument is all about.

When Paul in Rom. 15:16 uses the language of sacrifice, comparing the presentation of the Gentiles to an acceptable offering, the common element in the two offerings, and the point of the comparison, is simply that they are both acceptable to God. The metaphor in Rom. 12:1, 15:16, Phil. 4:18, Heb. 13:5-6, and I Pet. 2:5 was never intended to provide clues as to the particulars of the sacrifices ordained for the Old Testament worship, or of Christ's sacrifice. What implications for the ordinances of worship, the doctrine of salvation and the nature of God would men not spin from enlarging upon the metaphorical speech found in God's Word? The Scriptures give us precept or apostolic example to warrant particular actions of worship in the church, such as washing with water in the name of the Trinity, or the singing of Psalms. But Poythress would break down the distinction between diverse worship ordinances, on the strength of a figure of speech.

The Canon as Prescription

The question we have been discussing is whether the biblical mandate for the ordinance of worship song is so specific as to prescribe a text. The OPC majority report misjudges the point when it passes over the canonical provision to declare: "The content of song is not expressly limited in the New Testament, and accordingly we deduce it from the New Testament by good and necessary consequence."(92) What the report fails to take into account is the obvious consideration that, inasmuch as the Lord has provided us with a select collection of songs in the canon of Scripture, and in the biblical narrative has designated these materials as designed to be sung in his worship, we have the specification of a text. Such a divine provision in the Bible constitutes a prescription.

Overlooking the church's obligation to utilize what the Lord has provided, the majority report was regarded as a justification for the production of the Trinity Hymnal (1961). However, this hymnal does not enable a church to discharge its responsibility to use the canon's collected book of songs. The great bulk of the Psalter is omitted from the Trinity Hymnal, including even messianic passages in Psalms 16, 22 and 69 which are prominently referred to in the gospel narratives or in the apostolic proclamation of Christ (Matt. 23:38; 27:34-35, 39, 43, 46, 48; Mark 15:23-24, 29, 34; Luke 23:34; John 2:17; 19:23-24, 28; Acts 1:20; 2:27-31; 13:35-37; Rom. 11:9-10; 15:3).

Much confusion has arisen in our day because the church has ceased to think about worship ordinances with the specificity which is captured in the Westminster Confession's exposition of biblical requirements. In this regard, Bushell's cautionary words simply reflect the language of the Confession (XXI.v): "Strictly speaking, it is undesirable to insist that prayer, preaching, and singing, considered abstractly apart from their verbal content, are distinct or separate elements of worship. What we do insist upon is that the singing of Psalms, the preaching of the Word, and the reading of the Scriptures, are all separate and distinct elements of worship, or, as the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it, parts of the ordinary religious worship of God. It is not at all difficult to show that the singing of Psalms is a distinct element of worship. The existence of the Psalter in the canon of Scripture proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Poythress should be challenged 'to prove from Scripture, rather than assume' that the singing of uninspired hymns is a prescribed element of New Testament worship."(93)

The use of canonical materials for worship song presents a likeness to the reading of the Scriptures. It is no recourse to a speculative argument from analogy when we point out this resemblance, because such arguments from analogy attach to a particular worship action a specification which the Scriptures themselves have not made concerning that action. But the comparison between worship song and the reading of the Scriptures arises from the Bible's own provision of a canonical text in the case of the two ordinances.

Earlier we delved into the Puritan view of distinctness in worship requirements. Bushell is conforming to those confessional criteria when he states the implications of the Bible's content-specific prescriptions. "It is argued that singing is a prescribed element of worship but that the specific content of the words which are sung is a circumstance of the act of singing which therefore lies within the realm of the discretionary power of the church. The problem with such reasoning is that it assumes that the church has the authority to determine all circumstances of worship, which is certainly not the case. Such reasoning also fails to recognize the fact that the specific content of worship song is determinable from Scripture, while the specific content of preaching is not. If there is a parallel to be drawn, it is between the reading of Scripture and the singing of Psalms, not between preaching and singing considered as mere abstractions. The reading of Scripture is certainly a prescribed element of worship, and yet the words which are read, even if they be circumstances of the act of reading, are restricted to those of the inspired canon. Which portion of Scripture is read lies within the power of the minister to determine, because it is not determinable from Scripture, but the collection from which he may choose is very strictly circumscribed. The same is true, we would suggest, of praise in song. Singing as an act of worship is the musical counterpart of reading as an act of worship. The presence of the Psalter in the canon of Scripture demands this conclusion. In both of these cases the content of the utterance, even if it be circumstantial to the act itself, is limited to certain portions of Scripture. So it does the advocate of uninspired hymns no good to argue that the content of the songs sung in worship is a 'mere' circumstance unless he can show that it is a circumstance not already prescribed in Scripture, a task which the presence of the Psalter in the canon of Scripture renders quite impossible."(94)

Notes
(76) Poythress, "Ezra 3," p. 220.
(77) Ibid., p. 233.
(78) Cf. John Owen, Biblical Theology (Pittsburgh: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1994), pp. 534-35.
(79) Cf. O. Palmer Robertson, The Final Word: A Biblical Response to the Case for Tongues and Prophecy Today (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1993), pp. 74-78, and Richard B. Gaffin, Perspectives on Pentecost: Studies in New Testament Teaching on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1979), pp. 72 and 93.
(80) Poythress, "Ezra 3," p. 227; cf. p. 221.
(81) Bushell, Songs of Zion, p. 51.
(82) Poythress, "Ezra 3," p. 226.
(83) Bushell, Songs of Zion, p. 50.
(84) Ibid., p. 51.
(85) Poythress, "Ezra 3," p. 74.
(86) Ibid., p. 83.
(87) Ibid., pp. 84, 87 (n. 11), 92 (n. 15), 219-21, and 224-25.
(88) Ibid., p. 87, n. 11.
(89) Ibid., pp. 219-20.
(90) Ibid., p. 232.
(91) Ibid., p. 87, n. 11.
(92) "Report of the Committee on Song," pp. 55-56; cf. p. 58.
(93) Bushell, Songs of Zion, p. 49.
(94) Ibid., p. 135; cf. pp. 64-65.

Go to the next installment:
VIII. Singing of Psalms: Worship Song and Prophecy