Debating with Charity – The Free Church of Scotland
For those who are not familiar with the Free Church of Scotland, it is the church, led by Thomas Chalmers, who broke away from the state-run Church of Scotland in 1843. The Free Church is Reformed, evangelical, and presbyterian. There have been splits and reunions in the Free Church since that time, but you can read more about that here.
Since I moved to Scotland in the summer of 2008, I have seen many positive and negative things in the Free Church of Scotland, as one would in any American church denomination. Some of the positives include an unmatched hospitality, the love of Scripture and preaching of the Word, and the singing of the Psalms. I will not make a list of negatives, but I will say that one glaring negative is that the Free Church sings Psalms* exclusively and unaccompanied by any musical instruments. While their motives are pure (see The Regulative Principle), I believe the Free Church is reading a bit into the text of Scriptures to come to their conclusions.
But my point in writing this article is not to start a debate on acceptable forms of worship. My point is to praise the Free Church for their unity in such a matter. Today and tomorrow (17 & 18 November), the Free Church is holding, for the first time since 1843, a plenary assembly of ministers and elders across Scotland. The purpose is to debate and vote on whether to allow “uninspired” hymns of praise and musical accompaniment in Free Church public worship. This is monumental, as the Free Church has sung only unaccompanied psalms since 1900. Many will scoff at the Free Church and say they are just “stuck in the past”, but I think that, in an age where churches give more weight to the personal feelings and experiences of men and women than the Bible, the universal church should take note and be encouraged by the Free Church’s unwillingness to change anything that they deem to be unscriptural.
It’s a fascinating debate, and both sides on the issue have sound, theological, and biblical points for their position. But what I really admire is how charitable the ministers are in their discussion and debate. They all genuinely want what’s best for the Free Church and the Church of Jesus Christ. Ultimately, unity is at the center of this debate. Professor Donald Macleod of the Free Church College has gone on record as saying, “The big fear is discord and fragmentation. Let there be no threats to secede nor to expel.”
However, it’s times like these that the devil is just waiting to get a foothold. Whether you’re in the UK or America or anywhere else around the world, be in prayer the next two days for the Free Church plenary assembly — that the Spirit of God would work mightily amongst these faithful ministers of the Word, that they would vote based on their understanding of Scripture and not of traditions of man, and that, in the end, unity under the banner of Christ would not be compromised.
For more information on this debate, go here and here. John Ross has also written an excellent article on the plenary assembly here. You can find an excellent book on the history of the Free Church here (thanks, Peter!).
* What’s interesting is that exclusive Psalmody is not prescribed in the Free Church directory of worship. It is “inspired materials of praise,” which would allow for hymns from other portions of Scripture as well.
Like this:
20 Responses to “Debating with Charity – The Free Church of Scotland”
Trackbacks / Pingbacks
- - January 1, 2011
“Many will scoff at the Free Church and say they are just “stuck in the past”, but I think that, in an age where churches give more weight to the personal feelings and experiences of men and women than the Bible, the universal church should take note and be encouraged by the Free Church’s unwillingness to change anything that they deem to be unscriptural.”
I think what many see and call personal feelings and experiences, is too often confused with connecting to the Holy Spirit in my opinion. The initial response from people is that they felt God, and experienced Him. Thus the context can be communicated improperly.
I forget which band redid hymns to contemporary styles, but it is awesome.
Hey Dan, thanks for stopping by.
My point was not that personal feelings or experiences are bad, but that they should never be considered the final authority over Scripture.
(There are several bands that you may be thinking of, including Indelible Grace and Page CXVI).
Very interesting! I heard some rumours about this discussing some time ago, but then nothing up until now again with your post. I’m eager to see what will become of the discussion. I have heard (though I may be mistaken) that there are solid groups within the Church of Scotland who would be interested in unity talks with the Free Church if it weren’t for this issue. Maybe this will have bigger implications than just what music is used in worship.
Reading the papers that were produced there were arguments for the positions presented so please don’t make the “so much for Sola Scriptura” argument.
I thought (for the most part) the position papers were very well-written. Indeed, it would be hard to come away not rooting for both sides after reading them!
With that said, the point of this blog article (as stated) is not to enter into the debate but to give thanks for the want of unity within the Free Church.
You can read the live blog here
This is most disturbing. The question was raised, “Why be flexible with materials of praise but not instruments?”
The answer? “This is the historical position.” So much for sola Scriptura!
One thing to keep in mind is that the Free Church’s position is not exclusive psalmody but “inspired materials of praise”. As a result, the Free Church has allowed the singing of paraphrases of other parts of scripture although it has to be said that this is not a wide spread practice in the church. One of the very positive suggestions that has been made to this assembly is that the church should seek to produce and promote new paraphrases of scripture.
This is not a new debate in the Free Church as it actually went had this debate in the 1870′s and 1880′s. For an interesting account of the history of the Free Church check out this book….
http://www.amazon.co.uk/UNITY-DIVERSITY-FINLAYSON-SANDY/dp/1845505506/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1290116501&sr=8-1
Peter,
What a great contribution. Thank you! I stand corrected on the “exclusive psalmody” and will make the correction as needed. I think it would be great to be singing such “hymns” found in other areas of Scripture, namely the “Hymn of Christ” in Philippians 2!
My question would be: How are paraphrases acceptable and hymns are not? Aren’t most hymns paraphrases themselves! Interesting discussion…
>>My question would be: How are paraphrases acceptable and hymns are not? Aren’t most hymns paraphrases themselves!
This is a good question. What the Free Church means by paraphrases are versifications of scripture in the same way that the Free Church’s “Sing Psalms” psalter and “The Scottish Psalter” are versifications of the Book of Psalms.
Contemporary – Hymns – Psalms (It must morph)….
Thanks for sharing this great post!
I had the opportunity to visit a Church of Christ congregation. Their view is that instruments are not to be used in worship. I always thought that was odd, since instrument were used in the OT temple.
Hhere in the US music has taken over the ministry of the church. We sing all kinds of pathetically written songs. Their is a HUGE emphasis placed upon the band. It grieves me to say this, but Sunday morning worship has become a big show.
So, I visited the church that has no instruments. What did I find? It was amazingly refreshing. I did not miss the band at all. There was no show, just a guy up front leading the congregation in song. Of course, I don not know what happened in other people’s hearts as a result of the singing time. I know that I drew close to the Savior, repented of my sins and was more thankful for his mercy in my life as a result of being there.
All I have learned about the Free Church I have learned on this blog. I hope that thirty years form now they have not turned into a replica of the the consumer driven American church.
I have a poll on our blog titled: “What Is The Most Important Element of Corporate for You Personally?” I would be interested in seeing how people in Scottland would answer.
Thanks for stopping by!
I completely agree with you that the American church has placed way too much emphasis on singing (and on the praise band in particular). Large screens panning the band playing a rendition of a song that only hints at orthodox Christianity have become the norm. I think this is why Stuart Townend and Keith Getty songs are so popular — they actually speak of the major doctrines of Christianity! They actually have substance!
The Free Church was refreshing for me when I first came here. I love singing the Psalms, and I really have no problem singing without instruments. But, while having instruments can easily lead to worship leader and praise band idolatry, having no instruments can also lead to passionless, emotionless praise. Not saying emotion is the only indicator of Christ-centered worship, but it certainly plays a part.
In the end, though, the Free Church defense of no instruments or hymns was weak, and I think it’s good that Kirk Sessions are given the option to vote on what is best for their church.
I did catch your poll, but I think my answer would be “all of the above”.
Hi Ethan,
Thanks for checking out the poll. I am doing a little experiment with it and hope to do a post on my findings. I know it is hard to narrow it down to the one element of corporate worship that you can not live wihout. Thankfully, we don’t have to make choices like that because we can have all the elements. However, if enough people vote for the their most important element, it could be very instructive. So, think about it and cast your vote.
The HUGE surprise so far, is that no one has voted for singing as their favorite element.
Jim
It is entirely erroneous to suggest the Free Church of Scotland authorised the use of Paraphrases. These slipped into the old Moderate dominated Church of Scotland ( the parent body of the Free Church) and NEVER were granted any authorisation. All usage of them is therefore the result of mere indiscipline. We are NOT commanded to sing portions of Scripture never given for that purpose.
As for the use of uninspired song, perhaps you can explain to what Christ is alluding in Psalm 22 – cited in Hebrews Chap 2 v 12 – ‘ I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church I will sing praise unto thee.’ ? Is he really saying that as the Song praise leader of His church He will explicate the mind and word of Christ more perfectly through the likes of Isaac Watts than through the Spirit inspired hymnal?!! We offer our praise through Him, through His song!!( Hebrews Chap13 v 15) Where are the Holy Ghost songs? Inarguably in the Psalter. How AWFUL to chafe against those perfect songs of praise and prefer hymns from those who like Watts obviously feel the Psalter is ‘defective’!! That is a profoudly heretical spirit. Bad enough the vast majority of the Church has deformed in this matter but how much more awful that men have vowed to uphold it as a term of office then gone to work, undermining the discipline and ordered unity of the church, labouring to achieve quite the opposite. What guilt before a God of unbending veracity to indulge in such equivocation.
Ewan,
Thanks for stopping by the blog.
One problem, it seems, is that you are angrily beating a straw man. No one ever said the Psalter is ‘defective’. And if you think Watts said that, then I will need a source on that one.
Another problem is the attitude in which you approach this debate. Do you really think your voice will be heard by saying things like, What guilt before a God of unbending veracity to indulge in such equivocation? I’m not even sure what that sentence is supposed to mean or prove, but please try to be charitable in this discussion.
If the Psalter is not defective then whyever the restiveness within the Church to supplement it ( to put it no more strongly) ? If the Psalter is the single, Spirit inspired hymnal that breathes the very Spirit of Christ ( as every true evangelical, Reformed person must wholeheartedly endorse) , I fail to see why we need to be substituting the words of men- many of them infected with heterodoxy or even outright heresy- in its place. Herein is my very grave objection particularly to those who have taken the most solemn, emphatic vows before God and congregation that this is their own conviction but who then turn round and endlessly strive to achieve the opposite.
As for Isaac Watts I think you would be interested in his comments on psalmody to be found in the Preface to his 1707 Hymns and Spiritual Songs and his Proposals for the Improvement of Psalmody. His idea of ‘improvement’ was to augment the words of the psalms with more ‘Christian’ terms, and that it should be our words to God rather than God’s word to us then offered back that we should sing. Given the fact our Song is offered through Christ’s own sung praise in the Assembly as Hebrews 2v12 I find that flies in the face of Scripture and its Regulative Principle. The whole point of the Ordinances is that they are God’s provision, not our own!
Inter alia Watts wrote that being confined to the matter and words of the Psalter that: ‘ Some of ‘em are almost the opposite of the Spirit of the Gospel; many of them foreign to the state of the New Testament and widely different from the present circumstances of Christians…..our consciences are affrighted lest we should speak a Falsehood unto God.’ You can find more of the controversy Watts stirred up in the Presbyterian Church in the United States in Charles Hodge’s Constitutional History of the said denomination ( Pt 2 pp244-306) It’s also worth reading Michael Bushell’s The Songs of Zion for further info on Watts as well as an examination of the whole issue.
As for my alleged uncharitable spirit over the overturning of solemn vows of office, I think it worth bearing in mind that solemn rebuke is a part of Scriptural duty. There are many who have been scandalised by this decision and others left in turmoil and consternation. I think my point on equivocating over ordination vows is clear enough which is why it may be unwelcome to some but it is a matter of public knowledge that Free Church office bearers were claiming a substantial core of their officebearers were taking vows on this very issue they did not mean. To hear Prof. D. MacLeod call the 1932 Act ‘practically demonic’ is astonishing. I remember reading statements in the press on a number of occasions claiming there were doubts and reservations many office bearers over the worship vows. Personally I find that most dishonourable but, more to the point, it is also most unConfessional, because unBiblical, to subscribe with reservation . Sadly the full disruptive repercussions of this rushed legislation I fear have still to be felt.
Ewan,
Thanks for coming back and clarifying a few things for me. It is apparent what your position is on this debate. Unfortunately, you will find that the vast majority of Christians in the world disagree that the Psalter is the only acceptable form of sung praise in public worship. I’m not saying the majority is always right, but on topics like these, which are very much secondary issues in Christian theology, how can you be sure you are right? Where in the New Testament does it say we can only sing Psalms? Is it not our Christian liberty to sing praise to God with words that are consistent with his Scriptures and not necessarily word-for-word? In fact, neither the Sing Psalms nor the Scottish Psalter are word-for-word, so I would think you could agree with me on this point.
Again, thanks for adding your bit into this discussion.
What the vast majority do or do not think on this issue is essentially irrelevant. What counts is what saith the Scriptures! Athanasius stood Contra Mundumum; Luther stood against the might of a corrupt Christendom! The Free Church of Scotland followed and was a product of the calvinistic vision of the Reformation. The great classic Reformed Confessions all articulate the Regulative Principle of worship, beautifully captured by Calvin in the very simple formula : what is not commanded in the worship of God, or found by approved example in Scripture is thereby forbidden. I myself have taken those ordination vows because I am fully convinced the Church of Scotland got it right in practising exclusive Psalmody a capella. We sing the same songs that Christ sings, which is a solemn thought! Considering the utter banality of some uninspired hymns, not to mention material that emanates from outright heretics like Cardinal Newman ( Lead, Kindly Light!!) and the discontented spirit that lies behind the likes of Isaac Watts compositions I cannot believe Christ would offer THAT up to His Father! The modern church is enormously broken down in doctrine, discipline and indeed in power. She is quite at odds with the dominical Reformers such as Knox and Calvin who absolutely stressed the centrality of the Psalter in worship. Now you need to travel far and wide to find pitifully few evangelicals who sing even a tiny proportion of the psalms regularly. The Reformers would be truly scandalised at what passes for worship in many of our purportedly Reformed churches today. The Church of Scotland sought to guard against the innate tendency of man to corrupt and resile from the holiness of the divinely ORDAINED services through her ordination vows. The Free Church of Scotland, in direct lineal descent from the Reformed CofS, also highly prized her Reformed, regulated worship and after the defections in the late Nineteenth Century, sought to restore her worship to its original position by three Acts of Assembly. She even tightened the vows, aware as she was of the widespread defection in her own post 1900 day. I repeat- if you take such vows before Almighty God, you had better mean them nor take them rashly without due care. Better NOT to vow than to vow and fail to pay. That opens one to the charge of double mindedness and unfitness for office.
Again I seriously ask you- what is Christ singing in the midst of the Church, that we might be filled with the Spirit and have the Word of Christ dwelling in us? Along with the Reformers I believe it was the dominical Psalms, breathed out by the Spirit of Christ, imbued with Messianic significance of the first order and for every evangelical, INARGUABLY matchless and incomparable in its spiritual quality.
The Scottish Psalter of 1650 was minutely scrutinised so as to offer as good and close a translation of the original as they could get. There is also a Reformed Presbyterian minor revision of it that if anything makes it even better. To be confined to the words of Scripture is no burden, surely?
Of course it is true that just the FORM of godliness alone is not sufficient- it must be in Spirit and in Truth. A metrical psalm or psalm chanted perfunctorily will bring condemnation whereas a half decent hymn, sung in humble sincerity, the Lord will doubtless graciously receive and overlook the shortcomings. Nevertheless presisting in prefering hymns to the Psalter will make us accountable at the last Day. What the Free Church of Scotland has done on this issue makes me and many other Scotsmen grieve deeply. She is being unfaithful not just to her godly heritage but also to our Scripturally Reformed lineage as well.
Incidentally if you google Isaac Watts and Hymnal Preface you will find the full text of his outlook online. He once wrote to a friend that he
Sorry, I got interrupted there and the thing got sent abruptly!
I had a quote from Isaac Watts that illustrates his obvious disdain for the Psalter. He tells his friend and correspondent, Dr. Colman of Boston,
‘I must say that I imitated david’s Psalms , not as the fittest book that could be made for Christian worship, but as the best which the churches would yet hearken to.’
Such sentiments with regard to Holy Scripture really do involve one in the gravest inconsistency and peril. Is THIS the kind of spirit Free Church people have now to embrace?
You say, to my amazement, that divine worship is ‘very much a secondary matter’. Very evidently the Reformers such as Knox and the Free Church fathers thought entirely differently. The means of grace and holy worship in the ordinances are surely the peak of human activity. The devil is ever active to poison the well- how do you think corrupt papist worship arose? We must be zealous for the purity of God’s house.