Plenary Assembly 2010 - speech by Alex MacDonald
The following is the text of the speech given by Alex MacDonald at the 2010 Free Church Plenary Assembly on Worship, in support of his Amendment which was subsequently carried by the Assembly.
Contents
Introduction
I want to state at the outset that, throughout my 37 years in the ministry, I have "asserted, maintained and defended" the present position of the Church on worship. I have done so mainly on the grounds that the Psalms are part of the Bible and I could in good conscience ask people to sing them in public worship. In addition, I am persuaded the Psalms allow me boldly to express my troubles to God in a way which no hymn does, and they give me an insight into the experience of Jesus which not even the New Testament does.
I will continue to hold those views and recommend that this Church remain a Psalm-singing church.
However, the question that has confronted me over recent years, and has become ever more pressing, is whether it should be a Psalms-only Church. We must sing the Psalms. Jesus sung the Psalms, the early Church sung the Psalms. But are we prohibited by the Word of God from singing anything else?
A secondary and perhaps more minor question is whether our present ban on the use of musical instruments in worship is Biblical. As is well known to most of you, I play guitar and write songs. I've done so since my teens. And I've never felt any tension between that and our position on worship, nor do I feel any pressure to change our present position because of that. My songs are not praise songs - they more akin to David's lament for Saul and Jonathan (some might unkindly say they are dirges!) They are simply an attempt to express the Lordship of Christ over every area of life, including music.
So I feel no emotional pressure, social pressure, or pressure to be consistent to make me want to change our present position.
So what pressure do I feel? It is, I believe, the pressure of the Word of God itself.
Major cause of dissatisfaction
This is my major cause of dissatisfaction with the Report and Deliverance. We embarked originally on an exercise to examine our present position in light of Scripture (which we are duty bound to do) and to give answers to those who questioned if our present position was supported by Scripture. Various people, including some of the sharpest theological minds in the Church, were asked to produce papers on various aspects of the question. These were produced. But there has been no real engagement with the arguments put forward to determine a Scriptural point of view.
It appears that it was judged that people had different interpretations of Scripture and therefore Kirk Sessions should be asked for their verdict on four options. But here a degree of confusion arose. Were KSs to say what they would prefer in their own congregation, or what they would prefer for the whole Church? Many would prefer the status quo option for their own congregations, but would not object to freedom being granted to others, but there was no opportunity to make this distinction clear.
Main problem
However, my main problem with this whole process is the way that it has dealt with the fact that there are two clearly different conclusions drawn from the Scriptures (these were articulated both in the papers and at the Plenary Conference). An attempt has been made in the Report to deal with this situation by regularising, in terms of church law, our present practice (which is different from the actual legislation).
But no attempt has been made to deal with the problem Scripturally or theologically. When brethren come to different conclusions on a matter of church practice or doctrine, there are two options for the Church. The first option is to declare one of those positions to be the correct Scriptural one with accompanying reasons. This is normally the case where the matter concerns fundamental doctrine. However, there is another Scriptural option. The Early Church found a way to accommodate both Jew and Gentile in the Church, granting each freedom to practice different things with regard to food, but to restrain their freedom when both were present, so as not to offend each other.
Similarly, we have two different views on the correct recipients of Baptism in the Free Church - some baptise only the children of those qualified to be communicant members of the Church, and others baptise the children of baptised members of the Church. It's a pretty important matter, but we seem to allow freedom to both, and do not make it a matter of controversy or division.
The Report also advocates the granting of liberty - the granting of liberty to have different forms of praise in meetings that may be designated evangelistic or fellowship meetings - which of course is the de facto situation.
However, it restricts freedom to sing anything other than inspired materials of praise in "public worship" and forbids instruments. Surely such restriction on liberty should only be approved where there is good Scriptural ground for doing so. And no Scriptural case is argued for such restriction in the Report.
Good Scriptural grounds
By contrast I think that there are good Scriptural grounds for the position taken in the Amendment.
Let me take first the more minor question of instrumental music. Let me quote from Rev Alasdair I Macleod's excellent paper: "Thirdly, music and the psalms go together. The psalms were written to be sung with instruments, and with all kinds of instruments: there are references to wind instruments, string instruments, and to percussion of various sorts. The very word for 'psalm' in the Old Testament signifies a song sung to musical accompaniment."
But, most importantly, there is our principle that what is commanded in the Old Testament and is not rescinded, abrogated or made obsolete in the NT continues in force (the inclusion of children in the covenant, for instance). On that basis, the use of instruments is commanded in the OT and is not rescinded in the NT (by contrast, animal sacrifices, for instance, are clearly fulfilled and made obsolete by Christ's atoning death).
But even if there is disagreement on this issue, it is not an issue that involves contradiction of a Biblical doctrine. Those who use instruments and those who do not can both hold to the doctrine of Scripture and the Confession. The gospel is unaffected.
When we come to consider the question of the actual songs of praise, I think all recognise that the question is a little bit more complicated.
We are all in agreement that we are commanded to sing the Psalms, and I want to make it quite clear that I believe the Free Church should remain a Psalm-singing Church, and that is stated unequivocally in my amendment.
Should liberty be restricted?
But the question is: Should liberty be restricted to Psalms only, or even to Scripture songs? I believe there should be no such restriction on our liberty, for the following reasons.
-
We do not apply the regulative principle and purity of worship consistently across all elements of our worship. Of course the reading of the actual text of Scripture is foundational. But we do not require that our sermons be verbatim sermons from Scripture or our prayers verbatim prayers (in fact we seem to shun that - the Lord's Prayer!) Instead we require that prayers and sermons are consistent with and express Biblical doctrine. So why should we not have the same freedom in the sung praise?
-
Similarly, we are emphatically not restricted to Old Testament doctrine in our preaching or prayers. Why should we be restricted to Old Testament doctrine in our praise? Is there some clear indication in the NT that we are so restricted? I have not found any such restriction. It seems very strange that we preach the name of Jesus, pray in the name of Jesus, administer the sacraments in the name of Jesus, but cannot sing the name of Jesus! I know Christ is in the Psalms, but the full revelation of the Trinity, the Person of Christ, the incarnation, the atonement and the work of the Spirit is not in the Psalms.
-
Here I found Alasdair I Macleod's paper to be very convincing. He shows the progressive nature of revelation from the OT into the NT. I quote: "I conclude that we are to sing songs which reflect the progress of redemption to the end of the canon. The Old Testament presents truth in shadows, and that is inevitably true of the Psalter. But the reality has come in Christ (Colossians 2:17). The Old Testament is full of the language of symbol and type. The New Testament on the other hand is clear about exactly who Jesus is, and what Jesus has done, and where and when and why. Our sermons and prayers too are clear about these things. Why should our songs remain obscure in comparison? In the New Testament we are presented with prayers, sermons and songs which are explicit about Jesus. We are not to sing as if we lived in the Shadowlands." End of quote.
-
There are undoubtedly songs in the NT - especially Revelation 5 - "They sang a new song" - "Worthy is the Lamb who was slain?" But it is argued that this is for heaven, not earth. However, Jesus taught us to pray, "Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven". If it is God's will that Jesus be praised in a new song in heaven, it is also his will that he be praised in a new song on earth.
Now you may not personally be convinced by these arguments. But I hope you can see that people within the Free Church can conscientiously say that they are adhering to the Scriptures and the doctrine of the Confession in holding such views (as the reference to Psalms in the Confession can be understood in the literal Biblical sense of musical praise songs).
Against that background I am arguing that freedom be granted to hold both views. This has New Testament precedent. Again to quote Alasdair I Macleod in commenting on Colossians 2:16-17: "Those who judge the worship of others by what they eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, or a New Moon celebration, or even Sabbath days, are roundly condemned by Paul." There is a recognition of freedom in those things. So I am arguing, not that everyone should accept my view, but that freedom be granted to hold both views.
The Amendment
Para. 3 of the amendment is asking the Assembly to recognise the reality - that there are equally conscientious and Biblically grounded, but differing views, on the subject.
Para. 4 repeals all the legislation regarding worship post-1843. The Trustees already recognise that the 1932 Act and the 1910 Class I Act should go. Of course it is also necessary that Act VI 1910 has to go, as it was a previous version of the 1932 Act. In addition I am proposing that Act VII regarding postures of worship should go - as it is more honoured in the breach than in the observance. I am arguing that 1905 should go as it tries to link purity of worship to a particular date, rather than with the Word of God and the doctrine of the Confession. The amendment also repeals the various resolutions and Acts of the 19th century concerning hymns and instruments. So that gives us a clean sheet to start again on the basis of Scripture and the Confession.
Para. 5 asks the Assembly to declare the fundamental principle that purity of worship requires that sung praise be consistent with the Word of God and with the whole doctrine of the Confession of Faith.
Para. 6 requires that every service of congregational worship shall include the singing of Psalms.
Para. 7 grants freedom to Kirk Sessions in the terms I have mentioned - either to have Psalms only, or to supplement the Psalms with doctrinally sound paraphrases, hymns and spiritual songs. Likewise, to have freedom to permit musical accompaniment or not.
Para. 8 advises this freedom to change be limited in two ways - not introduced against the wishes of the incumbent minister or insisted upon for a visiting minister. This addresses the practical situations where the minister and the KS may not be of the same view, and where a visiting minister holds to a Psalms only/no instruments position, but the congregation does not.
Para. 9 requires the avoidance of uninspired materials of praise and of instrumental music in Church Courts.
Para. 10 - And finally I am asking the Assembly to appoint a Committee to look into the feasibility of producing a recommended list, or a Praise resource/book and report back to next Assembly. A book may not be necessary (in light of PowerPoint projection).
I wish to say three final words.
The first is "vows". I recognise that many are troubled in conscience by this question. My view is simple, but I hope it may be helpful.
We vow to uphold the purity of worship as presently practised, but what is presently practised is decided by the General Assembly from time to time, but always consistent with the Word of God and the Confession.
"My conscience is captive to the Word of God" - not to a particular understanding of a vow. WC XXII, vii - "No man may vow to do anything forbidden in the Word of God , or that would hinder any duty therein commanded" (one of the passages cited concerns Herod's vow that led to his order to behead John the Baptist). There is also the Corban practice condemned by Jesus (Mark 7:9ff) which prevented people honouring father and mother. If we discover that the understanding that has been put upon a vow is not in accordance with Scripture, we ought to seek relief - in this case not by changing the vow, but only the legislation that interprets the vow. Incidentally, there is a lot of talk about changing the vows. I am not advocating that, as the vows are part of our constitution.
The second word is "Constitution". I understand some people are afraid that any change to our present practice of worship will alter our constitution and lay us open to legal action by those who are litigious.
As you know, I have been involved in these legal questions for around 15 years now, so I hope that what I have to say will carry some weight.
I recognise that we in the Free Church of Scotland believe in the Spiritual Independence of the Church, and if we are doing something in obedience to the Great King and Head of the Church, we should not be cowed by the threat of legal action. But of course we might have to take the civil consequences of that, as they did in 1843.
However, there is really no need for us to get too melodramatic about it. Revising the way we are permitted to worship God in the light of Scripture, is not an alteration of our constitution. The constitutionalists of 1900 took their stand on the foundational documents of 1843 and they won the 1904 House of Lords case on adherence to the Establishment Principle and the Confession of Faith. Changes in worship did not enter into it. They did not regard these as constitutional matters, and they were never tested in the civil Court. Indeed the Free Church that won the 1904 case was a Church that permitted hymn-singing and the use of instruments. That they altered the position in 1905 shows that they did not regard this as a constitutional matter. (This is important because the 1904 case is the main case in case law that is relevant.)
The third word is "Unity". I believe with all my heart that the amendment I am proposing will strengthen the unity of the Free Church. It emphasises unity in diversity, which is the image used in the NT of the Church - one body, many members - with many different gifts. We already recognise this unity in diversity - we know that the way we need to serve and worship and evangelise may be different in Dundee or in Dowanvale, in Buccleuch or in Barvas, in Aberdeen or in Argyll. But we are united in our adherence to the Word of God and the doctrine of the Confession.
But there is an added dimension to this question of unity. If you are persuaded that my amendment is Biblically sound (and that is the primary thing), then there is a spin-off for unity. At the moment we separate ourselves from other reformed and evangelical churches and Christians over the question of worship. If that would be no longer the case, then a greater unity could be expressed. Wouldn't that be a great thing? Instead of Scottish Presbyterianism being a byword for fragmentation, we could at least express a closer unity with like-minded churches and ministers.
Conclusion
I finish with an appeal. The Free Church stands at a crossroads. This is perhaps the most far-reaching decision you have ever been asked to make. Will we continue with a restriction that prevents us singing "Worthy is the Lamb", that prevents us singing the very name of Jesus, and prevents us obeying the Psalms themselves when they tell us to praise the Lord with trumpet and harp and lyre, with tambourine, strings, flute and cymbals? If we can give good Biblical grounds for that restriction, good and well, but it appears from the Report that we cannot.
I love this Church, and I do not want to end my ministry in it, while it is being mocked and pilloried for adhering to a restriction for which we are unable to give good Biblical grounds.
I plead with you to vote for the freedom given to us under the New Covenant.
Alex J MacDonald