One thing both traditional and contemporary churches could agree on is the participation of church members in congregational singing. If unity cannot be found here, then the issues that divide are presuppositional and theological. The Church, whether Presbyterian or not, is divided about music, but it is certain that all of us will be singing the same words and tunes before the Throne, but could we not make an effort to unify on congregants singing in worship? 

As was noted in the post, “Contemporary Christian Church Music,” which provided a transcription of an article by T. E. Peck and Stuart Robinson—worship of the Lord in song has been a controversial subject particularly since the gradual transition from exclusive psalmody in the eighteenth century to inclusion of hymns by composers such as Isaac Watts. The words of Ephesians 5:19, “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,” have been interpreted differently by those using Psalms alone and those who include hymns with Psalms.
The transcription that follows is from the minutes of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, Old School, General Assembly of 1849, and it addresses this controversy. A committee had been appointed to make recommendations regarding church music, and it appears, though I am not certain, there were no ruling elders seated. The Committee on  Church Music had been appointed the previous year by Moderator Alexander T. McGill but its membership changed as some appointees were excused and others were given their seats. When the report was submitted, it was signed by the following members:: John M. Krebs, (Rutgers Street Church, New York) James W. Alexander (Duane Street Church, New York), Daniel V. McLean (Freehold, New Jersey), William S. Plumer (Franklin Street Church, Baltimore), Gardiner Spring (Brick Church, New York), George Potts (University Place Church, New York), Willis Lord (Penn Square Church, Philadelphia), Charles C. Beatty (Second Church, Steubenville, Ohio), and William Jeffery (Bethany Church, Herriottsville, Pennsylvania).
What specifically was the committee to address regarding church music?
In 1843 the Old School Presbyterian Board of Publication issued Psalms and Hymns Adapted to Social, Private and Public Worship in the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, which was printed in Philadelphia. It included the complete Psalter of Isaac Watts followed by 680 hymns. In a modern hymnal the music is provided with the words but in earlier hymnals, as with this one, only the words are given. Each hymn is headed with a few words describing its topic and a notation regarding the meter to which it is sung. The hymns are not titled. This seems unusual today given hymnals have the words and music for each one and a title, but the 1843 hymnal shows the transition from Psalm singing alone to Psalms and hymns. Psalms for singing simply had the number of the Psalm, the meter, and then the words. The brief preface to the 798-page collection expressed the hope that—
The collection itself comprehends what were supposed [assumed] to be the best hymns in the one now in use, with a large addition from other sources, and in sufficient variety, it is presumed, to meet all the wants of worshippers.
Unfortunately, the hymnal did not “meet all the wants of worshippers,” which resulted in the appointment of the Committee on Church Music. The instrument by which the church music issue came to the floor of the Assembly was an overture from the Synod of Philadelphia which the Committee on Bills and Overtures reviewed and then made its recommendation.
[To] report to the next General Assembly upon the general subject of congregational singing, suggesting such scriptural measures as may seem calculated to improve it, and such remedies of existing evils as the case may seem to require. The recommendation was adopted.
The primary concern for the Committee on Church Music was improving congregational singing during worship on the Lord’s Day. As an aside, it is interesting that the 1843 hymnal designates one section “For the Lord’s Day” and not “For the Sabbath,” as might be expected. The secondary concern for the Committee was “preparation of a book of tunes adapted to our present psalmody.” Presumably, the thinking was, if tunes were more singable for the average non-musically trained congregant to sing, then more people would sing.
Congregational participation in singing is clearly not a new problem. Robinson-Peck and the report of the Committee on Church Music that follows this introduction mention factors contributing to lack of participation such as overemphasizing the choir, viewing worship music as entertainment, and the use of hired professional non-congregation members to bolster (supplant?) the congregation. On several occasions, while traveling I have worshipped in other Presbyterian churches and noticed that people simply do not sing. It is not a matter of a few here and there not singing, but instead a few here and there are singing. This is true of churches whether they are considered traditional or contemporary (these terms are used reluctantly for convenience), but it seems the more music is emphasized in a service, ironically, the less the participation of the congregation. Though the number appears to be waning, there are churches that have singing congregants. I have the privilege of membership with a congregation that sings well with a skilled director and talented accompanists under the oversight of elders who are concerned for regulated worship. Worship is not a traditional vs. contemporary issue; worship is a theological issue in that its purpose is glorifying God as we enjoy Him within the limits of liturgy given in Scripture.
I said in my introduction to the Robinson-Peck post that the Old School took a moderate position regarding the issue of church music. What I mean by moderate is the Old School did not limit its worship music to Psalms, but instead combined hymns of contemporary composition with those of the past. The addition of hymns is not only appropriate but necessary. But this raises some questions. Which hymns are to be added? What is the standard to be used (of course, Scripture, but how)? Is there an essential core of hymns that must never be removed? Are there tunes that are unacceptable, and if so, what makes them unacceptable for worship (sexual beat, originally used with worldly or atheistic lyrics)? Can adding new hymns work against the goal of united congregational singing; can removing old hymns likewise reduce congregational singing? Are the older members of congregations to be left out as too much emphasis is placed on new words and tunes (the age demographic of the United States is increasing )? Those who sing the Psalms exclusively have an advantage because the words of their worship in music are fixed, but they too may face the challenge of congregants wanting the words of Psalms updated with more up-to-date tunes. Church history, unfortunately, is often the study of division whether it was the Christological issues of the ancient church, division with the Reformation, the Old and New Schools, and many others. The issue of church music divides us as well. However, one thing both traditional and contemporary churches could agree on is the participation of church members in congregational singing. If unity cannot be found here, then the issues that divide are presuppositional and theological. The Church, whether Presbyterian or not, is divided about music, but it is certain that all of us will be singing the same words and tunes before the Throne, but could we not make an effort to unify on congregants singing in worship.
With regard to the report that follows, I found some of the comments objectionable not necessarily because of what was said but because of the way it was said. The General Assembly is the highest earthly court of the Presbyterian Church and its decency and honor should be beyond the expected in all matters. Intemperance, personal attacks, sarcasm, smart-aleck jabs, and patronizing comments have no place in the Church in general but especially in gatherings of presbyters.
Barry Waugh
Report of The Committee on Church Music
The Committee on the subject of Sacred Music, appointed by the General Assembly last year (see Minutes, A. D. 1848, pp. 18 and 55) respectfully report, that six members of the Committee, viz. the Chairman, and Messrs. Plumer, Potts, Lord, McKinley, and McNair, met, agreeably to appointment at Philadelphia on the 20th day of February last, and proceeded to the consideration of the duty which had been confided to them. After making some progress therein, the Committee, having sat through three days, adjourned, referring the further prosecution and completion of the work to the members residing in the city of New York, and authorizing them to present the result of their labors to the next Assembly.
At the commencement of their sessions, the Committee were occupied with a question concerning the extent of their powers. The overture from the Synod of Philadelphia, (see overture, number 3, Minutes, 1848, p. 18,) contemplated the appointment of “a committee to take into consideration the subject of Church Music, with special reference to the preparation of a book of tunes adapted to our present psalmody.” The Assembly’s resolution, appointing the Committee, conferred upon it no other power, expressly, than “to report to the next General Assembly, upon the general subject of congregational singing, suggesting such scriptural measures as may seem calculated to improve it, and such remedies of existing evils as the case may seem to require.” While the overture appears to embrace two points, viz. a report upon the subject, and some provision for a book of tunes, the act of the Assembly authorizes a mere report, with suggestions on certain specified points, and makes no express reference to the preparation of a book of tunes.
On the first point submitted to their consideration, the Committee offer the following remarks:
There are different opinions, in various parts of the Church, in regard to the present state of congregational singing. What the taste and usages of the churches, in one section, may highly approve, other churches, possibly, would disapprove. Conformity, in all points of opinion and practice, is, perhaps—nay, most probably—unattainable. And, in cases wherein the differences arise, not in view of unmistakable decisions of the Bible, or of our Standards, but simply from considerations of taste, convenience, longer or shorter usage, and varying application, and, indeed, varying interpretation, of the notices of this subject which are contained in the sacred oracles, much must necessarily be left to the mutual forbearance and conceded Christian liberty of God’s people. These diversities may be either rendered more tolerable, or altogether removed, by increasing intercourse and communion, by frank and friendly comparison of views, and by the influence of that more extended public discussion, which the subject is evidently destined to receive. Without entering that discussion here, or indicating any opinion, beyond that which we have just expressed; the Committee deem it to be incumbent on them to notice some other points, on which, as it seems to them, there is occasion for present animadversion.
Read More
Related Posts:

God can be trusted in everything he says and does (John 14:13-14; Matthew 7:7-8; 1 John 5:14). In a world where standards, systems and relations are ever-changing, God is not. He remains true. And he communicates truth. He is reliable and trustworthy. He never changes, and that makes him faithful. His character, promises, and plans are ‘yes,’ and ‘amen!’ Child of God, stand on the promises of the ever-true and faithful God (Hebrews 13:5).

We live in an age of subjective truth. It’s an age that frowns on claims of absolute and even objective truth. Some claim truth is merely relative. It’s whatever you feel or think. The standard of truth in most cultures is on a slippery slope, ever-changing. In such a time, one of the most comforting and stabilising truths is that we serve a God who is both true and truthful, unchangingly so.
God has revealed himself as the authoritative and absolute truth. Wayne Grudem writes: “God’s truthfulness means that he is the true God and that all his knowledge and words are both true and the final standard of truth. The term veracity, which means ‘truthfulness’ or ‘reliability,’ has sometimes been used as a synonym for God’s truthfulness.” Truth denotes that which accurately corresponds to reality; to what is reliable and consistent.
The True God Speaks Truth
The truthfulness of God implies that he is the only true God and that all his words and ways are true. As one prophet declares: “The LORD is the true God; he is the living God and the everlasting King…The gods who did not make the heavens, and the earth shall perish from the earth and from under the heavens” (Jeremiah 10:10–11). This echoes Moses’ glorious declaration: “I proclaim the name of the LORD: ascribe greatness to our God. He is the Rock; his work is perfect; for all his ways are justice, a God of truth and without injustice; righteous and upright is he” (Deuteronomy 32:3-4).
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Ben R. Crenshaw |
Thursday, December 1, 2022
Let’s not deceive ourselves. The ideology behind Drag Queen Story Hour, seeks to undermine, overthrow, and replace the Founding vision of a moral and virtuous people governing themselves according to natural principles of morality and justice. By contrast, those pushing DQSH are working to establish a new regime built upon the lascivious desires of its erotically cultivated subjects, endlessly pursuing even greater depths of perversion and degeneracy. Pundits like David French and Paul Miller may think they are preserving peace, forestalling social conflict, and helping conservatives win religious liberty cases. Yet because of their confusion, they are de facto apostles for Drag Queen Story Hour and are actively helping to sanction its demonic progress. 

Though Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) events at local libraries are presented as innocuous, family-friendly gatherings that help elevate historically oppressed sexual minorities, their real purpose is deliberately subversive. “The drag queen might appear as a comic figure,” Chris Rufo writes in a recent expose in City Journal, “but he carries an utterly serious message: the deconstruction of sex, the reconstruction of child sexuality, and the subversion of middle-class family life.”
According to queer theory advocate Gayle Rubin, traditional concepts of sex and gender were mythologies constructed by powerful, heteronormative forces that sought to persecute those with non-conforming sexual orientations, explains Rufo. By combining a metaphysic that denied that sex, gender, and marriage were unchanging essences and an oppressor-oppressed binary, Rubin hoped to turn traditional sexual norms on their head. In her book Gender Trouble, Judith Butler continued Rubin’s postmodern project by adding the concept of performativity as a mechanism of social change. Once gender’s malleability was established by calling its very reality into question, gender performance through crossdressing, transvestitism, and transgenderism intentionally blurred the lines between the real and unreal, moral and immoral, acceptable and unacceptable.
Once drag ideology gained a foothold in the academy, drag advocates, according to Rufo, sought to rebrand drag performances as family-friendly, educational story hours in local libraries. But DQSH actually created a new childhood paideia: the stimulation of “queer imagination” among children that would teach them “queer ways of knowing and being” and disrupt the so-called oppressive bourgeois norms their parents had taught them. As Rufo explains, “the goal was not to reinforce the biological family but to facilitate the child’s transition into the ideological family.”
Drag Queen Story Hour seeks to destroy childhood innocence and introduce the most demonic forms of sexual perversion into public life: pedophilia, incest, bestiality, necrophilia, race fetishism, and prostitution.
The “Conservative” Case for Drag
Rufo’s journalistic endeavors help cast new light on the conservative kerfuffle over Drag Queen Story Hour. In a now infamous comment during a debate with Sohrab Ahmari, political commentator David French called DQSH “one of the blessings of liberty.” How did he propose handling DQSH going forward? By holding fast to “viewpoint neutrality,” a term stemming from twentieth century Supreme Court rulings that redefined prior free speech and obscenity jurisprudence. “Handle bad speech with better speech. Counter bad speakers in the marketplace of ideas, not through the heavy hand of government censorship,” said French. Yet Rufo’s revelation that DQSH is a brazen attempt to overthrow the foundations of the created order shows that French’s advice is naive at best. DQSH is the rotten fruit of licentiousness, the manifestation of a disordered conception of the public good and a sign of a weak government that no longer has the will to pursue good and punish evil.
Unfortunately, David French isn’t the only one to get hoodwinked into accepting liberal twentieth century Supreme Court rulings. In his recent book, The Religion of American Greatness: What’s Wrong with Christian Nationalism, Paul D. Miller calls for a qualified embrace of neutrality.
Read More
Related Posts: