Matthew Vogan
A plenary General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland has recently decided to permit uninspired hymns and musical instruments in public worship. One cannot minimise the significance of the largest Presbyterian denomination in Europe which subscribes to The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) abandoning its commitment to purity of worship. This decision is profoundly troubling to all who love the purity of worship as instituted by God Himself in His Word and as maintained in Scotland since the Reformation. These feelings were no doubt heightened by the fact that the legislation could only have been passed with the support of those who seemed opposed to the change or else belonged to kirk sessions that had not supported the change (only 25 out of 90 had expressed support).
The debate at the Assembly followed the report and deliverance proposed by the Board of Trustees in focusing on the consequences of a decision rather than establishing the case for it from Scripture. The Apostles could say, “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you . . . these necessary things” (Acts 15:28). “The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils . . . are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture” (WCF 1:10).
One of the last speakers in the debate, Chris Redmond (Dowanvale), noted the “lack of Scripture and [the] confusion” which had prevailed. There was an attempt to “accommodate two views of worship. We should not be happy with two! Is God unclear? . . . I fear that we are trying to accommodate people rather than follow the Word of God.” It is necessary to bring the clarity of the Word of God to bear upon this confusion. Some may object to our commenting critically upon the matter as censorious, but to do otherwise would be to forsake the brotherly love required in Scripture. “Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him” (Lev 19:17). When Scripture is understood on the matter it must be seen that solemn moral duties were at stake.
The moral duty of maintaining purity of worship.
In The Necessity of Reforming the Church, John Calvin spoke of worship as the most important part of the Reformation. The worship of God is indeed the highest activity anyone may engage in. The Second Commandment, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image . . .”, tells us that the means of worship are to be those He appoints, not those we invent. There is emphasis on the phrase, “make unto thee”, which forbids the devising of means for worshipping God according to our own carnal wisdom. John Knox summarised the matter bluntly: “All worshipping, honouring, or service invented by the brain of man in the religion of God, without His own express commandment, is idolatry”.
Scripture uses the term will-worship (Col 2:20-23) for any worship instituted according to the will of man rather than the express will of God in Scripture. Obedience to the commandments of God alone in this matter is the subject of a promise in this Commandment: “showing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me, and keep My commandments” (Ex 20:6). This Commandment is therefore linked to the regulative principle of worship, frequently asserted in Scripture, which forbids any means of worship not appointed by God (see Deut 4:15-20; 12:32; Mt 4:9-10; 15:8-9; Acts 17:23-25; Ex 20:4-6; 25:40; Jn 4:23-24; Col 2:18-23; Lev 10:1-3).
Whatever means of worship have not been instituted by God through direct command, approved example or good and necessary consequence are prohibited. The Church must teach to observe only what Christ has commanded (Mt 28:20). The Second Commandment shows that God is so jealous over His own honour that He will not have man appoint how God is to be worshipped. When He rebukes His people for the barbaric worship of false gods, which involved burning their children in the fire, the Lord says: “Which I commanded [them] not, neither came it into My heart” (Jer 7:31). Rather than focusing on the barbarism or their devotion to false gods, this statement shows that their whole duty in worshipping God is governed by the principle that they could not go beyond His commandment in any way. As James Begg observed, “if we consider the relation of the thrice-holy God to fallen sinners, the wonder is not that our mode of access into His presence is strictly regulated, but that any such access is permitted to us at all”.
The Larger Catechism (Q 108) shows what is positively required in the Second Commandment: “the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath instituted in His Word”. This is a moral duty for all, not only office-bearers who have vowed to do so. False worship is therefore to be disapproved, detested and opposed and, according to each one’s place and calling, removed (Q 108).
The infallible psalms, as the songs of the Lord, were composed under immediate inspiration, collected by divine appointment for public worship and given the title Book of Praises (1 Chr 25:7; Ps 137:3). God has commanded His people to use these psalms in His praise (1 Chr 16:9; Ps 98:5; Col 3:16; Jas 5:13). In the New Testament God has not directed us to retain those parts of the ceremonial temple worship which typified Christ’s perfect work of redemption as a shadow of things to come. This includes musical instruments which were only used in public worship by temple officers in connection with temple sacrifices or other ceremonies (1 Chr 15:16; 23:5; 25:1; 28:13,19; 2 Chr 29:25-28). The Larger Catechism states: “The sins forbidden in the Second Commandment are, all devising, counselling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God Himself . . .” (A 109). We can consider these words in relation to the steps that the Free Church have now taken.
(a) Using religious worship not instituted by God.
In their Report to the Assembly, the Board of Trustees acknowledged that there has been inconsistent practice in the Church for a long time. “The Assembly had the matter drawn to their attention in 1953 when they were asked to judge an appeal against a decision by the Synod of Ross. The Synod had sought to prohibit Free Church ministers from participating in worship involving hymns and instrumental music in other churches. The Assembly debated the matter, and upheld the right of Free Church ministers to participate in worship of this kind in other churches – thus moving against the spirit of the 1910 Act.” At the time, Stornoway Free Church minister, Rev Kenneth A Macrae protested against such practices in his booklet, Resurgence of Arminianism.
This left a question that previous generations were happy to leave unanswered: If a minister’s vows regarding purity of worship can be relaxed outwith the Free Church, why not within? Rev Neil Macmillan exposed this at the plenary General Assembly: “There are few of us who think that singing hymns and using musical instruments is sinful . . . If it is sinful we should not do it anywhere. How can worship be acceptable to God in another church but not in the Free Church?” Others referred to the inconsistency of allowing church gatherings to use hymns but not allowing them in public worship. The Board tried to maintain this inconsistency but could not do so in the face of those taking matters to their logical conclusion.
(b) Approving religious worship not instituted by God.
Using such worship as has not been instituted by God inevitably involves an element of tacit approval. The Free Church have now gone to the length of approving religious worship not instituted by God.
(c) Counselling religious worship not instituted by God.
Some of those who voted for favour of the change did not believe in it themselves. Their counsel was that such a defection would give liberty to ministers promoting change and be more attractive to young people who would otherwise leave. Rev Iain D Campbell gave this type of counsel in defending the change: “What am I going to say to our young people? We’re educating them in the theology of the Reformed faith, but they drift away to other churches. I want to keep them!” It should go without saying that we can never do what is sinful in order that good may come from it.
(d) Commanding religious worship not instituted by God.
The result of the change is that the ordination vows and constitution have been changed to redefine purity of worship in an unbiblical way. The ordination vows under which men took office cannot be maintained any longer. Despite false assurances, this legislation imposes upon the consciences of individual office-bearers. It is no longer possible to assert, maintain and defend purity of worship in congregations that will reject purity of worship. While liberty will be granted to use purity of worship when conducting worship in these congregations, there will be no liberty to preach against defection from purity of worship; it would be seen as schismatic.
The truth is that men are being commanded to accept this. By redefining purity of worship to include hymns and instruments, the vows have now been changed to mean that all Free Church office-bearers are bound to assert, maintain and defend this change and to declare that it is founded on the Word of God. Apparently there were 30 dissents against the decision but it is protest with the effect of separation rather than dissent that is required in order to keep one’s conscience and vows intact.
(e) Devising religious worship not instituted by God.
The Free Church are now devising worship for themselves, as Jeroboam “devised of his own heart” the worship that pleased him (1 Ki 12:33). The decision was as follows: “The General Assembly appoint a Special Committee (using consultants as required) to investigate the feasibility and desirability of producing a recommended list of paraphrases of Scripture and hymns and spiritual songs consistent with the Word of God and the whole doctrine of the Confession of Faith [there are none which are consistent with WCF 21:1,5], and whether the Free Church ought to produce a praise resource supplementary to the Psalter, and to report to the 2011 General Assembly”. It is no light thing to use, approve, command, counsel and devise what is sinful. Jeroboam was described as one “who made Israel to sin” by his false aids to the worship of Jehovah not instituted by God Himself.
The moral duty of maintaining vows in relation to purity of worship.
The Westminster Confession states that: “A vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath, and ought to be made with the like religious care, and to be performed with the like faithfulness” (WCF 22:5). Vows add to the responsibility of maintaining purity of worship. Every member of the Free Church Assembly had taken solemn vows to God that they would conform, to the utmost of their power, to “the purity of worship presently authorised and practised”, without trying, either directly or indirectly, to prejudice and subvert it and promised to follow no divisive courses from it.
They were under obligation to keep their vow: “If a man vow a vow unto the Lord . . . he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth” (Num 30:2; see also Deut 23:2; Ps 15:4; 76:11; Prov 20:25; Is 19:21; Ecc 5:4-5). This did not appear to be a significant issue in their deliberations; the only person to raise it did not appear to receive a response. As The Larger Catechism explains, the Third Commandment forbids “violating of our oaths and vows, if lawful” (Q 113) because they are solemn ordinances of God in which His honour is much involved. The Ninth Commandment concerns the promotion and maintenance of truth between men; it both requires “keeping of lawful promises” and forbids “breach of lawful promises” (Q 144-45). These vows were not contrary to the moral law of God, which is the only reason why they could lawfully be set aside.
It is therefore solemn to break ordination vows – to do so violates these commandments. As James Begg put it: “To allege that they may afterwards set these avowals at defiance, and still retain their offices, is to outrage morality . . . . Honest men, on finding that they cannot fulfil their vows, will surely adopt this alternative – will withdraw and take the consequences” . This is the position of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland in its resolution on Creed Subscription: “The Synod expects of its office-bearers, as honourable men, that whensoever they are conscious of having ceased to believe in any of these doctrines and principles, or to approve of the mode of worship, which they have vowed to maintain, they should lay down their office and not help to deprive the Church of its peace and purity; and finally it expects of the Church itself, through its courts, to see that in this connection its discipline is observed wheresoever in any case such honourable dealing does not appear to characterise any office-bearer whatsoever”.
Some have defended the idea that one could have taken these vows and then challenge the Church for scriptural proof of the position. This is absurd; the vows were taken voluntarily and the right to office is conditional upon keeping those vows. Others believe that, if the Church has decided that the matter can be reconsidered, the outcome of that must be lawful. The Church itself, however, just like the individual office-bearer, has no right to set these obligations aside and remain the same constitutional body. Those sitting in the Assembly cannot make decisions contrary to the vows they have taken. In 1893 Rev Donald Macfarlane protested that the Free Church had no right to alter its constitution in the face of a dissenting minority. As Hugh Martin explained, “The vow entails very weighty obligation on my side, and on the side of the Church the obligation is as great. . . . A majority may prove treacherous to a vow, just as an individual may . . . . Our ordination vow . . . renders us answerable to it and pledges the Church reciprocally . . . to it also.”
The extent of the damage caused by such divisive courses is only beginning to appear, but what ought to be abundantly clear is the degree of defection from moral duties and scriptural attainments formerly held (Phil 3:16). We observe mournfully the discord arising from unscriptural innovation that has, over successive generations, progressively wasted the Presbyterian Church established in purity in Scotland. “Our holy and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised Thee, is burned up with fire: and all our pleasant things are laid waste” (Is 64:11). When we see that those who formerly seemed to stand fast “faintly turned back” in the day of battle, we must say to ourselves: “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor 10:12).
1The Use of Organs and Other Instruments of Music in Christian Worship Indefensible, p 12.
2We must not forget that purity of worship must be rendered in a pure manner. Not to be spiritually exercised in pure worship is also a serious breach of the Second Commandment.
33Anarchy in Worship, p 45.
34Quoted in John Macleod, Scottish Theology, pp 324-5.