Can we recite Psalms responsively?

[earl40]

I don't pretend to know the answer to that question. My post is not to defend the practice of responsive reading, merely to hear/read a plausible explanation as to the Apostle's writing speaking/singing and psalms, hymns and spiritual songs if he didn't intend to characterize each as standing alone by definition.
The congregation I attend does do a responsive reading of a psalm in the evening service, as well as reciting the Apostle's or Nicene Creed. As far as I know all but a very few North American OPC congregations sing both hymns and psalms.
I don't defend that as opposed to EP, but I do wonder if all of those that use the Trinity Hymnal are in error ?
I intend to bring the issue of responsive reading of the psalm before our session so they can examine the issue. Whatever they decide I will abide by. I personally don't feel comfortable remaining in a congregation if I cannot participate in their worship service out of principle.

I hear you. Though one ought to feel uncomfortable if one is convinced by principle to not do something Our Lord does not command. I personally sit in the back of the church as to not disrupt the service as I refrain from things I believe are not prescribed in scripture. So far I have not been disciplined and hopefully I will not.

 

[Afterthought]

1) Regarding synonyms, synonymity is not necessarily opposed to being precise. Also, the Apostle Paul was a Rabbi and rhetorician who would use similarly "synonymous" words in other places, e.g., signs and wonders and mighty deeds; wisdom and spiritual understanding; principalities, powers, rulers, spiritual wickedness in high places.

So far as psalms, hymns, and songs go, it is worth pointing out that there is no conclusive scheme for distinguishing the terms in meaning (multitudes of schemes exist), which is evidence of their "synonymity." The best people can do is to go by etymology, but we all know that eytmology is not enough to determine the meaning of a word.

2) However, for both speaking/singing and psalms/hymns/songs, strict synonymity isn't what is being argued (some, maybe most, do argue some level of synonymity of the latter though).

For speaking/singing, Chris (TheOldCourse) has explained how the terms relate and differ: one is a form of the other. I added the observation that "speaking" and "singing" are always coordinated together in the Bible to refer to singing. Why? I don't recall my own conslusions on the matter; perhaps it is just bringing out the form of speech (namely, singing) after saying that the people gave utterance to some form of speech. Certainly, it is not an odd thing in the Bible to have this sort of construction of two words to describe one speech-action, e.g., "Jesus answered and said."

For psalms/hymns/songs (for those who argue for similarity), a different claim is made than what has just been observed concerning speaking/singing: the terms are similar terms with different shades of meaning. Some further argue that they mean the book of Psalms. Others argue that they refer to the book of Psalms. Still others argue that it is just talking about all kinds of praise in general. Recognizing similarity is not restricted to those who hold to exclusive psalmody.

3) For my own part, I think MW's view of the passage (concerning speaking/singing; somewhere in this thread: https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...g-of-psalms-hymns-songs-for-the-debate.79857/) in question is closest to its meaning.

However, if one takes the more or less standard view that the passage addresses congregational activity, given the context and the wider context of "speaking" and "singing" in the Scriptures, there is no way to conclude the "speaking" and the "singing" indicated here are different actions. And even if one did, one will not be able to prove this action was "responsive" (and one must recite hymns of mere human composure too).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would commend Rutherford's view of "negative separation:" that one can separate oneself from the corrputions of a church but remain in its communion (and unite with it where it is pure). The faithful Israelite had to suffer in such a situation for many periods of OT history (howbeit, with far more grievous corruptions in worship). Sometimes, Christians must suffer such discomfort too. Certainly, it is better to join a communion with whom one can participate in worship entirely in good conscience, but such is not always possible.

When I was in the OPC, I made the elders aware of my views, and we worked to find a solution to let me not participate in certain actions of worship without disturbing the peace.

 

[brendanchatt]

With all due respect brother, this reminds me of Bill Clinton's saying 'it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.'
So Paul is speaking in synonyms when he refers to Speaking/singing, and 'Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs' ? Seems redundant for a man who was so precise in his speech.

Precise and eloquent?

Or does 2 Cor. 11:6 disprove both? I don't think so. Obviously it's not easy, but I think taking a step back and reading it in context makes my position seem a lot less creative then you're saying.

 

[JimmyH]

Precise and eloquent?

Or does 2 Cor. 11:6 disprove both? I don't think so. Obviously it's not easy, but I think taking a step back and reading it in context makes my position seem a lot less creative then you're saying.

I never said he was eloquent ......

 

[Myson]

Is it at all possible - perhaps even plausible - that the divines meant that not all people are able to expound the Scriptures rather than straight forwardly "read" them? Might we be a bit too overly concerned with the letter of the Law and not the Spirit of it? Furthermore, can anyone give me clear biblical support for refusing to allow people to read the Scriptures out loud together or even pray the Scriptures together in corporate worship? I can think of plenty examples of passages where they did, especially in the OT. Does this mean we can't pray the Lord's prayer? Are we banned from reciting the Shema? What about confessing Jesus Christ is Lord? Where is the line? It seems that these discussions on the RPW are less and less about the "principle" but rather, the "commands" (i.e. Thou shalt not read any Bible out loud on Sundays. Thou shalt not bow your head for prayer. Thou shalt not have special music) that aren't exactly biblical, helpful, pastoral, or even necessarily historical, but reflect a Western 16th century culture more than anything else. The "command" to do nothing that is not repeated in the NT betrays our ecclesiology and hermeneutic that all scripture is valuable for our doctrine (Trinity, Covenant, infant baptism, etc) and actually does more to bind the consciences of people than doing other things. Might we not be the "weaker brother" binding the consciences of others that the Scriptures do not do? I'm not arguing against the RPW of it, I'm suggesting that it is a "principle" and not a "command." Because of this, there have been and should be different applications of it, but all must be done in love.

I would only ask that those who have such a hard line on the RPW to the point that anything other than the Sacraments and the Preaching are sinful and permit no congregational involvement apart from showing up and singing (most likely exclusively Psalms with no instruments from the Scriptures alone with no hymnal) pray through what dispensary on they are in, what God really requires of us, what the history of the church testifies to, and whether or not we may be overcome with a type of "doctrinal purity" which might not be all that pure to begin with, alienates others, dilutes our witness, and proclaims a loud legalism that moves to pride, factionalism, and deadness. Where is the love for our brothers and sisters in all of this? It seems like many of us are "older brothers," loving our younger brother by telling them to be more hard-working like us, since that is all the Father will accept. Sure, we communicate through this worship that God is reverent, powerful, and otherly, but do we also at the same time communicate that God is kind, loving, and near, and incarnate? I'm not so sure.

Forgive me for the run on sentences. God bless

 

[TylerRay]

Is it at all possible - perhaps even plausible - that the divines meant that not all people are able to expound the Scriptures rather than straight forwardly "read" them?

Nope; take a look at the section of the DPW:

Of Publick Reading of the Holy Scriptures.

READING of the word in the congregation, being part of the publick worship of God, (wherein .i.we; acknowledge our dependence upon him, and subjection to him,) and one mean sanctified by him for the edifying of his people, is to be performed by the pastors and teachers.

Howbeit, such as intend the ministry, may occasionally both read the word, and exercise their gift in preaching in the congregation, if allowed by the presbytery thereunto.

All the canonical books of the Old and New Testament (but none of those which are commonly called Apocrypha) shall be publickly read in the vulgar tongue, out of the best allowed translation, distinctly, that all may hear and understand.

How large a portion shall be read at once, is left to the wisdom of the minister; but it is convenient, that ordinarily one chapter of each Testament be read at every meeting; and sometimes more, where the chapters be short, or the coherence of matter requireth it.

It is requisite that all the canonical books be read over in order, that the people may be better acquainted with the whole body of the scriptures; and ordinarily, where the reading in either Testament endeth on one Lord's day, it is to begin the next.

We commend also the more frequent reading of such scriptures as he that readeth shall think best for edification of his hearers, as the book of Psalms, and such like.

When the minister who readeth shall judge it necessary to expound any part of what is read, let it not be done until the whole chapter or psalm be ended; and regard is always to be had unto the time, that neither preaching, nor other ordinances be straitened, or rendered tedious. Which rule is to be observed in all other publick performances.

Beside publick reading of the holy scriptures, every person that can read, is to be exhorted to read the scriptures privately, (and all others that cannot read, if not disabled by age, or otherwise, are likewise to be exhorted to learn to read,) and to have a Bible.

Might we be a bit too overly concerned with the letter of the Law and not the Spirit of it?

If we aren't concerned about the letter of the law, we certainly are not concerned about the spirit of it. The two go together.

Furthermore, can anyone give me clear biblical support for refusing to allow people to read the Scriptures out loud together or even pray the Scriptures together in corporate worship? I can think of plenty examples of passages where they did, especially in the OT.

Can you provide some of those examples? I don't remember any.

As far as "clear biblical support for refusing to allow" something in public worship--remember the Regulative Principle--only what God prescribes in his Word is to be done in worship. We are not to add to it or take away from it.

Does this mean we can't pray the Lord's prayer? Are we banned from reciting the Shema? What about confessing Jesus Christ is Lord? Where is the line? It seems that these discussions on the RPW are less and less about the "principle" but rather, the "commands" (i.e. Thou shalt not read any Bible out loud on Sundays. Thou shalt not bow your head for prayer. Thou shalt not have special music) that aren't exactly biblical, helpful, pastoral, or even necessarily historical, but reflect a Western 16th century culture more than anything else. The "command" to do nothing that is not repeated in the NT betrays our ecclesiology and hermeneutic that all scripture is valuable for our doctrine (Trinity, Covenant, infant baptism, etc) and actually does more to bind the consciences of people than doing other things. Might we not be the "weaker brother" binding the consciences of others that the Scriptures do not do? I'm not arguing against the RPW of it, I'm suggesting that it is a "principle" and not a "command." Because of this, there have been and should be different applications of it, but all must be done in love.

I don't understand your distinction between principle and command. The Regulative Principle of Worship (sometimes called the Scriptural Law of Worship) is about how the second commandment is to be applied.

I would only ask that those who have such a hard line on the RPW to the point that anything other than the Sacraments and the Preaching are sinful and permit no congregational involvement apart from showing up and singing (most likely exclusively Psalms with no instruments from the Scriptures alone with no hymnal) pray through what dispensary on they are in, what God really requires of us, what the history of the church testifies to, and whether or not we may be overcome with a type of "doctrinal purity" which might not be all that pure to begin with, alienates others, dilutes our witness, and proclaims a loud legalism that moves to pride, factionalism, and deadness. Where is the love for our brothers and sisters in all of this? It seems like many of us are "older brothers," loving our younger brother by telling them to be more hard-working like us, since that is all the Father will accept. Sure, we communicate through this worship that God is reverent, powerful, and otherly, but do we also at the same time communicate that God is kind, loving, and near, and incarnate? I'm not so sure.

Forgive me for the run on sentences. God bless

Brother, I'm afraid that you may be arguing against things that you have not fully studied out. You should give a charitable judgment toward your Reformed brothers, and seek to understand them before you go condemning the historic Reformed practice. As an example of your apparent lack of familiarity with Reformed worship, you reference "those who have such a hard line on the RPW to the point that anything other than the Sacraments and the Preaching are sinful..." No one believes that. There are several elements of worship that God requires, and we dare not exclude them from worship, and we dare not bring anything that God has not required into his worship.

 

[Jack K]

I don't participate in responsive readings at church. I don't think I should be reading the scriptures, especially not in unison.

I sing the Psalms in church. You can abstract the components of singing and make little of the tune. I disagree with this

Hi, Brendan:

I was about to respond on this thread when I realized I don't actually understand the reasoning behind your stance. May I ask you to clarify? My question assumes we can think of the elements of Reformed worship as being of two types:
1. The congregation hears God's word.
2. The congregation responds to God's word.
Given this framework, I'm wondering which of the following (or maybe it's something else entirely) best describes your reasoning.

1. You are concerned because the congregation's part of a responsive reading is spoken rather than sung. If the congregation's part came with a tune, it would be proper. So the principle is that congregational-response elements that are sung must be psalms, while congregational-response elements that are spoken may not be psalms or any other Scripture.

2. You are concerned because congregational response should be more distinct from the proclamation of God's word, so that they clearly are different elements. If the preacher gave a longer reading, followed by a distinct break and a different psalm from the congregation, that would be proper. So the principle is that the back-and-forth nature of a responsive reading (where the pastor reads a verse, then the congregation reads a verse, then the pastor reads again, etc.) is a concern because it seems to mix what should be distinct elements.

3. You are concerned because the responsive reading is called a "reading." If it were labelled differently, with the pastor's parts called "readings" and the congregation's parts called something else, maybe "responses," that would be proper. So the principle is that we must more clearly define what a pastor does in proclaiming God's word versus what the congregation does in responding to it.

Which best describes your concern, or is it something else entirely, or a combination? And especially in the case of #1 above, what reasoning does Scripture give for such a mandate; what principle of worship is behind it?

 

[brendanchatt]

Which best describes your concern, or is it something else entirely, or a combination? And especially in the case of #1 above, what reasoning does Scripture give for such a mandate; what principle of worship is behind it?

Thanks for asking. It's #1. The reasoning is that the congregation is told to sing Psalms, whereas reading is given to someone like a minister. Some reading examples that come to mind include Neh. 8 and when Paul indicates that his epistle should be read before the congregation.

 

[Jack K]

Thanks for asking. It's #1. The reasoning is that the congregation is told to sing Psalms, whereas reading is given to someone like a minister. Some reading examples that come to mind include Neh. 8 and when Paul indicates that his epistle should be read before the congregation.

Thanks. That helps me respond.

I think you ought to consider what reasons God might have for commanding us to sing psalms while forbidding us to recite them, if indeed he has done so. Although we recognize that our worship ought to follow God's commands rather than our own wisdom, it is also the case that careful study of Scripture usually reveals reasons behind those commands. This gives us confirmation that our take on the matter is correct. So, is there further evidence in Scripture that the nature of singing makes it particularly appropriate for a congregation's response to God while the nature of recitation is not appropriate?

It would take that sort of scriptural evidence to convince a fellow like me, whose gut reaction to responsive readings is that they fit nicely within the Reformed principles of worship whether or not the Puritans used them.

In the examples you cite from Nehemiah 8 and Colossians 4, we can see many reasons why reading to the congregation would be practical in those situations and not necessarily a prescription for how all Scripture should be handled in all cases:
- The material being read was unfamiliar to the congregation and there was but a single copy or just a few, and many in the congregation may have been illiterate anyway. In Nehemiah 8, it sounds like the reading had to be translated too.
- The material being read was lengthy, which makes joint recitation cumbersome.
- The material read was instructive (law and epistles) rather than an expression of praise. Instructive portions of Scripture are more appropriate for a pastor reading to the congregation.

Therefore, I find it unconvincing to forbid the congregation to recite psalms tunelessly when Scripture clearly commands them to recite the exact same content in song. If we are supposed to treat the difference between having a tune and being tuneless as a meaningful difference, I would like to see more scriptural support for the idea that these are inherently different and ought to be treated that way. Besides, the Reformed tradition has long recognized that the Psalms are not just our God-given hymnbook, but also our God-given prayer book. May we not take the prayers God has given to us jointly, and recite them together to him?

No doubt you should follow your conscience in worship. But my feedback is that your argument should be made stronger if you hope to convince skeptics and plan to sit out a portion of worship.

 

[lynnie]

Maybe you could visit a local ASL service if you can find one (deaf sign language) and watch them "singing" and "speaking", and give more thought to this subject. (God made the deaf too.)

 

[Edward]

Are any of the proponents of 'singing only' for Psalms willing to provide a definition of 'singing'?

If there is a clear line, there must be a clear definition.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Are any of the proponents of 'singing only' for Psalms willing to provide a definition of 'singing'?

If there is a clear line, there must be a clear definition.

In the OT, “shiyr” is the Hebrew word most often used for song or singing. The word is so closely associated with musical instrumentation (2 Chronicles 29:27,28) as to make clear it’s part of the musicality going on. So the human voice and the shiyr it produces would be among the musical instruments, so to speak. Moving up and down the scale in a melodious way.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Myson]

Let me take your response bit by bit.

Nope; take a look at the section of the DPW:

My Reformed history is lacking, you may certainly be right. However, that does not mean that their assessment was biblical or inspired. I would much rather Lutherans ditch their catechism and deny the normative principle, baptismal regeneration, and consubstantiation than stick to their Confessions. It's good to hold to the historic Confessions, but they are not inspirired and in some places, may perhaps be in error. We in America (not sure where you're from) deny the Pope is the Anti-Christ, despite the divines thinking it important enough to put into the Confession. We should uphold the Standards insofar as they agree with Scripture, and there simply is no clear distinction in the Scriptures between merely reading the Word out loud Monday through Saturday, and reading it out loud where others can hear on a Sunday. There is arguably, clear Biblical distinction on who can read the Scriptures and those who can teach the Scriptures. All can read, and all ought to read, to confess the word of God to themselves, to each other, and in response to Him, but not all can teach. The Scriptural proofs in the Catechism which supposedly dictate who can and can't read out loud in the congregation do no such thing, and instead, simply define who is to teach and who isn't.

The rationale for why someone is not permitted to read the Scriptures out loud is dubious, hardly capable of sustaining biblical scrutiny, and does more to undermine the doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers than anything I've ever heard of, and does more to institute a "Reformed Priest" than the Anglicans could hope for. Literally no one would confuse the role/office of an elder with someone who simply sat up, read the Scriptures, and sat down without saying another word, and even less would anyone feel that they had the authority to teach and declare the message of God by asking together with everyone else, "O Lord, how long?" as a responsive reading. The fear is one of paranoia, and tailors to the most foolish and outrageous among us.

If we aren't concerned about the letter of the law, we certainly are not concerned about the spirit of it. The two go together.

Sometimes they do. Matthew 12:1-12 might suggest that appealing to the letter of the law and not the spirit can honestly ruin a person, and may actually make them miss the Messiah that the Law was meant to point to. They are not the same, and there are circumstances where one goes without the other. I'm sure that won't convince you, but my point is that when we are so concerned about the letter of the law that we can't, in a responsive reading, say with the Congregation, "Greatly are you to be praised," then we might have missed out on the Spirit and denied Christ the worship he deserves.

Can you provide some of those examples? I don't remember any.

Responsive readings have to do with another very old Reformed Principle that seems to have been forgotten on this board every time the RPW gets brought up, which is the Dialogical Principle. This is Covenant Renewal with the assembled people responding to Christ "renewing" his Covenant with his people each Sunday by reminding them of what he has done and will do in this new Covenant. Scripturally however, responses in the gathered assembly occurred often in the OT, most notably, Exodus 19:8, 19; Numbers 32:31; Deuteronomy 27:15; Joshua 1:16; 22:21-29; 24:16; Ruth 2:4; 1 Samuel 17:27-30; 2 Samuel 22:42 (a unified prayer without response, you can take or leave this one, but I see it); 1 Kings 18:24; Ezra 10:12; Nehemiah 8:6; The Psalms (passim), a response to God's goodness, and ask for his response to their call, PSalms 20 and 121 are also call and response; Song of Solomon is one long responsive reading that was practiced liturgically; Isaiah 50:2 (answered him with what?); Jeremiah 11:5 (echoing the pattern of the Scriptures previously).
In addition, there are responses of the Congregation in unison in the New Testament; Acts 2:42 (the prayers); Ephesians 5:19 (simply means "address" one another which can mean in song or speaking one another. Point being, does God disallow those in deaf services from addressing one another in the Psalms, from obeying this command, since they can't sing it?); Revelation 4:8, 10-11; again, echoing the OT pattern of the Dialogical Principle of Worship. This is a very very very old practice that has a lot of Scripture to support. The burden of proof is on those who would say that Christ's coming was so huge that the apostles and prophets of the NT found it 1.) Sinful to continue to respond to God when gathering to hear his word and respond to it and 2.) Totally unnecessary to communicate that until the Reformation (and even then, to just a few). Furthermore, to argue above would be to make our rationale for infant baptism a farce, since it is essentially the same.

I don't understand your distinction between principle and command. The Regulative Principle of Worship (sometimes called the Scriptural Law of Worship) is about how the second commandment is to be applied.

My point is that the Regulative Principle is just that - a principle, meaning that it is a guide, and not a command. There is no Leviticus for the NT, and there is a specific reason for God's not doing so - the elements of worship are to be culturally, historically, and linguistically interpreted and applied, which will differ from church to church, culture to culture, language to language, and time to time, while not adding or taking away from the Scriptures. Thus, we are free to interpret what constitutes as "orderly" (which, according to Paul, included prophecies and tongues in the assembly!) but we are not free to deny that order is important in worship. We are free to sing songs that are edifying to the Lord, but we are not free to do away with singing altogether (just as we are not free to do away with Word and Sacrament). We are free to pray together, but we are not free to pray to someone else. We are free to bow or not to bow, but we are not free to strip nude and dance, and we are not free to expound on Jesus Calling or the latest Phillip Yancey book in the pulpit, or substitute a drama for the Lord's Table. These are principles, but we do not live in a dispensation that has a written "Thou shalt sing exclusively Psalms, never speak them, and only the men are permitted to open their mouths when gathered, and never use instruments; nor shalt thou kneel to pray, bow thy heads, open thy eyes, or pray in unison, lest ye die." We interpret this principle, and our interpretations will, and necessarily must differ from one another, and it simply isn't a sin issue. The Regulative Principle is a principle, and there is no way at all that we can make such hard and fast judgments on what is and isn't permitted when it isn't clear in Scripture, history, or the rest in our denomination. Where there is ambiguity, we ought not to bind the consciences of our people to what they can and can't do. That's going too far, and sounds an awful lot like forbidding others to eat meat because it might have been sacrificed to idols, or telling people that all alcoholic consumption is sinful.

The fact remains, according to this strict interpretation of no responsive readings or reading the Scripture out loud together as a congregation, you have effectively prohibited the people from praying the Lord's Prayer, or confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord, since these are sayings we only know in the Scriptures. If you make an exception to these statements of faith, I'd be delighted to see how you can be consistent to say that we can read Scriptures that are historically relevant and commanded in the NT but not the OT. If so, I think you are using the Catechism and Confession as an inspired document, missing the spirit of the Law because you're so focused on the letter, and denying Christ the worship he desires.

As an aside, never in my life have I ever, in my 10 years of study, heard or read of the Regulative Principle called the Scriptural Law of Worship. Please don't send me anything on it, I'll take your word for it that people have said it. I simply don't believe that there is, was, or should be a uniform consensus on precisely how to apply this Principle in our tradition, and that calling it a Law (which implies clear and concise command in one particular place that dictates what is and isn't in bounds in every instance under penalty of condemnation) does damage to what I believe was its purpose (for freedom from unscriptural innovation and freedom to worship with what has been revealed).

No one believes that.

You may not, and others who are more conservative in their interpretation of the RPW might not, but you are simply wrong. People do believe that. Some are even contributors on this site. There are some who would even go so far as to say that because women are not permitted to speak in the church, then they are not even allowed to sing (they can inherit his promises but they can't worship him for it Gal. 3:28)! There are those who feel that if it is not explicitly repeated in the NT, then it is sinful to worship with it (a very "Church of Christ" cult interpretation which was not the original intent of the RPW and has more with human ingenuity than Scripture in the logic), and even those who feel that to kneel in prayer is a sin and a Roman abomination. Most of these people I didn't believe exist until I came here to this site. They exist, and they all distort the Scriptures and the RPW to their ends.

I'd encourage you brother to not assume that since I think you are wrong, and the whole presuppositions behind this post are unbiblical, unhelpful, and do damage to our witness in Christ, that I haven't looked into it, or that I ought to necessarily give the benefit of the doubt. I'm under no obligation to give the benefit of the doubt to those I believe are binding the consciences of God's people wrongly and unbiblically, but rather, ought to speak the truth in love, which I feel I have patiently and firmly done with as much restraint as I can muster. It is conversations such as these that weary me and make me strongly consider deactivating my account out of a desire to not give the enemy a foothold of frustration and bitterness towards my brothers and sisters for what I find to be a gross distortion of the Scriptures. Sorry again for the poor grammar and super long post.

 

[earl40]

Are any of the proponents of 'singing only' for Psalms willing to provide a definition of 'singing'?

If there is a clear line, there must be a clear definition.

Doe a dear, a female dear, ray a drop of golden sun....

I simply am responding in jest in that is it not obvious the definition of singing is plain in every culture be it to 4/4 time, meter, or Japanese meter time?

 

[Edward]

The word is so closely associated with musical instrumentation

So, to be safe, instruments should be used (as directed in the Psalms themselves) before Psalms can be used by the congregation in public worship?

 

[TylerRay]

So, to be safe, instruments should be used (as directed in the Psalms themselves) before Psalms can be used by the congregation in public worship?

What does that have to do with responsive reading?

 

[Jeri Tanner]

So, to be safe, instruments should be used (as directed in the Psalms themselves) before Psalms can be used by the congregation in public worship?

I think we’ve all talked about this a LOT before.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

And no Edward, a cappella singing has been happening for lo these many millennia. The fact that the word shiyr is used in the same sentence as keliy was meant to show that singing is musical. Lawyers.

 

[TylerRay]

My Reformed history is lacking, you may certainly be right. However, that does not mean that their assessment was biblical or inspired. I would much rather Lutherans ditch their catechism and deny the normative principle, baptismal regeneration, and consubstantiation than stick to their Confessions. It's good to hold to the historic Confessions, but they are not inspirired and in some places, may perhaps be in error.

Right, if the confessions are in error, they should be changed.

We should uphold the Standards insofar as they agree with Scripture, and there simply is no clear distinction in the Scriptures between merely reading the Word out loud Monday through Saturday, and reading it out loud where others can hear on a Sunday.

There certainly was in the Old Testament. See Deut. 31:11, and see the principle in action in Nehemiah 8.

The rationale for why someone is not permitted to read the Scriptures out loud is dubious, hardly capable of sustaining biblical scrutiny, and does more to undermine the doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers than anything I've ever heard of, and does more to institute a "Reformed Priest" than the Anglicans could hope for. Literally no one would confuse the role/office of an elder with someone who simply sat up, read the Scriptures, and sat down without saying another word, and even less would anyone feel that they had the authority to teach and declare the message of God by asking together with everyone else, "O Lord, how long?" as a responsive reading. The fear is one of paranoia, and tailors to the most foolish and outrageous among us.

Here's how the argument goes (this is from the Westminster Form of Presbyterial Church Government):

[It belongs to the pastor's office]To read the Scriptures publickly; for the proof of which,
1. That the priests and Levites in the Jewish church were trusted with the publick reading of the word is proved (see the verses I quoted before).

2. That the ministers of the gospel have as ample a charge and commission to dispense the word, as well as other ordinances, as the priests and Levites had under the law, proved, Isa. lxvi. 21. Matt. xxiii. 34. where our Saviour entitleth the officers of the New Testament, whom he will send forth, by the same names of the teachers of the Old.

Responsive readings have to do with another very old Reformed Principle that seems to have been forgotten on this board every time the RPW gets brought up, which is the Dialogical Principle.

I'm happy to acknowledge that Biblical worship is dialogical in nature. In our worship, we sing a Psalm back to the Lord each time we receive his Word, whether read or preached.

This is Covenant Renewal with the assembled people responding to Christ "renewing" his Covenant with his people each Sunday by reminding them of what he has done and will do in this new Covenant.

This is another subject, but I'm curious where you got the idea that worship is a covenant renewal ceremony. I've only heard this from guys like Jeff Meyers and Rich Lusk. I'm not saying that's where you got it--I'm just curious.

Scripturally however, responses in the gathered assembly occurred often in the OT, most notably, Exodus 19:8, 19; Numbers 32:31; Deuteronomy 27:15; Joshua 1:16; 22:21-29; 24:16; Ruth 2:4; 1 Samuel 17:27-30; 2 Samuel 22:42 (a unified prayer without response, you can take or leave this one, but I see it); 1 Kings 18:24; Ezra 10:12; Nehemiah 8:6

Most of these passages are the swearing of vows before the Lord. The WCF says this of oaths and vows: "A lawful oath is part of religious worship, wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calls God to witness what he asserts, or promises, and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he swears." I don't see how that applies to responsive reading of Psalms.

I'm unconvinced that the passage from Joshua 22 is applicable. I don't see anything responsive here, and it doesn't appear to be in a service of worship.

The verse from Ruth 2 is Boaz greeting the workers in his field. How does that apply here?

The passage from 1 Samuel is David talking to his brothers and some other folks about the reward for killing Goliath.

The Psalms (passim), a response to God's goodness, and ask for his response to their call, PSalms 20 and 121 are also call and response; Song of Solomon is one long responsive reading that was practiced liturgically;

Can you prove that these passages were used responsively in worship?

Isaiah 50:2 (answered him with what?); Jeremiah 11:5 (echoing the pattern of the Scriptures previously).

Isaiah 50:

1 Thus saith the Lord, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.

2 Wherefore, when I came, was there no man? when I called, was there none to answer? Is my hand shortened at all, that it cannot redeem? or have I no power to deliver? behold, at my rebuke I dry up the sea, I make the rivers a wilderness: their fish stinketh, because there is no water, and dieth for thirst.​

I am at a loss of how this can be used to justify responsive readings. That's some crafty exegesis.

The passage from Jeremiah 11 is another example of the swearing of an oath.

In addition, there are responses of the Congregation in unison in the New Testament; Acts 2:42 (the prayers); Ephesians 5:19 (simply means "address" one another which can mean in song or speaking one another. Point being, does God disallow those in deaf services from addressing one another in the Psalms, from obeying this command, since they can't sing it?); Revelation 4:8, 10-11; again, echoing the OT pattern of the Dialogical Principle of Worship. This is a very very very old practice that has a lot of Scripture to support.

I don't see how you get that out of Acts 2:42.

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
​

Ephesians 5:19 says to do it "singing and making melody."

I don't see how the passage from John's vision supports responsive readings, either.

8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

9 And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever,

10 The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,

11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.​

You may not, and others who are more conservative in their interpretation of the RPW might not, but you are simply wrong. People do believe that. Some are even contributors on this site. There are some who would even go so far as to say that because women are not permitted to speak in the church, then they are not even allowed to sing (they can inherit his promises but they can't worship him for it Gal. 3:28)! There are those who feel that if it is not explicitly repeated in the NT, then it is sinful to worship with it (a very "Church of Christ" cult interpretation which was not the original intent of the RPW and has more with human ingenuity than Scripture in the logic), and even those who feel that to kneel in prayer is a sin and a Roman abomination. Most of these people I didn't believe exist until I came here to this site. They exist, and they all distort the Scriptures and the RPW to their ends.

You claimed that some believe that only preaching and the sacraments are allowed in worship. I've never heard of a Reformed person (let alone a Reformed Church) who didn't believe that the reading of the Word, prayer, and the pronouncement of a benediction aren't part of worship. I've only heard of two people who don't believe that singing belongs in the church.

As far as women singing, someone asked a question about it last month. I've never seen someone argue that women can't sing, and I've never known of a church that forbade them.

I'd encourage you brother to not assume that since I think you are wrong, and the whole presuppositions behind this post are unbiblical, unhelpful, and do damage to our witness in Christ, that I haven't looked into it, or that I ought to necessarily give the benefit of the doubt.

I wasn't basing my allegation on the fact that you disagree with me; your post showed that there were some gaps in your thinking on the subject.

I'm under no obligation to give the benefit of the doubt to those I believe are binding the consciences of God's people wrongly and unbiblically, but rather, ought to speak the truth in love, which I feel I have patiently and firmly done with as much restraint as I can muster.

I appreciate your restraint, brother. My concern was that you were arguing against people's positions that you haven't taken the time to understand.

I remember when I first heard of Exclusive Psalmody. I was a member of a CREC church at the time that practiced a somewhat "high" form of worship. The idea that only Psalms were allowed to be sung sounded down right bizarre. However, as I studied the matter out, I found that I had some fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of worship, and I came to change my views. I know this thread isn't about Exclusive Psalmody, but I use my story as an illustration--often, when we take the time to listen to people's arguments, we find that our antipathy toward their position was misinformed.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

The pedigree of the use of the phrase “law of worship” as another name or in conjunction with the regulative principle has a history a bit longer than that of the use of regulative principle in reference to the Reformed principle of worship (which phrase has a long history, Calvin, “God here cuts off from men every occasion for making evasions, since he condemns by this one phrase, ‘I have not commanded them,’ whatever the Jews devised. There is then no other argument needed to condemn superstitions, than that they are not commanded by God: for when men allow themselves to worship God according to their own fancies, and attend not to His commands, they pervert true religion. And if this principle was adopted by the Papists, all those fictitious modes of worship, in which they absurdly exercise themselves, would fall to the ground...." Commentary on Jeremiah 7:31 (given toward the end of Calvin's life c. 1563), Act Against Innovations in the Worship of God, General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, Act 15, 1707. “And considering also that such innovations are dangerous to this Church, and manifestly contrary to our known principle (which is, that nothing is to be admitted in the worship of God but what is prescribed in the Holy Scriptures…”).

James Harper
An exposition in the form of question and answer of the Westminster Assembly's Shorter catechism (United Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1905) 221. “Lately Professor of Theology in the Theological Seminary, Xenia, Ohio.”

“The Second Commandment lays down the regulative principle of worship: it forbids idolatry.”

Psalms, Use of the, in Worship.

“1. To worship God otherwise than he has appointed is 'will-worship,' more or less gross. The law regulative of worship is not that we may use both what is commanded and what is not expressly forbidden, but that we must be limited to the use of what is either expressly or implicitly appointed by God (Deut. xii. 32; Matt. sv. 9, xxviii. 20).” Johann Jakob Herzog, A Religious Encyclopaedia: or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, Volume 3 (Funk & Wagnalls, 1883; 1889) “Psalms, Use of the, in Worship,” p. 1960.

1907 Psalmody Conference

The Scriptural Law of Worship is the chapter in this volume dealing with the principle regulative of worship. https://books.google.com/books?id=DVUJAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false

Carl Bogue

The Scriptural Law of Worship by Carl W. Bogue
This was a ubiquitous tract from the 1980s onward and more so as one of the first tracts available on the internet.

 

[timfost]

My point is that the Regulative Principle is just that - a principle, meaning that it is a guide, and not a command. There is no Leviticus for the NT, and there is a specific reason for God's not doing so - the elements of worship are to be culturally, historically, and linguistically interpreted and applied, which will differ from church to church, culture to culture, language to language, and time to time, while not adding or taking away from the Scriptures.

Hi Myson,

I appreciate some of your points. I just wanted to clarify a few things since we probably have more in common on the application of the RPW.

In the quote above, you contrasted principle to command. I would want to be careful that we understand that the RPW states that whatever is not commanded is forbidden. Thus, the RPW does directly reference a command and forbids things not commanded. With that said, you are absolutely correct-- there is no NT "Leviticus." Worship is not as precisely laid out for us in the NT. Our EP brethren here apply the same principle of worship but understand the specifics as to what is commanded differently. For example, our EP brethren define singing praises as Psalms alone. We understand praises to be a broader term that encompasses more than just Psalms and more than just singing them.

As others have appropriately pointed out on this forum, the R principle of W does not of itself outline what exactly is commanded. Conversely, we cannot completely separate the principle from any reference to a command since the principle itself sets parameters on how we worship and what we include in our worship.

At issue is the specific application of the RPW, not the principle itself. I find the parameters that our EP brethren place on the application of the principle to be akin to verbal gymnastics. I've tried on their arguments multiple times and have always come away scratching my head.

 

[Myson]

Hi Myson,

I appreciate some of your points. I just wanted to clarify a few things since we probably have more in common on the application of the RPW.

In the quote above, you contrasted principle to command. I would want to be careful that we understand that the RPW states that whatever is not commanded is forbidden. Thus, the RPW does directly reference a command and forbids things not commanded. With that said, you are absolutely correct-- there is no NT "Leviticus." Worship is not as precisely laid out for us in the NT. Our EP brethren here apply the same principle of worship but understand the specifics as to what is commanded differently. For example, our EP brethren define singing praises as Psalms alone. We understand praises to be a broader term that encompasses more than just Psalms and more than just singing them.

As others have appropriately pointed out on this forum, the R principle of W does not of itself outline what exactly is commanded. Conversely, we cannot completely separate the principle from any reference to a command since the principle itself sets parameters on how we worship and what we include in our worship.

At issue is the specific application of the RPW, not the principle itself. I find the parameters that our EP brethren place on the application of the principle to be akin to verbal gymnastics. I've tried on their arguments multiple times and have always come away scratching my head.

Thanks tim. I agree, we probably do agree on the essentials. My issue is when there may be those who feel that the regulative principle is clearer than it really is, and therefore, those who disagree are in sin, or even worse, aren't "Reformed" enough. This would never ever be explicit, but it is still obvious in word and tone, and quite frankly, it is needlessly offensive, and seems to show a lack of communication with real people in their church rather than the digital ones here. That's not to say that everyone who disagrees with me is a keyboard warrior, only that there is a real tendency in these types of forums for people (young men especially) to ignore the fruit of the Spirit in their local body and feel self-righteous and communally accepted online with people who can't see their life and sin, tell them that they ought to be more concerned with patience and humility than with whether or not the Psalms be can be spoken or if God excludes saying them. There are those in my own congregation who do this, and I see it here, and it is obnoxious and grieves the Spirit. I hope on this, all who "have ears to hear" can agree.

In response to your earlier comment, (and thus, to our discussion on whether or not responsive readings are allowed) I'd say that the making of oaths is beside the point. The people responded in affirmation to the Word of God spoken over them, cried out to God for aid, and worshiped, confessed, and prayed communally. This is because Covenant worship is Dialogical, and they did not just sing, but also spoke in prayer, which is perfectly acceptable for the New Testament Church. Regarding Acts 2:42, the Greek has a definite article, for "the" prayers, suggesting there were specific prayers they prayed together. These were not inspired and written down for us, so we should not suggest that these prayers were so vital to the church that they couldn't go on without them, but the principle that the prayers were specific and most likely memorized or transmitted orally suggests that we too may pray together out loud, like Lord's Prayer (which is reading Scripture out loud, and certainly permissible - if not commanded - according to the RPW).

Ephesians 5 simply says addresses. The context suggests they sang, but it does not suggest that they only sang, and in fact, probably didn't only sing. I just can't see how Paul would forbid addressing one another with the lyrics of the Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs without music, but rather suggested they sing them since that was how they were normally expressed, but not necessarily exclusively. To argue that since songs are sung that they can only be sung or else we're in sin seems like a real logical leap to me.

Revelation shows that the people were operating under a call and response, all saying the same thing. Are we permitted to all say "Holy Holy Holy is the Lord God Almighty?" Or is that reading Scripture that only the pastor is allowed to do?

Again, I doubt any of this will convince you. The point isn't to exegete that all of these are responsive readings, only showing that call and responses were normal, occurred during worship or to one another, and are thus permissable, and (some would say) expected. They are not explicitly commanded just as infant baptism is not explicitly commanded, nor is the wearing of vestments explicitly commanded, but they are permissible. The RPW has not always been applied to mean, "only that which is explicitly commanded," (in which case, tongues and prophecy might make it in, but Col. 1:15-20 might not) but rather, "that which can be read from good and necessary consequence in the Scriptures, and nothing more nor less."

Lastly, I'd say the OT reading of the Scriptures and distinction from the priest was, by merely having a priest, solely meant to be in the Covenant of Sinai. The OT priest was not a type for the NT elder or bishop, but for Christ, which is a role that he bestows on all the elect. Therefore, we need no mediator between God's Word and us, since God's Word has come to us. The role of elder does not function as priest, but as shepherd, overseer, or apostle (little a) to guard the faith, which is not something the OT priest was meant to do. They were mediators between God and man, and tasked with making sacrifices, not to fulfill the same duties that NT ministers are called to do. At least, that's what I've come to. Therefore, I seriously believe that the Catechism is in error, (just as it was with the Pope) on this point, and re-institutes a sort of pseudo-Roman priests, requiring we have a mediator, and denying us the ability to praise God through reciting his words after him, since only the overseers may read it. That, to me, is foolish, unbiblical, and ought to be restricted to expounded and teaching the Scriptures.

Again, I get it. I just think it's wrong. As an aside, to answer your question about Covenant renewal, it comes from reading Kline and Horton, even though they did not use that language, and the Weslyan tradition, which I value on an experiential but not necessarily theological level. Jeff Meyers helped me piece it together, but I'm very wary of him due to his FV nonsense.

 

[TheOldCourse]

Since it's been brought up, I would actually argue that the dialogical principle opposes responsive readings. The dialogical states that public worship is a dialog between God and the congregations where God speaks to the congregations through His ordained minister and the congregation responds with God's Word according to the forms so commanded. It does not mean that every element is dialogical, as if the congregation should respond to the minister in the preached Word or that the minister should respond to the congregation in singing. Rather it recognizes that individual elements are either ministerial or responsive and together constitute a dialog. The public reading of the Word has always been recognized as a ministerial action, for which reason it is reserved for those ordained.

This, of course, is not as fundamental an argument as the RPW as an application of the 2nd commandment, but there certainly is no basis for circumventing the RPW by way of an appeal to the dialogical principle in this case.

 

[Myson]

Since it's been brought up, I would actually argue that the dialogical principle opposes responsive readings. The dialogical states that public worship is a dialog between God and the congregations where God speaks to the congregations through His ordained minister and the congregation responds with God's Word according to the forms so commanded. It does not mean that every element is dialogical, as if the congregation should respond to the minister in the preached Word or that the minister should respond to the congregation in singing. Rather it recognizes that individual elements are either ministerial or responsive and together constitute a dialog. The public reading of the Word has always been recognized as a ministerial action, for which reason it is reserved for those ordained.

This, of course, is not as fundamental an argument as the RPW as an application of the 2nd commandment, but there certainly is no basis for circumventing the RPW by way of an appeal to the dialogical principle in this case.

We are circumventing nothing. Responsive readings or call and responses are not a graven image, and nothing added to proper worship, since, again, all throughout the OT and (arguably) in the NT, this pattern was made in worship. The DPW and RPW both together permit and accept responsive readings according to good and necessary consequence. To say, " The public reading of the Word has always been recognized as a ministerial action, for which reason it is reserved for those ordained," is historically dubious. We could just as well say, "The absolution of sin has always been recognized as a ministerial action, for which reason it is reserved for those ordained." Both are wrong, and both are for mediation, thus creating a priest/mediated distinction which is nowhere in the NT Scriptures. Only the elders may teach and are to guard the faith. They are not the only ones permitted to just read what the Bible says, because, again, if that were strictly true, then we could not recite the Lord's Prayer or the Ten Commandments, which seems to be a pretty big issue that nobody finds important enough to address.

Quite frankly, I don't see a whole lot of fruit or changing of minds in this conversation, and would rather not beat a dead horse with people who won't be convinced by anything I say, and can only serve to cause bitterness between the body. It's also diverged from the original intent of the poster. Therefore, I'll be exiting this conversation.

 

[TheOldCourse]

We are circumventing nothing. Responsive readings or call and responses are not a graven image, and nothing added to proper worship, since, again, all throughout the OT and (arguably) in the NT, this pattern was made in worship. The DPW and RPW both together permit and accept responsive readings according to good and necessary consequence. To say, " The public reading of the Word has always been recognized as a ministerial action, for which reason it is reserved for those ordained," is historically dubious. We could just as well say, "The absolution of sin has always been recognized as a ministerial action, for which reason it is reserved for those ordained." Both are wrong, and both are for mediation, thus creating a priest/mediated distinction which is nowhere in the NT Scriptures. Only the elders may teach and are to guard the faith. They are not the only ones permitted to just read what the Bible says, because, again, if that were strictly true, then we could not recite the Lord's Prayer or the Ten Commandments, which seems to be a pretty big issue that nobody finds important enough to address.

Quite frankly, I don't see a whole lot of fruit or changing of minds in this conversation, and would rather not beat a dead horse with people who won't be convinced by anything I say, and can only serve to cause bitterness between the body. It's also diverged from the original intent of the poster. Therefore, I'll be exiting this conversation.

My historical statement was, of course, intended to represent reformed history. The DPW explicitly restricts the reading of Scriptures to ordained ministers and, as has been documented earlier in the thread, responsive readings are a late innovation in Reformed worship.

I have been concerned by a number of your statements regarding the RPW in this thread. You may argue that the Scriptures sanction the practice of responsive reading. I disagree, but in such a case we are not contending over fundamental principles and it can be a collegial discussion amongst confessional Presbtyerians . At times, however, you seem to be arguing that the RPW cannot be applied in detail sufficient to determine, for instance, whether we may or may not engage in responsive reading because the NT does not contain sufficient teachings on the nature of NT worship. An example would be when you said "My issue is when there may be those who feel that the regulative principle is clearer than it really is" I hope that this is not your argument and that I've misunderstood you, for the sufficiency of Scripture for regulating (positively) worship is a bedrock principle in confessional, Reformed theology.

I'm not sure what the "big issue" is that no one wants to address regarding the 10 commandments and the Lord's Prayer. Do you take for granted that the congregation may recite them in public worship? For I suspect many of us would not concur with you on that point either, and some that do would do so because they believe that those passages have specific warrant that is not transferable to any passage as one pleases.

I would also note that you seem to not be giving due consideration to the necessary in "good and necessary consequence." It is not enough merely to show that a practice "probably" occurred and was sanctioned in NT worship. The burden of proof is much higher than that and is so to protect the consciences of worshipers such that no one is compelled by liturgy to participate in any worship that cannot be clearly demonstrated to be the law of God for worship.

If you wish to exit the conversation that is certainly your prerogative. Blessings upon you, brother. I pray you be patient with those have weak consciences in worship and for whom practices you believe justified, to them, savor of innovation.

 

[timfost]

Revelation shows that the people were operating under a call and response, all saying the same thing. Are we permitted to all say "Holy Holy Holy is the Lord God Almighty?" Or is that reading Scripture that only the pastor is allowed to do?

Yes, I support singing "Holy, Holy, Holy."

To bring back to the topic, though, the reading of scripture as discussed in WLC 156 is obviously describing individual reading. It's problematic to apply this Q&A to corporate reading, since the Westminster Standards already support it through the corporate singing (which involves reading) of the Psalms.

Since "corporate" does not regard individuals as individuals, it makes no difference whether the individuals that make up the body (corporate) are ordained or not.

 

[richardnz]

Calvin set in train a way of thinking for the Reformed that does not make a sharp distinction between reading the Word and preaching the Word. The minister may read the Word of God at the beginning of his sermon, and/or read portions during his sermon, but the whole activity is called “the Ministry of the Word” and this is reflected in the WLC, Q/A 154-160 . The Ministry of the Word is God speaking to men through His servants. It is not just talking or just reading. This is why only ordained men read the Word as part of the Ministry of the Word. This part of the Catechism is giving expression to an important part of the theology of preaching. It is not an arbitrary church regulation.

The congregation responding with chanting or singing the Word as a response is a different thing, for a different purpose and so should not be equated.

 

[brendanchatt]

Thanks. That helps me respond.

I think you ought to consider what reasons God might have for commanding us to sing psalms while forbidding us to recite them, if indeed he has done so. Although we recognize that our worship ought to follow God's commands rather than our own wisdom, it is also the case that careful study of Scripture usually reveals reasons behind those commands. This gives us confirmation that our take on the matter is correct. So, is there further evidence in Scripture that the nature of singing makes it particularly appropriate for a congregation's response to God while the nature of recitation is not appropriate?

It would take that sort of scriptural evidence to convince a fellow like me, whose gut reaction to responsive readings is that they fit nicely within the Reformed principles of worship whether or not the Puritans used them.

In the examples you cite from Nehemiah 8 and Colossians 4, we can see many reasons why reading to the congregation would be practical in those situations and not necessarily a prescription for how all Scripture should be handled in all cases:
- The material being read was unfamiliar to the congregation and there was but a single copy or just a few, and many in the congregation may have been illiterate anyway. In Nehemiah 8, it sounds like the reading had to be translated too.
- The material being read was lengthy, which makes joint recitation cumbersome.
- The material read was instructive (law and epistles) rather than an expression of praise. Instructive portions of Scripture are more appropriate for a pastor reading to the congregation.

Therefore, I find it unconvincing to forbid the congregation to recite psalms tunelessly when Scripture clearly commands them to recite the exact same content in song. If we are supposed to treat the difference between having a tune and being tuneless as a meaningful difference, I would like to see more scriptural support for the idea that these are inherently different and ought to be treated that way. Besides, the Reformed tradition has long recognized that the Psalms are not just our God-given hymnbook, but also our God-given prayer book. May we not take the prayers God has given to us jointly, and recite them together to him?

No doubt you should follow your conscience in worship. But my feedback is that your argument should be made stronger if you hope to convince skeptics and plan to sit out a portion of worship.

I think you have to be careful to not search the why and come up with a new what, as a why can be for many whats, a reason can be the end of many different means. However, the case I'm making is simply on what is commanded. I'm a simple guy, and that is a little too creative for my idea of worship principles.

The reasons you mention for why there was no recitation all indicate that there was no recitation. However, there was singing, despite those reasons.

 

[brendanchatt]

Are any of the proponents of 'singing only' for Psalms willing to provide a definition of 'singing'?

If there is a clear line, there must be a clear definition.

This seems like a nifty turn of phrase. I propose not reciting by the congregation.

Singing is words vocalized distinctly according to pitch and rhythm.

 

[Edward]

Singing is words vocalized distinctly according to pitch and rhythm.

Thanks. That's what I wanted to hear. Since I vary pitch and rhythm when speaking in public, rather than use a dry, flat, monotone, it's safe for me to participate in responsive readings of the Psalms. I guess I just sing my way through life.