Resources

click on link below to jump into section

We hope the following resources prove helpful to you. The church links represent a variety of churches we have close affiliation with as sister churches or like-minded brethren. We have included a comprehensive list of Theological Colleges and Seminaries we would support doctrinally.

We trust you will find the content in the Theological Resources and Online Sermons pages challenging, edifying and encouraging. The articles included were published in Presbyterian Network, the official magazine of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England and Wales.

Usefull links Skip to top

click on link below to jump into section

Churches Seminaries and Theological Colleges Theological Resources and Online Sermons

Articles Skip to top

click on link below to jump into section

Christ Our Righteousness How should I Benefit From Communion? “The Father’s Great Love”
The Christian Family Developing A Trinitarian Mind Belonging to Christ’s Church
What Should We Sing?

Christ Our Righteousness

By Rev. Todd D. Matocha

Published in Presbyterian Network Autumn 2008

God’s holy law requires perfect conformity to its every precept. Failure to live up to the Divine standard of even the least of the commandments results in the breaking of the whole law. It is this law, in all its severity, that will be used to judge every man, woman and child at Christ’s return. What confidence do we have that we will pass judgment and be declared righteous before the Holy One? Can we receive a positive verdict and escape condemnation?

The doctrine of justification by faith alone in Christ alone has been a constant source of security and comfort for Christians in the face of God’s law. It is the foundation upon which assurance of salvation is built. When this doctrine is corrupted or only partly taught all manner of problems arise. Of all the aspects of justification, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness continues to attract the most criticism. According to John Owen, “there is nothing in the whole doctrine of justification which meets with a more fierce and various opposition.” Even within the Reformed tradition, surprisingly, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believing sinners has received its share of critics.

It is vital that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness be manfully defended in our day as it was by Paul in the first century and the Reformers in the sixteenth century. To reject such a precious truth is to strip the gospel of its glory and to withhold from sinners an important means of comfort and confidence as they await the judgment of God.

Imputation and the Incarnation

Is the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness a central component of the apostolic gospel? This is the first question we must answer, and in order to do so it is helpful to understand how the apostles viewed the person and work of Christ. It is not an overstatement to say that a proper understanding of Christ and his work depends on a proper understanding of the law.

According to Paul, Christ’s incarnation was necessary so that he might be “under law”. By taking on flesh Christ entered into the plight of his people. Numerous times in Matthew’s gospel Christ spoke of his mission as the fulfilling of the law. The incarnation was a means to an end. By being born of a woman Christ was enabled to be born under law.

What does it mean that Christ was born “under law”? This terminology is used by Paul in his letter to the Galatians. He uses the term in reference to the Galatians in 4:21. He speaks of them as desiring to be under law. It is this desire that deeply concerned Paul and motivated him to write the epistle. Under law is not referring to the law as a rule and guide for proper living. Paul would hold unwaveringly to such a view of the law. In the context of Galatians “under law” means obligated to obey the demands of the law for the purpose of being judged righteous by God.

This becomes clear in Galatians 5:4 where Paul wrote, “I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised (i.e. under the law) that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.” By becoming “under law”, as symbolized in circumcision, the Galatians were expressing their commitment to the law as a means of gaining righteousness.

Imputation and Representative Righteousness

The same definition of “under law” must be applied to Christ in Galatians 4:4. Christ became man so that he might be under law as a means of obtaining righteousness. Some have argued that Christ was only able to gain righteousness for himself. Christ’s obligation to fulfil the law had a personal effect. It gained him a right standing before the Father and set an example for his people to follow.

Surely this does not correspond with Paul’s teaching. According to Paul Christ was made under the law for the purpose of redeeming “those who were under the law.” Christ came as a representative for those under bondage to law. He came to “redeem”, that is to liberate us from the bondage of law. Christ perfectly fulfilled all the requirements of the law for his people. Note the marvellous change in our relationship to the law as a result of Christ’s incarnation and life. He was “born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law.” We once “were under the law” as a means of gaining righteousness, but now, because of Christ’s redeeming work we are “no longer a slave” to the law but “a son” of God.

How is it that we move from being under law to being free from law as a means of gaining righteousness? According to Paul’s gospel Christ came “under law” to fulfil all the laws requirements for us. Christ has kept the whole law for us. His righteousness is imputed or transferred to us and legally becomes ours. “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness,” wrote Paul, “to everyone who believes.” (Rom. 10:4)

The Galatians were rejecting the liberty they had in Christ. By desiring to be under law again they were rejecting the righteousness that comes through faith in Christ. Paul encourages them to “stand fast in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.” (Gal. 5:1)

Imputation and the Moral Law

Some argue that Paul is concerned with the ceremonial law only. Those who make such an argument want the obligations of the moral law to continue to be binding on all Christians as a means of justification. This argument is flawed and undermines God’s plan of redemption.

There is a plausibility to this argument. In Galatians 4 Paul speaks of the futility of observing days, months, seasons and years. This is a clear reference to the Mosaic ceremonial system. Yet, in another place Paul warns them that if they become circumcised they are obliged to keep the “whole law”. In Romans 2:25 Paul wrote that “circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.” The point is this: if one becomes circumcised he is bound to keep both the ceremonial and moral aspects of the law. That is what is meant by the “whole law.” Failure to keep the whole law results in the curse (Gal. 3:10-11 ).

According to the apostolic gospel, Christ became man so that he might redeem us from the law. The law places two inescapable demands on us. The first is total conformity to its every command. The second is punishment for any breach of its precepts. Christ’s person and work corresponds with both aspects of law. Christ came “under the curse” to free us from the punishment of law. He also came “under law” to free us from the righteous requirements of law for justification.

Imputation and Our Contribution

One question remains: Is Christ’s imputed righteousness all that is required to secure our righteousness before God? At the heart of this question is a burning desire within the heart of every man to contribute something to his acceptance before God. There exists in us all a lust for self-righteousness. Some people teach that faith in Christ is a means of entering into the community of God’s people. In order to maintain that standing we must live righteously. The emphasis is taken from Christ and placed on our individual effort. What contribution does personal righteousness and law keeping make toward our justification?

In Philippians 3:4-6 the apostle Paul speaks of his personal religious achievements as a Pharisee. In comparison with other Jews he boasts of excelling them all. He had pride in his religious pedigree as a Hebrew of Hebrews. He had pride in his religious performance as blameless concerning the righteousness of the law. In comparison with other Jews, Paul was the total package. He had it all. It is important to note in this context that Paul is dealing with positive contributions to righteousness. He is not dealing with the punishment of the law.

Although Paul had it all when compared to his contemporaries he knew that he was lacking when it came to God’s holy law. It is one thing to be righteous in comparison to another human being; quite another thing to be righteous in comparison to God’s law. Paul’s great desire was to be righteous before God. Since he knew how unworthy his own contributions were he rejected them outright. Those things he once boasted in he now counts as “loss for Christ.” All his personal achievements as a Pharisee he deems worthless.

What about Paul’s achievements as an apostle? What about his growth in sanctification? Do these things have a positive contribution to make toward his righteousness? He continues by writing that he “also counts all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus.” “All” is loss.

Every conceivable contribution toward righteousness is excluded. According to Paul there is no place for the idea that Christ has given Christians the power to work out their own righteousness. According to Paul there is no place for the idea that we are justified on the Day of Judgment by our covenant faithfulness. According to Paul there is no place for the idea that the good works of other saints can be transferred to us.

Paul is consumed by one goal. He wants more than anything to “gain Christ and be found in Him.” The imputation of Christ’s righteousness is what Paul rests in for justification. He could not make it plainer to his readers. He flees from himself and all his attempts at righteousness. He flees to Christ and seeks to be identified with Christ at the judgment. “Not having my own righteousness from the law,” says Paul, “but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith.”

We learn from Paul that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer is exclusive. Nothing can be added to it. We contribute absolutely nothing. What a glorious thought!

Conclusion

The doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness speaks comfort to the humbled sinner. The high demands of the law are fully met in Christ. The accusations of the Evil One are silenced in Christ. The declaration by the Father of - ‘Justified!’ - is ours in Christ.

“If God is for us who can be against us?” “Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns?”

It is our duty to embrace the imputation of Christ’s righteousness as a necessary article of faith. We are to apply this rich teaching to ourselves. Paul reminded that Galatians that “as many as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” What have we to fear in the judgment? When God looks upon us he will see us clothed in the glorious garments of Christ’s righteousness and he will be well pleased. It is no wonder that the apostles gave the message of salvation in Christ the title gospel. Truly it is good news.

John Owen, The Works of John Owen, vol. v (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust), 252. Here Paul is referring to the pronouncement of the curse in Deuteronomy 27:11-26. It is important to note that the sins mentioned are moral rather than ceremonial. The curse falls upon the idolater, the rebellious child, the dishonest, the sexually immoral, etc. The same is true for Paul’s argument in Romans 1-3. The sins he condemns are moral rather than ceremonial (idolatry, sexual immorality, theft, blasphemy (Rom. 2:21-24)).

Return to top Skip to top

How should I Benefit From Communion?

By Rev Ian Hamilton

Cambridge Presbyterian Church

Published in the Presbyterian Network Spring 2008

At a time when Reformed churches are taking the celebration and frequency of the Lord’s Supper more seriously, the question ‘How Should I Benefit From Communion?’ is timely.

Many helpful books and articles have been written on how the believer can and should benefit from partaking the Lord’s Supper. At the heart of most of them the believer is encouraged to meditate on Christ, particularly on his self-giving, love constraining sacrifice. We can be sure that we will derive no benefit from the Supper if the Father’s love, the Son’s sacrifice and the Spirit’s fellowship are not the focus of our feeding. The Sursum Corda (an element in early Christian liturgy meaning “lift up your hearts”) reminds believers to look up to Christ the exalted King and not into themselves.

I would like first, then, to change the title I was given. The change appears minimal, but it is actually profound. I would like to substitute the plural pronoun ‘we’ for the singular ‘I’. We too easily, and unbiblically, think of the Christian life in personal, singular categories. We read the Bible as if it were addressed particularly to us as individuals, when it was written to God’s people in their corporate, covenantal identity. I do not mean for one moment that the Christian faith is not personal, or that there is no such thing as individual faith. Rather, my point is this: God’s people are one. Salvation brings us into the one Body of Christ, his church (1 Cor. 12: 13). The default mode for the Christian life, then, is not ‘me and Jesus’ but ‘us and Jesus’. The Lord’s Prayer puts it memorably: ‘When you pray, say: “Our Father…”’. With this in mind let us think a little about our question.

John Calvin begins his exposition of the Sacraments (Institutes 4.15.1) with these words: ‘We have in the sacraments another aid to our faith related to the preaching of the gospel.’ The key words here are ‘aid to our faith’. In giving us sacraments, Calvin goes on to say, ‘God provides first for our ignorance and dullness, then for our weakness.’ The sacraments are needed, not because God’s word is lacking in any way, but because we need all the help God can give us to instruct us and establish us in the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ. In the sacraments then, God, ‘according to his infinite kindness, so tempers himself to our capacity that, since we are creatures who always creep on the ground, cleave to the flesh, and, do not think about or even conceive of anything spiritual, he condescends to lead us to himself even by these earthly elements, and to set before us in the flesh a mirror of spiritual blessings’ (Institutes 4.15.3).

This is our starting point. We have a kind and merciful God who uses earthly elements ‘to lead us to himself’. All the benefits we are to receive from partaking of the Supper will be experienced in God leading us to himself. He wants his children to know him better. The Lord’s Supper is a gracious gift from a gracious Saviour to help us better grasp, and experience, his love for us.

The first thing that needs to be affirmed, then, is that believers are expected to benefit from participation in the Lord’s Supper. The Lord has not left us a spectacle for us to admire, but a Supper for us to eat and be spiritually nourished by. Just as we give our children food to nourish them, so the Lord has given his children food to nourish them. Along with the preaching, hearing, reading of God’s word, prayer and the fellowship of the saints, the sacraments are ‘means of grace’. They are not bare or empty symbols, but vehicles for the Holy Spirit to bring us into sweeter communion with our risen Saviour (1 Cor. 10: 16). We benefit from the Supper as we recognize and receive Christ by faith in the emblems of bread and wine.

Second, any benefit that we are to obtain from feeding on Christ at the Supper is dependent, in large measure, on grasping that we are feeding on Christ in communion with other believers. The Lord’s Supper is not a transaction first between the individual Christian and Christ, but between the church fellowship as a whole and Christ. This is highlighted graphically and dramatically in 1 Corinthians 10: 17. The one common loaf is an expression of, indeed a symbol of, the one people of God. In other words, we gather at the Supper as ‘family’. We are there together to meet with and fellowship with our risen Lord. I am not saying at all that there is no individual benefit for believers at the Supper. Rather, I am saying that we come to the Lord’s Table not as a disparate group of like-minded and like-hearted believers, but as God’s one family. This means that we must seek to cultivate a sense of the theological imperative at the heart of the Supper, namely that it heralds, highlights and proclaims the oneness of Christ’s church, the unity of the twice-born. Just as a family is greater than its constituent parts, so the church is greater than an aggregate of its members. One of Paul’s solemn strictures on the Corinthian church was that people were eating and drinking ‘without waiting for anybody else’ (1 Cor. 11: 21). There was an arrogant individualism that was bringing great dishonour to the celebrating of the Lord’s Supper.

Two practical points may help us derive benefit from the Supper: Think familially. As you eat and drink say to yourself, ‘These are my brothers and sisters. We are all one in Christ. We belong to one another. We have all been redeemed by the same blood and are indwelt by the same Spirit. We are all the children of the same Father. We are blessed beyond all words.’ Also, it will help if we placard our unity by eating and drinking together, not individually the moment we receive the bread and wine.

All of this is a great mystery to us. Calvin even urges us ‘not to confine (our) mental interest within…too narrow limits, but to strive to rise much higher’ than he is able to lead us. In a striking statement, he acknowledges, ‘although my mind can think beyond what my tongue can utter, yet even my mind is conquered and overwhelmed by the greatness of the thing. Therefore, nothing remains but to break forth in wonder at this mystery, which plainly neither the mind is able to conceive nor the tongue to confess’ (Institutes 4.17.7). The old Scot’s saying puts it well, ‘It is better felt than telt.’ Not everything in the life of faith can be reduced to comprehensive statements. There are profundities that take us out of our depth – and the Holy Supper of our Saviour is one of those profundities.

Pray then that the Lord, by the power of his Spirit, will feed you with himself. Pray that his won graces will be more powerfully impressed on your soul. Pray that the presence of the One who walks among the lampstands (see Rev. 1: 13, 20; 2: 1) will be felt and experienced as in faith we eat his flesh and drink his blood (John 6: 53,54).

Return to top Skip to top

“The Father’s Great Love” - 1 John 4:9-10

By Rev. Todd D. Matocha

Published in Presbyterian Network Spring 2008

Our responsibility to God can be summed up in one word, love. We are to love the Lord our God with all our heart, with all our soul, and with all our might. This is how we fulfil His law. It seems simple, doesn’t it? Yet, I would guess that for most of us putting it into practice is extremely difficult.

What motivates us to love and obey God? What warms our affections for the Almighty One? Is it the dread of His severe chastening? Is it the thundering of His holy law? The Apostle John presents us with the answer. “We love God,” he says, “because He first loved us.” The much needed motivation is to be found in a growing knowledge and willing acceptance of God’s great love for us. Our duty is a response to His grace. Robert Murray M’Cheyne understood this well when he wrote:

“What parent does not know that the true way to gain the obedience of a child is to gain the affection of the child? And do you think God, who gave us wisdom, does not Himself know? Do you think He would set about obtaining the obedience of His children, without first of all gaining their affection? To gain our affections, which by nature rove over the face of the world, and centre anywhere but in Him, God has sent His Son into the world to bear the curse of our sins.”

The purpose of the Apostle John in 1 John 4:9-10 is to deepen our understanding of the Father’s love. We see love magnified by God’s grand design, by our rebellious attitude and by God’s suffering Son. To meditate on such a glorious theme should stir our affections and increase our desire to love and obey God.

Love Magnified by God’s Grand Design

God demonstrates His love for us in that He sent His only begotten Son into the world (1 John 4:9). This is a profound revelation. God’s love is an active love. He loves us in word and in deed. The sending of His Son into the world is proof of His love. Yet, the Father’s act of sending the Son is not the full manifestation of His love. Jesus came as a means of achieving God’s grand design for His beloved children. God sent His Son, says John, “that we might live through Him.” Jesus came to give life, and it is in this renewal of life that God demonstrates His love.

On the sixth day of creation God formed man of the dust of the ground and imparted life to him (Gen. 2:7). Adam was a living being in the fullest sense of that expression. He was alive physically, but also spiritually. He even had opportunity to enter into a state of eternal life. God issued a command to His newly formed creature: “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Obedience to this command would have maintained Adam in a state of life, disobedience would introduce death.

Shortly after this command was given Adam unknowingly encountered his arch enemy, Satan. Satan came in the form of a serpent, with the evil intention of deceiving Adam. Satan had an agenda; he had a grand design of his own. He wanted to destroy the principle of life in God’s image bearer. He challenged the Creator’s command and tempted Adam to rebel. We know the tragic outcome, Adam disobeyed and death entered the world.

Death has reigned over man ever since. The sending of the Son is God’s response to this ancient problem. Motivated by love, God refuses to abandon His children to eternal death. The restoration of life is a sovereign, gracious gift. We did nothing to make it happen. How could we, we were dead in our sins and trespasses? We contributed to our new birth as much as Lazarus contributed to his resurrection from the dead. In Christ, God disrupts the plans of Satan (1 John 3:8) and secures success for His grand design.

What is meant by the restoration of life? To give life is to restore to man what was lost in the fall. God renews His peaceful relationship and sweet fellowship with His children. He renews our minds and restores knowledge. He removes Satan’s lie and replaces it with Divine truth. He replaces the principle of sin with the seed of righteousness, enabling us to know and keep His law. John says, “Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.” Renewed life also means renewed love. If we have life we also have a love for God and for His children. The great themes of John’s first epistle are the evidences of new life in Christ (1 John 1:3, 2:20, 27; 3:9-10).

What love the Father has for us! Consider His grand design and marvel in His mercy and love. We were dead, but now we have eternal life in Christ.

Love Magnified By Our Rebellious Attitude

God’s love is magnified by His restoration of life. It is magnified even more when we consider our attitude to God when He lavished His love upon us. Surely He saw something in us worthy of such love, some hint of sorrow for sin and desire for God? Not according to John. He expressed His love while we had no interest whatsoever in Him. “In this is love, NOT THAT WE LOVED GOD...”

Since the entrance of sin into the world man has lived in rebellion against God. We constantly assert our independence and autonomy. We refuse to submit to His wisdom and rule. His ways truly are not our ways. Accompanying this rebellion is a fervent hatred. We despise God, His laws and His people. Cain’s murder of Abel was an expression of this hatred (1 John 3:12). To murder Abel was high handed treason against Abel’s Master. We, like Cain, shake our fist in anger at God with every thought, word and action.

Any earthly King would utterly destroy citizens showing such a vehement hatred to the crown. God as a just judge hates us in our sin. In such a state we are called children of wrath. This is why Christ is sent to be a propitiatory sacrifice. Yet, Christ was sent while we were in rebellion with His Father. Christ was sent by the Father to bring peace.

How can we even begin to grasp this? This is an astonishing display of love. While our hearts despised God He sent His Son as a gift. This defies all conventional wisdom. Jesus once said, “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friend.” This no doubt is true. It is a sign of great love for one to give his life for a FRIEND. Yet, God has done something greater. He sent His only begotten Son to lay down His life for an ENEMY[!.] Hear the Apostle Paul, “For when we were without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

If this knowledge does not soften the hardness of our hearts I do not know what can. What a marvellous demonstration of love. For God to love the ungodly, for the Holy One to favour the unholy, is truly amazing.

Love Magnified By God’s Suffering Son

God is represented in this passage as the giver of a gift. John says “God sent His only begotten Son into the world.” Oftentimes the quality and costliness of the gift represents the greatness of the giver’s love. A few months ago I was watching my oldest son, Stephen, play with his younger brother, Evan. I was encouraged to see Stephen sharing many of his toys with Evan. However, there was a limit to Stephen’s generosity. Under no circumstance would Stephen share his most cherished toys. To use a positive example, it was a singular testimony of Mary’s love for Christ that she used a very expensive oil to anoint His feet (John 12:3).

God gave His only begotten Son, His special treasure, to sinners. There could be no costlier gift. There are many sons of God, but only one with the special title ONLY BEGOTTEN. Jesus was greatly beloved and cherished by His Father. He was His Father’s delight. Yet, the Father has such a great love for us that He sent His dearly loved Son to be born of a woman, born under the law.

One would expect Christ to enter the world with great pomp and show. Surely He would come as a mighty ruler of men, abounding in riches? No, He came as the Lamb of God. He was sent to be the propitiation for our sins. John uses the word propitiation early in chapter two and again here. In both texts Christ’s work of propitiation is directly connected with “our sins.” A propitiation is a sacrifice to remove God’s judicial wrath. Christ was sent by the Father to be a substitutionary sacrifice. He came to bear the full weight of Divine justice and Holy anger for “our sins.”

Christ was sent as a suffering servant. It is no wonder He evidenced such anxiety as the day of His crucifixion approached. In Gethsemane He sweat drops of blood as He pleaded with His Father to remove the cup of His wrath. Yet, He knew that it was the will of the Father. On the cross He cried out, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” The Father forsook His Son for you and me. Through His death God’s grand design of renewed life was made possible.

As a result of Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice God’s anger is removed from us. We are now at peace with God. All our sins have been cleansed. We are right with God. These blessings are ours because God sent His only begotten Son as an expression of His love.

What are we to do with such a rich teaching? We are to behold the Father’s love, to make it our chief study, to meditate upon it, and to rest peacefully in it. If you are downcast, perplexed with doubts and fears, then refresh yourself in the Father’s love. Let it motivate you to renewed zeal in the service of the Lord.

How deep the Father’s love for us,
How vast beyond all measure,
That He would give His only Son
To make a wretch His treasure.
How great the pain of searing loss;
The Father turns His face away,
As wounds which mar the chosen One
Bring many sons to glory.

Stuart Townend, b. 1963

Return to top Skip to top

The Christian Family

By Rev. Todd Matocha

Published in the Presbyterian Network, 20th Anniversary Edition

Over the past forty or fifty years the Biblical view of the family has come under severe attack. What many of our parents and grandparents considered normative is looked upon today as a relic of the Christian past. Unfortunately even the Christian community has succumbed to these attacks. The fallout from such a radical change of view has proved devastating. In a recent report by the Conservative Social Justice Policy Group entitled, Breakdown Britain, chairman Iain Duncan Smith said, “Almost every social problem that we face comes down to family stability.” This observation is consistent with God’s word. The Bible teaches that the family is the basis of church and society. The decline of the family, therefore, inevitably will lead to the fall of the church and society as a whole. To remedy the situation, the Christian community must turn to the Bible and allow God, not modern culture, to regulate family life.

Why does God graciously and mercifully redeem a people to Himself? Primarily, to separate His children from the children of the world, and to instruct them in righteousness (see Titus 2:11-12). This is clearly seen in the Old Testament story of the exodus. God called Israel out of Egypt to serve and worship Him. He called them to be His special treasure, a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. To equip them for such a high calling He gave His moral law, which was to set the standard for godly living. In the fifth commandment the people of God received instructions regulating family life. This law continues to regulate Christian families today, as is seen in its use by Paul in his New Testament letters to the Ephesians and Colossians.

There is much confusion in modern times about the make-up of the family. The fifth commandment begins with these words, “Honour your father and your mother…” Here the covenant family is defined. It consists of a father, a mother and children. This may seem basic but in today’s culture this definition is important. Modern man has opened the door for individuals to define the family in whatever way they like. Yet, according to the Creator, the family unit is one man and one woman, united by marriage, together with their offspring. Those who love God and submit to His authority will accept this order and firmly defend it against all attacks.

God’s Purpose for the Family

What is the purpose of the covenant family? Covenant families are to promote the glory of God by encouraging piety and devotion in the home, in the church, and in society. Godly homes provide an environment wherein love to God and love to neighbor is developed and nurtured. In this sense the covenant home is rightly called a seminary.

If the family is to fulfill this purpose each member must understand and fulfill his or her God ordained role.

Duties of Children

It is noteworthy that the first commandment regulating man’s relationship with fellow man is given to children. This shows the significant place God has given to children in the covenant community. The primary duty of the child is to honour his or her parents. To honour means to give weight to or respect to those in positions of God ordained authority. According to the Westminster Larger Catechism the honour children owe their parents is “all due reverence in heart, word, and behaviour; prayer and thanksgiving for them; imitation of their virtues and graces; willing obedience to their lawful commands and counsels; due submission to their corrections…” Such an attitude of respect and submission is necessary for the covenant home to function properly.

Duties of Parents

The commandment also addresses fathers and mothers. The stability of the covenant home is dependent on the union of husband and wife. Therefore, the first duty of parents is to strengthen and enrich their own marriage. Children are called to honor their father and mother. For this to happen the marriage bond must remain intact. Here indirectly, and in the seventh commandment, the covenant community is called to protect the sanctity of marriage. Divorce, although permissible in cases of unfaithfulness and willful desertion, is to be avoided. “Holy marriage,” observed John Murray, “is an indispensable means of conserving and promoting godly families and the nurture of faith; it is the institution for the propagation of godly life. When the proprieties which govern such marriages are desecrated, then the gates are flung open to the most violent of vices.”(Principles of Conduct, p. 249) The parental unit is essential to the covenant family and therefore, must be protected.

Parents are in a position of authority and responsibility. They stand in the place of God before their children. What a sobering thought! For this reason they are to be honoured. Their objective, according to the prophet Malachi, is to rear godly offspring. This is achieved by instructing and training covenant children in the ways of God. Interestingly, just after Moses gave the Ten Commandments in the book of Deuteronomy he made the following statement to covenant parents, “And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart; you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.” (Deut. 6:6-7) This passage shows the connection between the fifth commandment and the responsibility of parents to nurture their children according to God’s law. Further proof of this is found in Paul’s words to the Ephesians. (see Eph. 6:1-4)

The covenant family is not to be confused with a theological college lecture room. Parents should not be content with filling their child’s mind with Biblical truth. No, discipleship encompasses much more than the communication of facts. Proper instruction is practical instruction. Godly parents desire the knowledge of God to produce heartfelt worship. Joy fills the heart of a godly father and mother when, like King David, a child responds, “Oh, how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day.” (Ps. 119:97) The objective of covenant nurture is to train a child to apply Christian thinking to all of life.

When does this covenant nurture begin? Should parents wait until a child reaches the age of accountability, whatever age that may be? Should parents restrain themselves from rearing their children in the training and admonition of the Lord until the child makes a clear and credible profession of faith? By all means, no! Christian parents are morally bound to train up their children from the very moment the child enters the world. Paul exhorted Timothy to “continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim. 3:14-15) The Greek word translated ‘from childhood’ (apo brephous) actually means from infancy. Timothy was instructed from the moment he entered the world. Why? Because children are considered part of the covenant community.

Duties of the Church

In the light of this teaching on the covenant home, what can the church do to strengthen families?

First, Christian parents should be encouraged to build godly families. Parents of the world speak of children as a hindrance and a burden. Yet, Christians should view their children as blessings from God. Sure, parenting is difficult work, but it is also rewarding work. Christian fathers and mothers, you have the great privilege of introducing your children to a merciful and gracious God. Take this responsibility seriously and enjoy your children.

Second, elders should make it a priority to instruct the congregation about godly family life. The health and well being of the church depends on it. Many Christian families are in desperate need of instruction about the covenant home. The once common practice of family worship is greatly neglected. Elders, encourage your families to make their homes an environment wherein godliness is desired and promoted. When the Christian community takes seriously the role of the covenant family God is glorified and church and society are strengthened.

Return to top Skip to top

Developing A Trinitarian Mind

By Rev. Dr. Robert Letham

Published in Ordained Servant, a publication of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, USA

In one of the chapters of my book, The Holy Trinity,[1] I describe at some length how the worship of the Western Church has been truncated by the comparative neglect of the doctrine of the Trinity. For most Christians—and I include members of Reformed churches—the Trinity is merely an abstruse mathematical puzzle, remote from experience. Despite our reservations about many aspects of the Eastern Church, Orthodoxy in contrast has maintained a pronounced Trinitarian focus to its worship through its liturgy, which has roots in the fourth century. This is no incidental matter; worship is right at the heart of what it means to be Christian and what the church should be doing. The sole object of worship is God. The God whom we worship has revealed himself to be the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, three distinct persons in indivisible union. I have argued elsewhere that this is his New Covenant name (Matt. 28:19-20). It follows that our worship in the Christian church is to be distinctively Trinitarian. Yet if we were to thumb through any hymnbook, we would be hard pressed to find many hymns that contain clearly Trinitarian expressions, while many of our favorites could equally be sung by Unitarians—think of "Immortal, invisible" or "My God, how wonderful thou art." As for the average person in the pew, why not try a random survey next Sunday—ask a haphazard selection of half a dozen people what the Trinity means to them on a daily basis, and see what results you get? Then compare your findings with the words of Gregory of Nazianzus, who wrote of "my Trinity" and "when I say God, I mean the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

If this problem is as real as is generally recognized but yet as important as I have presented it, how do we go about seeking to redress it? There are no easy, slick solutions. This is not a matter to be resolved by a quick twelve-step program or in an adult Sunday school class. It will take much thought, careful teaching, and a concerted plan to put right what has for so long been askew—since I argue this has been a problem for centuries, with notable exceptions, at least since Aquinas. What is needed is to instill in our congregations a mindset directed, as of second nature, to think of God as triune. From there will come ripple effects on the way we think of the world around us, and of the people with whom we mix. What we need is to develop a thoroughly Christian view of God, the world, the church, ourselves, and others.

The first, and indispensable, steppingstone is ourselves as leaders of the church, and in particular those who are ministers of the Word. It is of the utmost importance that we saturate our minds with reflection and meditation on God, for we stand in the pulpit as no less than his representatives in speaking his Word. It means our consistently contemplating God in Trinitarian terms. John Stott has been accustomed to begin each day with a threefold greeting to the Holy Trinity; how far are your own prayers and thoughts of God shaped in this way? It takes disciplined thought and prayer, consistently day in, day out deliberately to think of God biblically, theologically, and ecclesially as triune. As leaders of the church you are called by God to do this. You cannot expect the congregation committed to your charge to follow suit unless you are leading the way. It means your being shaped and driven not by some man-made purpose or by the concoctions of management gurus but by the truth of the triune God himself drawing and molding you.

There are definite and particular ways in which your congregation can be taught to develop its grasp of the Trinity. The first such avenue is in your preaching and teaching. How often have you preached on the Trinity? The Church of England, in following the church year, has Trinity Sunday the week after Pentecost; this can provide an opportunity to draw attention to the Trinity at least once a year, as Advent is a reminder of the incarnation, Good Friday of the atonement, Easter Sunday of the resurrection, and Pentecost of the coming of the Holy Spirit. However, this is a bare minimum—just about starvation rations. Perhaps a short series may help, providing it is not something that is forgotten as you move on to other things. Much better is, on top of that, to refer consistently to God not always as "God" or "the Lord" but as "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," always bearing in mind that he is three in indivisible union.

The same principles apply to praying as to preaching. You may not be able to preach on the Trinity every week—it would be unbalanced if you did!—but you can pray every week. When you pray, pray "Our Father in heaven." What an amazing way to address God! It means that we, through Christ the Son, have been granted by adoption the same relationship to the Father that he has by nature! It immediately throws us into the context of prayer to the Father by the Holy Spirit (see Rom. 8:26-27) through the mediation of Christ the Son. We should bring this to expression regularly in our public prayers. We should show the congregation that this is the way we pray. We should show them that in prayer we are saturated in a Trinitarian atmosphere, given to share in communion with the triune God. We should impress upon our people that in the Holy Spirit, God the Trinity has come to dwell with us, indwelling—better, saturating—us and making his permanent residence with us (John 14:23).

This leads us to the nature of church worship and the structure of the service. In all the works of God he takes the initiative. He created in accordance with his free and sovereign will; no one was there to advise him. In grace, the Son became incarnate "for us and our salvation"; this too was the result purely of the grace of God, undeserved, unprompted. In our own experience, God himself brought us to new life by his Spirit; our faith and repentance is a response to his prior grace. We love him because he first loved us. Is it any different in worship? Is that primarily something we do? No, first of all God goes before us. He has called his church to himself. He is there to greet us. As we gather, it is to meet with him, but first he has drawn us. Moreover, our acts of worship are accepted because they are offered in union with Christ. He, in our nature, is at the Father's right hand. From this it follows that the elements of worship are a dialog in which the holy Trinity takes the initiative. Through his ordained servant, the Father through his Son by the Holy Spirit calls us to worship. He speaks to us in his Word read and proclaimed. He receives our praise and prayers. He communes with us in the sacrament. In the benediction he dismisses us with his blessing—which is far from a pious wish or prayer that such things might be, if it is the will of God. Rather, the benediction is a declaration of a real state of affairs, undergirded by his covenant promises. This is a dynamic view of worship, one that follows squarely in the Reformed tradition and is rooted in biblical teaching. Our congregations need to hear it, they need to understand it, they need to imbibe it and be permeated by it. At my previous church, our regular bulletin expressed this. Periodically we would draw everyone's attention to it and sometimes produce a written two-page memo explaining it, so as to keep it fresh in mind.

The call to worship is a good place to begin. I often use a congregational response to the call. It is based on Ephesians 2:18, where Paul says "For through him [Christ] we ... have access by one Spirit to the Father." These words impress on the mind the point that our worship can only be Trinitarian. So too does the famous passage in John 4:21-24, where Jesus says that those who worship the Father must worship in spirit and in truth. Every occurrence of πνεῦμα (pneuma, spirit) in John, except two, is a reference to the Holy Spirit, while the truth is consistently a reference to Jesus (John 1:9, 14, 17, 14:6). Hence, acceptable worship of the Father is in the Holy Spirit and in Christ, the Son. It is important that this is stamped upon the service right from the start. Christian worship is worship of the holy Trinity, nothing less.

The church where we now attend has, immediately after the call to worship, a short Trinitarian doxology which the congregation sings in response; it is varied from time-to-time so as not to get monotonous. Then the first hymn is very often, if not invariably, Trinitarian, a practice I have come to use myself as often as I can. Calvin thought this was the most appropriate way to begin too, so we are in good company. However, as I remarked, there is a considerable lack of explicitly Trinitarian hymns. Many from the ancient and medieval church have this focus. Our former music director in Delaware, Peter Merio—a graduate of the Sibelius Academy in Helsinki who also taught there—brilliantly arranged one gem from the fifth century that we dug up from the English Hymnal, edited by Ralph Vaughan Williams in 1933; but there are very few in Reformed circles with his capabilities. Some recent favorites try hard but fall into heresy—an ever-present danger in this area. The hymn "There is a redeemer," which I have heard sung in the OPC, is generally excellent but has a refrain, "Thank you, O our Father for giving us your Son, and leaving your Spirit till the work on earth is done." The Father does not leave the Holy Spirit; the Eastern and Western Churches divided over arguably less.

We have looked at preaching and teaching, prayers, the call to worship and benediction, hymns; there remain the sacraments. Baptism is into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Dare anyone say the Trinity is a recondite matter for advanced philosophers when every single member of the Christian church has the name of the Trinity pronounced over him or her? According to Matthew 28:18-20 it is the foundation for Christian discipleship. Similarly, in the Lord's Supper we receive and feed on Christ really and spiritually; this is by the Holy Spirit who makes the sacraments efficacious. Moreover, since the works of the Trinity are indivisible, in feeding on Christ by the gracious enabling of the Holy Spirit, we are given access to the Father in the unity of the undivided Trinity.

In short, every aspect of Christian worship is an engagement with the Trinity or, rather, a way in which the Trinity engages us. As leaders of Christ's church, we have the indescribable privilege of leading his people into the realization of something of what this entails. It is a task far beyond our capacities; we are utterly ill-equipped to deal in such transcendent matters. The Bible records that, when given a revelation of the veiled glory of God, human beings are brought to their knees, overcome, broken (e.g., Isa. 6:1-5, Ezek. 1:1-3:15, Acts 9:1-9, Rev. 1:9-18). Yet in his grace our God has admitted us to fellowship, communion, and union with him as his adopted children, so that we are being transformed from one degree of glory to another by the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:18). The Father and the Son have made their permanent residence with us in the person of the Holy Spirit (John 14:15-23). As ministers of the Word, we have been co-opted as instruments by which the flock of Christ are changed into his image by the Spirit so that Christ will be the first-born among many brothers. Doesn't that thrill you? Doesn't it make you want to know him better? Doesn't it impel you to develop a mind shaped by the knowledge of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and to lead your congregation on to that goal too?

[1] Cf. Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2004). See Lane Tipton's review in this issue.

Robert Letham, a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, teaches Systematic and Historical Theology at Wales Evangelical School of Theology. Ordained Servant, August-September 2008.

Return to top Skip to top

Belonging to Christ’s Church

By Rev Dr Peter J Naylor

Immanuel Presbyterian Church, Cardiff

Published in Presbyterian Network Spring 2008

How important is the church to you? ‘Christ loved the church and gave himself for her’ (Eph. 5: 25). The Bible speaks constantly and profoundly of the Lord’s love for his covenant people. ‘For the LORD’s portion is his people, Jacob is the place of his inheritance. He found him in a desert land, and in an empty howling wilderness; he encircled him, he instructed him, he kept him as the apple of his eye. As an eagle stirs up its nest, hovers over its young, spreads out its wings, takes them up, carries them on its wings, the LORD alone leads him’ (Deut. 32: 9-12). ‘In all their affliction, he had affliction, and the Angel of his Presence saved them; in his love and in his compassion he redeemed them, and he lifted them up and he carried them all the days of old’ (Isa. 63: 9). We can learn from Christ’s agonies how important the church is to him. Do you share the mind of Christ in this respect?

When anyone becomes a Christian, he undergoes a great change: he is changed inwardly, and his relationships are changed—his relationship to God, to men, and to the church. He is radically transformed: born again, he becomes a new man, a new creation; he was dead, but now he is alive in Christ (John 3; Eph. 2: 1-10; 4: 24; Gal. 6: 15). At the same time as he is united to Christ, he becomes a member of Christ’s body, the church. It is not something that he has to decide to do, it is an action of God. ‘For by one Spirit, we were all baptized into one body’ (1 Cor. 12: 13). It is not possible to be united to Jesus Christ, the head of the church, by the indwelling Holy Spirit without also being united to fellow believers, members of the body of Christ, who are also connected to the same head, and who also have the same Spirit. As a believer, you are de facto a member of the church.

Not a member of a church?

Despite this, there are men and women who profess to belong to Christ and yet do not belong to any particular church. This is a very serious matter. In his book, Stop Dating the Church, Joshua Harris quotes Mark Dever as saying, ‘If you are not a member of the church you regularly attend, you may well be going to hell’ (p.55).

Several arguments are commonly used to justify remaining outside the church membership. Let us consider them.

1. ‘The church is an organism and not an organization (polarizing these two aspects).’ I reply that the church is indeed, first and foremost, and essentially, a spiritual organism but the Lord has also given it organizational structure. The two are not mutually exclusive. Christ’s organization serves the well-being of the organism. He gives pastors and teachers (elders) for the benefit of his body (Eph. 4: 11-16). On the day of Pentecost, those who gladly received the word were baptized and added to the church (Acts 2: 41-47). The apostles knew the number of the disciples: at first 120, then 3,000, 5,000, and increasing (Acts 1: 15; 2: 41; 4: 4; 6: 1,7). Such a head count was common during the Old Testament period. Each local church was clearly identifiable and had its own character and difficulties (note Phil. 1:1; and Rev. 2-3).

2. ‘Formality stifles spontaneity; organization is unspiritual.’ I reply: this is the spirit of the age, to approve what is casual, and reject anything formal. It is the same spirit that asks, ‘Why get married? What difference does a ceremony or a piece of paper (marriage certificate) make? All you need is love!’ This is not God’s view: marriage is public and covenantal; church membership is similarly a public, covenantal matter, involving an acceptance of privileges and responsibilities.

3. ‘It is enough to belong to the “invisible church”: I do not need to be received formally into the membership of a particular church.’ But the distinction between the church visible and invisible is misused in this argument. Whoever will not unite with brothers locally cannot excuse himself by affirming unity with unknown men in far off lands and other times. How does he love them? John Murray asks, ‘Where in the New Testament do we find the “invisible church” as an institution in which we may exercise in any concrete and practical way the fellowship claimed?’ (Collected Writings, I, 235).

4. ‘The church has many faults.’ Yes, and some have been hurt by past involvement. John Calvin, who experienced much suffering in Geneva, nevertheless took pains to emphasize the duty of remaining within the church. Has she faults? Are there differences of opinion? Are there wicked people within her? Do they come to the Lord’s table? If these things are so, let them not be the basis for separation, as long as the gospel is preserved and the marks of a true church are evident. Certainly ‘it is a great disgrace if pigs and dogs have a place among the children of God’ but do not forsake the church. Do you think it is sacrilege to take communion with the wicked? Calvin warns us not to be more rigid than Paul: let a man examine himself, not everyone else. (Institutes 4.1.11-15)

Church membership necessary

There are many reasons why the believer should be a member of a particular church.

1. Baptism signifies church membership. Have you been baptized into Christ? That baptism also marks your entrance into his church. If you separate from the church, how are you not repudiating your own baptism?

2. Partaking of the Lord’s Supper requires church membership. Do you rest on Christ for salvation? He has commanded you to remember him at his table in unity with all his disciples. We are one body and partake of one bread (1 Cor. 10: 17). The Corinthians ate and drank unworthily and were judged: some died. What had they done? ‘There are divisions among you’ and ‘do you despise the church of God?’ (11: 18, 22). Disunity at the table had provoked Christ. The person who takes communion while refusing to unite with his brothers in church membership, how can he claim to be eating and drinking in a worthy manner?

3. Excommunication, the removal of a person from the fellowship of the church, is something to be feared. Paul describes the excommunicated man as ‘delivered to Satan’ (1 Cor. 5: 5; 1 Tim. 1: 20). Excommunication presupposes membership: it is possible to remove someone from the church only if they did belong to it. Putting him out is to place him in Satan’s sphere. But the person who refuses church membership is keeping himself in virtually the same position as the excommunicated sinner.

When Christ gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter and the apostles, he did so because he proposed to build his church. At that time, he told them that what they bound on earth would be bound in heaven; and what they loosed would be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18,19). This does not mean that every disciplinary action is automatically approved by God. When leaders act contrary to the revealed will of Christ in this respect, the Good Shepherd is able to admit the poor lambs that the hirelings have cast out (John 9-10). Even so, Christ intends us to recognize a correspondence between membership on earth and the Lamb’s Book of Life in heaven. If a man does not have membership of Christ’s church on earth, due to impenitence and unbelief, dare he presume that he has a place in the heavenly Jerusalem?

4. Christ calls us to strive for unity (Eph. 4: 1-6). We must do all in our power to outwork fully the unity of the one body and one Spirit. Christ has prayed for our unity, and what a unity—‘that they all may be one, as you Father are in me and I in you; that they also may be one in us’ (John 17: 21). The church’s oneness is to reflect the perfect oneness of the holy Trinity.

5. Refusing to be a member anywhere is schismatic in nature, even if it is not intended to be. Schism is tearing of the church into pieces as someone would tear a piece of cloth.

6. You need pastoral care and oversight. When you were converted, you began to be a disciple and discipleship lasts for life. Christ appoints shepherds to serve him by feeding you, guiding and protecting, correcting and encouraging you. You never reach the point where such pastoral care is no longer necessary. Even if you eventually become a pastor yourself, you still remain in need of spiritual care. Christ requires his sheep to submit to his under-shepherds (1 Thess. 5: 12,13; Heb. 13: 7,17; 1 Peter 5: 1-5). Are you wiser than Christ? Are you sure that you can stand alone? Does not Paul warn against such presumption? ‘Let him that thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.’

Sometimes a Christian prefers not to be a member to avoid the obligations. He wants the freedom to ignore the elders. He wants to go his own way. Such is wilful rebellion. Who can tell where it will lead?

7. You cannot grow outside the church. Why? Because Christian growth is growth of the church body into closer and stronger unity. Read Ephesians 4:11-16.

8. You cannot use your spiritual gifts unless you are part of the body. A man cannot become an elder or deacon unless he is first a member. Christ gives various spiritual gifts all for the sake of the church. Indeed, every member is necessary. No matter how insignificant you may think you are, you are needed! The ear cannot say, ‘Because I am not an eye, I am not of the body’ (1 Cor. 12: 12-30). Those who stand apart from the body are hindering themselves from bearing much fruit. They withhold obedience to Christ and, in their folly, forfeit his reward, at least in part.

9. It is every believer’s responsibility to encourage others in their Christian walk and to set an example fit to be followed. This is a vital principle of Christian conduct: we must be careful what effect our behaviour has on others. We dare not stumble a young believer. We should set a good example.

Whenever we consider a course of action, we should ask ourselves, What would happen if everyone followed my example? What if everyone refused to join the church? What if everyone didn’t attend the services today? What if everyone withheld their offerings? If everyone did what you do, would it build up and encourage, or would it weaken and destroy Christ’s beloved bride?

10. Christ’s new commandment – ‘as I have loved you, that you also love one another’ (John 13: 34) – requires us to join the church. Where will you exercise that love, if not within the church, the family of God?

What kind of member?

Finally, what does Christ seek in the members of his body? What is the biblical standard for church membership? What is our high calling ?

The whole of Scripture sets out before us the answer to this question but we can mention certain things.

Faithful attendance at the meetings of the church is fundamental. There the Bread of Life is held out in the Word of God read and preached and in the Lord’s Supper. If you are frequently absent, something fundamental is wrong. The Spirit of Christ creates in his members a strong desire for the means of grace.

Diligent hearing of God’s Word is also fundamental. The wise Christian will place great value on the preaching of the truth. It is his nourishment. He will do all in his power to grasp the doctrine, to meditate on it, and to let it shape his thinking and his conduct.

Significant involvement in the life of your Christian brothers and sisters is essential. Christianity is a way of life, not merely attending church services. How can we love and serve one another if we do not know one another? Do we weep with those who weep and rejoice with those who rejoice? Do we bear one another’s burdens? If you only ever see your brothers in services, and your front door is closed to them, then you do not conform to the biblical pattern for fellowship.

Life abundant is the promise of Christ. It is essential that a member be spiritually alive (otherwise he is a member in name only, a goat and not a sheep, a tare and not wheat). Where there is life, it must grow and flourish. The believer will seek every opportunity to serve the Lord.

Consider Romans 12! Hear the trumpet sound! ‘Living sacrifices’; ‘fervent in spirit’… here is a charter for church membership.

Surely ten believers on fire for the Lord will accomplish more for him than a thousand lukewarm.

True church membership is a challenge capable of overwhelming us in our inadequacy and failure. However, Christ does not call us and leave us to summon up our own strength. Quite the opposite, What he seeks he promises to supply.

God is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think according to the power that works in us – that same power which he exercised in raising Christ from the dead and exalting him to highest heaven – the Holy Spirit’s almighty grace. We are his workmanship.

To him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus.

Return to top Skip to top

What Should We Sing?

By Rev. Dr. Peter J Naylor

Immanuel Presbyterian Church, Cardiff

Published in Presbyterian Network Autumn 2007

The Question.

Should we sing Psalms only? ‘Exclusive Psalmody’ is the teaching that, in the worship of the church, we should sing all, and only, the 150 Psalms found in the biblical Book of Psalms. We are not allowed to sing hymns. Hymn singing is sinning against God.

There is no unity on this question among the reformed churches. On one hand, for example, the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America states, ‘The Book of Psalms, consisting of inspired psalms, hymns and songs, is the divinely authorized manual of praise. The use of other songs in worship is not authorized in the Scriptures’ (Constitution, A-63). On the other hand, the Fourteenth General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, in 1947, considered a report by John Murray and William Young advocating exclusive psalmody, and rejected it. The OPC sings hymns and psalms. Notice that the difference is not over whether we sing Psalms: we all do. It is over whether we sing Psalms only.

The issue is important for at least three reasons. First, it concerns the worship of God. What can be more important? God has called us and saved us in order that we might offer spiritual sacrifices and tell out his praise (1 Peter 2:5,9). We do not want to offer that which is unacceptable in his sight. Second, those who sing hymns stand accused of sin. Bushell has written, ‘Entire churches, even entire groups of churches, can and have fallen into sinful practices.’ ‘The man who prefers a humanly composed song to one written by the Spirit of God… is, to say the least, lacking in spiritual discernment. And the man who would mix together in one book the inspired songs of God with the uninspired songs of sinful men… is, whether he knows it or not, guilty of sacrilege.’1 These serious charges must be tested. Third, the issue divides believers.

The Case for Exclusive Psalmody

The starting point is the Regulative Principle of Worship, which states that we ought to offer only what God has commanded. We must have biblical warrant for what we do. The Westminster Confession of Faith says, ‘the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture’ (21.1). There is no disagreement over this among the reformed churches.

Applying the Regulative Principle, what may we sing? Exclusive Psalmody answers, Only what is (1) inspired and (2) authorized. First, we have warrant to sing only what is inspired. Uninspired hymns are devised by man’s imagination. Second, it is not enough that a song be inspired: we must actually have a command to sing it. There are inspired songs outside the Psalter; for example, Deuteronomy 32; Habakkuk 3; Luke 1:46-55, 67-79; Revelation 4:8,11; 5:9-10, 12-13. But these may not be sung because the only portion authorized for use is the Psalter.

Consequently, we may not sing,

Holy, holy, holy,
Lord, God Almighty,
Who was and is and is to come! (Rev 4:8)
And we may not sing,
Worthy is the Lamb who was slain,
to receive power and riches and wisdom,
and strength and honour and glory and blessing! (Rev 5:12)

Saints and angels sing these words in heaven but we on earth have no authority to sing them – even though heaven is the pattern for earthly worship. We are strictly limited to the Book of Psalms.

We ought to sing of the sorrows of the exile, Psalm 137: 2

By the rivers of Babylon,
There we sat down, yea, we wept,
When we remembered Zion,
…..
O daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed,
Happy the one who repays you as you have served us!
Happy the one who takes and dashes
Your little ones against the rock!

We may not sing the Song of Moses and the Lamb in communion with those who stand upon the sea of glass:

Great and marvellous are your works,
Lord God Almighty!
Just and true are your ways,
O King of the saints. (Rev 15:3)

John Keddie writes: ‘In principle, there can be no objection to the use of inspired songs found in Scripture outside the Psalter. Our concern is to use only what has divine sanction and approval. There is certainly sanction for the Book of Psalms. Such sanction is not clear in connection with other songs found in Scripture’.3 In summary, God has appointed all and only the 150 Psalms for the church to sing.

The Crucial Question

It is one thing to assert repeatedly that God has appointed the Psalter and that alone: it is another thing to demonstrate this assertion from Scripture. Iain Murray puts the question: ‘Where is the proof in Scripture that God appointed the one-hundred-and-fifty Psalms of David for the public worship of the Old Testament church?’4

Keddie offers four arguments: (1) the evidence of the Psalm titles; (2) the poetic form of the Psalms; (3) direct statements in the Psalms, and also elsewhere in Scripture; and (4) New Testament theology, i.e., ‘the book of Psalms is frequently cited in the New Testament’ and ‘To a significant extent, New Testament theology and experience are derived from the Psalms’ (pages 22-23).

The Arguments Examined

1. Psalm titles. These contain musical directions. ‘The fact that no fewer than 55 Psalms are addressed “to the Chief Musician” points eloquently to the purpose of the Psalms.’

This reasoning faces three difficulties. First, not all Psalms have titles, and not all titles are musical, so that this does not establish that all psalms were intended for singing. Second, some doubt whether the titles are part of the original Hebrew text. Allan Harman represents this caution: ‘These titles may not have originally been part of the psalms, but they are certainly very early’.5 Keddie admits that the titles are simply ‘of considerable antiquity’, yet he adds ‘and perfectly authentic’. What can this last phrase mean? Are they part of the original text or not? We are left in doubt. Third, if the titles are original, and if we accept that they are equivalent to a command to sing, then what shall we say about the Prayer of Habakkuk which has the same kind of instruction: ‘To the Chief Musician, With My Stringed Instruments’ (Hab. 3:19)? Here is a dilemma: either musical titles do not constitute warrant to sing, in which case we must dismiss this first argument, or we have warrant to sing material outside the Book of Psalms and we are no longer able to advocate exclusive psalm singing.

2. Poetic Form. The Psalms have a ‘rhythmical structure’ which was ‘no doubt designed to be consistent with an underlying musical form’.

It is true that the Psalms are poetry and, in Hebrew, they have a special system of accents which are ‘musically significant’ (Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, §15d). However, other books are also in poetic form – Song of Songs, Lamentations, most of the Prophets – and two share the special system of accents (Proverbs and Job). If this proves that we should sing the Psalms, then we have warrant to sing much more Scripture. But it does not prove warrant to sing.

3. Direct Commands of Scripture. We are commanded to sing psalms.

Let us come before His presence with thanksgiving;
let us shout joyfully to Him with psalms (Psalm 95:2).
Sing to Him, sing psalms to Him;
talk of all His wondrous works! (Psalm 105:2).

But what does this mean? Which psalms? Not all and only the 150! First of all, when these words were penned, some Psalms had not been written and the Book of Psalms had not been compiled. Bushell admits this (page 14). Second, the Hebrew word ‘psalm’, mizmôr (in 57 titles), is not the term used here. In Psalm 95:2, we have zamîr, ‘song’ and in Psalm 105:2, the verb zimmer, ‘sing, make music, play an instrument’. In these verses, we are encouraged to speak about all the LORD’s wonderful deeds in songs, with music.

Psalm 105 does exactly that, it rehearses God’s dealings with his covenant people: his covenant with the patriarchs, how he brought Israel into Egypt through Joseph, and afterwards delivered them and brought them into Canaan, their inheritance. The plagues are rehearsed in detail in verses 27-36. Since Israel settled in Canaan, much history has passed. Today do we not have more wonderful works of God to sing about? Jeremiah looked forward to a deliverance that would eclipse the exodus (Jeremiah 23:7,8). Indeed, we no longer keep the Passover: Christ is our Passover.

Sing of ALL God’s wonderful works! Moses did at the Red Sea (Exod. 15); David did when the LORD delivered him (e.g., Psalm 18); the redeemed in heaven extol the Lamb (Rev 5:9). Should not the songs of the church be filled with the deliverance accomplished by Christ Jesus at Calvary?

The New Testament commands the church to sing ‘psalms and hymns and spiritual songs’ (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16). What did Paul mean? Keddie acknowledges that there is ‘no general agreement about the meaning of this threefold description’ (page 28). He suggests that ‘It seems perfectly reasonable’ to take them ‘as referring to the Psalter’ (page 29). This is subjective and less than certain. Since it is admittedly doubtful, Keddie’s conclusion, that ‘these texts provide not one shred of warrant for the adoption of non-inspired materials of praise in worship’ (page 30) begs the question. This triad of terms – psalms, hymns, and songs – could refer to the Psalms, but each of these terms also denotes sacred songs outside the Psalter. (The Corinthians seem to have composed their own psalms, 1 Cor 14:26, which Keddie accepts.) If anyone wants to insist that Paul here restricts us to the Psalter, he must demonstrate it from the text.

It is claimed that the proof is in the word ‘spiritual’. We are told that ‘spiritual’ means ‘a measure of inspiration’ (page 30). What can such an expression possibly mean – 50% inspired? Roland Ward is similarly vague: ‘It appears that the term “spiritual” points beyond mere sacred song to inspired songs’ (Psalms in Christian Worship, page 16). How unsatisfactory! The two terms pneumatikos ‘spiritual’ and theopneustos ‘inspired’ are not identical. A spiritual man is indwelt and led by the Holy Spirit but not inspired in his speech (1 Cor. 2:14-15). Careful semantics will not permit us to slide imperceptibly from one to the other.

Why did Paul not simply refer to ‘the Book of Psalms’ as in Luke 20:42 and Acts 1:20? Why not say ‘inspired’, as in 2 Timothy 3:16? He chose general language similar to Psalms 95:2 and 105:2.

The demand that we sing only inspired words leads to a further difficulty. Reformed doctrine defines inspiration as plenary and verbal. The very words of the original Hebrew were inspired. Putting the text into English metrical form necessitates adding words. This is true whichever Psalter is used. Strictly speaking, metrical psalms are not inspired but are an approximation with some paraphrasing.

In Sing Psalms, the new version of the Psalms produced by the Free Church of Scotland, ‘Psalm 23’ begins as follows:

The LORD is my shepherd; no want shall I know:
He makes me lie down where the green pastures grow;
He leads me to rest where the calm waters flow.

Beautiful! But the words ‘know’, ‘grow’, ‘flow’, and ‘to rest’ do not appear in the inspired text. In the Scottish Psalter, Psalm 100’s opening line, ‘Shout to the LORD all the earth,’ becomes ‘All people that on earth do dwell, sing to the Lord with cheerful voice.’ ‘People’, ‘do dwell’, and ‘cheerful voice’, are added by the uninspired composer.

4. New Testament Theology. The argument is that New Testament revelation is fully represented in the 150 Psalms so that we do not need to supplement it. ‘To a significant degree, New Testament theology and experience are derived from the Psalms’ (Keddie, page 23). Bushell rests his case on ‘the sufficiency of the Psalter’ (page 10). He quotes Dr George, that ‘no book in the Bible reveals Christ with such fullness as is done in the Book of Psalms, not excepting the Gospel according to John or the Epistle to the Hebrews’ (page 22).

True, the Psalms speak of Christ. Does this prove exclusive psalmody? It encourages us to sing Psalms but it is hardly an argument against Christian hymns.

What about Bushell’s claim that the Psalms surpass the New Testament revelation of Christ? How can we reconcile that with the Bible’s testimony about itself? The mystery of Christ ‘in other ages was not made known, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to his holy apostles and prophets’ (Eph. 3:3-5; see Heb. 1:1,2; 2 Tim. 1:10). We have more than David had. We know about and Jesus, incarnate, crucified, risen and ascended, and Pentecost. We have the new covenant in his blood, Paul’s theology, John’s celestial visions and so on. John Calvin plainly declares the advantage of the community of the New Testament: Christ, although he was known to the Jews under the Law, was at length clearly revealed only in the Gospel (Institutes, 2.9.1). Robert Letham makes a similar observation about the Trinity, quoting Gregory Nazianzen: ‘The Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly, and the Son more obscurely. The New manifested the Son… it was necessary that, increasing little by little… the full splendor of the Trinity should gradually shine forth’.6

The OT, including Psalms, anticipates Christ in promises, prophecy, and types, in a shadowy way. Those shadows have been taken away: for example, the altar is removed (Ps 51: 19; 20:6; 118:27 etc.).

Conclusion

We are indebted to such as John Keddie for the reminder of the great value of the Psalms. If the church grasps the Christological depth of the Psalms, it will derive great blessing from singing them. We are indebted to the Free Church for producing Sing Psalms and and to the Reformed Presbyterians for The Psalms for Singing, A 21st Century Edition. Let the Psalms never fall into disuse. But the arguments presented, to prove that we must sing all the psalms and nothing else, have not stood the test.

We are not persuaded of the strictly exclusive psalmody doctrine. And we fear that reformed churches that sing hymns have been falsely accused.

Those who hold to exclusive psalmody believe that they stand in the purest reformed tradition. This is doubtful. The Free Church of Scotland, for example, did not adopt exclusive Psalmody until 1910 and in recent General Assemblies questions have been asked about the practice. Geneva’s Psalter, 1543, contained 49 psalms, the Nunc Dimittis, Ave Maria, musical versions of the Ten Commandments, Apostles’ Creed and Lord’s Prayer, and two graces. A fuller account is given by Nick Needham in The Westminster Confession, into the 21st Century, Volume 2, Mentor, 2004, page 256. Calvin probably composed the hymn, ‘I greet Thee who my sure Redeemer art’. Thomas Manton, a leading Presbyterian at the Westminster Assembly, wrote: ‘we do not forbid other songs; if grave and pious, after good advice, they may be received into the church. Tertullian, in his Apology, sheweth that in the primitive times, they used this liberty.’ (Tertullian, AD 160-225, was writing about the beginnings of the church.)

Do we have a mandate to compose and sing hymns? Yes, we do. It is found in Psalms 95:2, 105:2, Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. Thus, ‘Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord’ (Col. 3:16). The Word of Christ should richly fill our singing. If heaven resounds to the new song, how can we deny the church on earth the joy and privilege of praising God and adoring the Lamb who was slain? How can we sing without ever naming the name of Jesus? How can we speak of the mighty victory of Christ incarnate in shadows and not plainly, richly and fully? If our hymns faithfully reflect the doctrine of the New Testament, and richly express the glory of God and the work of Christ, we believe that we are doing what is acceptable to the Lord.

Psalm 105 praises God. Yet, as we sing it, we find ourselves singing at length about the waters turning to blood, and dead fish, abundant frogs, swarms of flies, lice in all their territories, hail for rain, stricken vines, locusts etc. (Psalm 105: 29-35). Shall we sing about the plagues in Egypt and not also sing about the Good News?

‘Glory be to God the Father, glory be to God the Son, glory be to God the Spirit.’ ‘Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty! Early in the morning our song shall rise to thee.’ ‘Tell out, my soul, the greatness of the Lord! Unnumbered blessings give my spirit voice’ (Luke 1:46-55). ‘Let us of Christ, our Lord and Saviour sing, For, though God’s equal, though eternal King, He did not to His rightful glory cling. Hallelujah, hallelujah!’ (Philippians 2:5-11). Blessed be God, our God, who gave for us his well-beloved Son….’ ‘When I survey the wondrous cross, on which the Prince of Glory died….’ ‘Christ is risen! Hallelujah! Risen our victorious head! Sing His praises! Hallelujah! Christ is risen from the dead! ‘Crown Him with many crowns, the Lamb upon His throne…’ Done is the work that saves, once and for ever done…. Then to the Lamb once slain, be glory, praise and power, who died and lives again, who liveth evermore, who loved and washed us in His blood, who makes us kings and priests to God.’ ‘A debtor to mercy alone, of covenant mercy I sing.’ ‘The God of Abraham praise, who reigns enthroned above, Ancient of everlasting days, and God of love.’ This is our confession and this is our song. The Holy Spirit has taught us these things in and through the Scriptures. We rejoice in this. God is glorified.

Notes

1. Michael Bushell, The Songs of Zion. A Contemporary Case for Exclusive Psalmody, 3rd ed., Crown and Covenant Publications, Pittsburgh, 1999, pages 4 and 11.
2. Rowland Ward, The Psalms in Christian Worship, Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia, 1992, pages 44-50.
3. John Keddie, Sing the Lord’s Song, The Knox Press, Edinburgh, 1994, page 11.
4. Iain H Murray, The Psalter – the Only Hymnal? Banner of Truth, 2001, page 7
5. Allan Harman, Commentary on the Psalms, Christian Focus, 1998, page 14.
6. Robert Letham, The Trinity, Presbyterian and Reformed, Phillipsburg NJ, page 33.

Return to top Skip to top