I did not intend to publish a series of articles against instruments in Reformed worship services. It was a conspiracy of circumstances. This piece emerged from a series of conversations over a period of time with Reformed pastors with whom I have been thinking about the question: If the leadership of a congregation became convinced of the historic Reformed view and did decide to return to the most ancient Christian practice, how would we get there?
The short answer to that question is twofold: patiently and deliberately. I am instructed by the example of the Swiss Reformer Johannes Oecolampadius (1482–1531), who reformed the worship of his congregation over a period of nine years.1
Statistically, globally considered, virtually no Christians today sing the same way the earliest church did, that is, without the aid of musical instruments (a cappella), which have come increasingly to dominate Christian worship for most of the last 250 years. Thus, even to propose to give up musical instruments is almost unthinkable to most Christians. The implausibility to so many Americans of the ancient Christian and original Reformed practice is telling of how far we have moved from our foundations.
Given that distance, should the leadership decide to pursue this aspect of reformation, patience will be of the essence. We did not get here last week, and we will not get to reformation quickly. It will take time.
Why? Because people are deeply invested in the familiar things of modern worship and those familiar things are deeply affecting, that is, deeply loved. When most Christians think of worship, they think of their experience of instrumental music. No matter how well or how frequently we argue from Scripture and history, people will resist this act of reformation because they love instrumental music.
In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the reform of worship happened in the context of the church-state complex. This is why we speak of the magisterial Reformation. It happened with the assistance, and not infrequently at the imposition, of the civil magistrate.
When the Reformed assumed control of those churches that had not yet been purged of musical instruments (the organ), they had the authority of the civil magistrate (at least until a new magistrate imposed a different religion) to seize, remove, and even destroy organs with no negotiation with the people. The sentiment of the people was not a major consideration (and sometimes not even a minor consideration).
The influence of the civil magistrate in religion frequently cut the other way. In the Netherlands, the Reformed ministers were persuaded of the ancient and Reformed position that, by nature, instruments are a “thing without life” (ASV), indistinct (1 Cor 14:7), clanging and sounding (1 Cor 13:1; ASV), in contrast to the articulate spoken or sung word. Instruments were regarded as inherently inferior to the human voice. They were part and parcel of the typological epoch of redemptive history. They pointed forward to the coming reality of God the Son incarnate and, simultaneously, they pointed upward to the eschatological state. In this they were corollaries to the swords used by Israelite soldiers to destroy the Canaanites.
Their secular, civil counterparts, however, in the Netherlands, were typically more sympathetic to those powerful interests among the laity who loved organ music. The regional Synod of Dort in 1574 had ruled against musical instruments and ordered that they be removed. That proved difficult, however, because of popular and civil opposition, and also because some of the churches were publicly held. The fight continued for most of the seventeenth century, but the Synods and the ministers were fighting a losing battle. The Scriptures, the history, and the theology of the churches was on their side, but the people loved the instruments.
As difficult as it was to reform the Dutch churches, rarely have Reformed people been in our situation: free churches (i.e., not state churches) that must persuade a free people to reform worship by giving up the only way of worship most have ever known.
Therefore, contemporary reformers must be like Oecolampadius. We must proceed patiently. We must take the long view. We must know that few have ever heard of the Reformed view, let alone experienced historic Reformed practice. So, we have to introduce the history of redemption, the movement of redemptive history from the typological musical instruments and bloody sacrifices of the Levitical priests (2 Chron 29:20–36) to the unbloody worship of the new covenant church. We must introduce our churches to the Reformed principle of worship, which Calvin called the rule of worship, that we may do in worship only what is commanded, to the ancient practice of worship, and to the Reformed theology and practice of worship.2
It is only when people really grasp the principle of worship that they will begin to want to reform worship. This is a spiritual operation because we are asking people to die to their own desires, to loved sounds, familiar rhythms, and powerful experiences. Only the Holy Spirit can do this work in people’s hearts. Only he can make people desire spiritual worship, and this will likely take years.
When the people are ready, reformers ought to proceed deliberately, step by step. One initial step would be to begin singing one verse of a familiar song (preferably from God’s Word, but that is another discussion) without instrumentation. Do that regularly. It is a little like removing the training wheels from a bicycle for a bit. It builds confidence. It creates a sense of possibility: “Hey, we can do this. The song did not fall apart. That wasn’t too bad.” Do that weekly, for one verse, in a familiar song. Do that for a month or two or six, or even for a year. After time, a cappella singing becomes no longer strange or even painful. It becomes normal. Once a cappella singing becomes a normal practice it is a matter of stretching and strengthening our muscles, as it were, enough to be able to sing two verses and then three verses and perhaps a whole song without the help of musical instruments.
There will be some obstacles, and to these I will offer brief answers.
- Some people will never agree to this. For them, instrumental music in worship is so important that they would rather leave the church than give it up. This presents a crisis. Are we committed enough to the original understanding and application of the rule of worship that we are willing to risk the disapproval of a few people in the congregation? This will be a difficult and even a painful challenge for church leadership and others in the congregation. With prayer and patience, we hope that the Lord will smooth the path so that we do not lose anyone, and that all our people will embrace the Reformed theology, piety, and practice.
- The musicians in the congregation will struggle with this, but Christian worship is an expression of grace, not nature. The rules of the musician are true, but they are drawn from general revelation (nature), not grace, not from special revelation. Christian worship, however, is not governed by nature but by grace, that is, special revelation.
Because of our experience of the last 250 years, we assume that God is as concerned about our sense of aesthetics as we are. Yet aesthetics are culturally relative. I have had the privilege of singing with people from around the world and in different parts of the world. People sing differently in different parts of the world and in different cultures. Different cultures view time, pitch, and key differently. So, we need to test the assumption that God agrees with our aesthetic standards. What evidence do we have that God cares whether we are all keeping time, on pitch, and on key? One might appeal to the skillful Levitical musicians of the types and shadows or to the Psalms. One difficulty is that God also wanted his warriors to be skillful; but what about the people? How did they sing? We have no idea. How did the Jews sing in the synagogue during the intertestamental period, or how well did the early Christians sing in their assemblies? No one knows, but there is little reason to think they were highly accomplished singers, in time, on pitch, and on key.
Nevertheless, there is help. There are Reformed Christians who have always sung, in worship, a cappella. You can find them in your nearest Reformed Presbyterian Church (RPCNA). Those congregations have been singing metrical psalms without instruments for centuries. They will be delighted to help you learn to sing without instruments. Maybe your worship leaders and your church leadership might visit an RPCNA service and talk to their leadership about how they learned to sing so well without instruments.
If the musicians in your congregation really want to help, let them help the congregation learn to sing on key and to keep time. We can simplify things by singing only the melody. Again, the musicians may resist this, but the purpose of our worship is to glorify God, to respond to him, with his Word, according to his revealed will. If there are no RP congregations near you, find a music teacher to come speak to your adult class to teach them how to sing. It only takes a few people who know how to sing, who can get us started on key and help us stay on key. It can be done.
There is more that can be said, but with this I hope to encourage you, dear reader, to consider this aspect of reformation. Perhaps you and your congregation are not yet ready, but in any case, maybe this article plants a seed that will grow and even blossom in years or decades in the future. May the Lord make it so.
NOTES
- “Johannes Oecolampadius,” Reformation 500.
- See “Resources On The Rule Of Worship.”
©R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.
RESOURCES
- Resources On Instruments in Worship
- If Instruments, Why Not Swords?
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, & Pastoral Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2025)
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
R. Scott Clark
R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.
More by R. Scott Clark ›
I was talking with a young seminarian after a lecture that I’d given about Scottish Presbyterian history. The regulative principle came up during the lecture. In our private talk, I mentioned to him that the musical instruments spoken of in the Psalms were part of the Levitical service. A light came on for him. ‘That would mean that the instruments in the Psalms are an argument against the use of musical instruments in the NT church.’
In addition to RP churches., a capella singing is practiced by Old Order Amish, Old Order Mennonite groups and the Churches of Christ.
Richard,
This is helpful. Thank you.
And the Eastern Orthodox!
This has been a fascinating series (broadly speaking). I think for some congregations, recovering the reformed confessions may have to be even slower than that. I think about some P&R congregations I’ve seen that essentially have an SBC style of worship.
now that is a LARGE gap to bridge.
I wonder if the step towards recovering the reformed confession could be as small as taking the band off stage? so people no longer feel as though they’re watching a concert. not a terminus, but a small step.
Then once people are comfortable with not having a band on stage, then the question could be, why a band at all? Then implement the steps laid out here.
what do I know? I just make memes.
It’s a start.
Helpful article, as usual. Thank you for this, Dr. Clark!
When I became persuaded of the acapella-only position a few years ago, the reminder that this is about principle, NOT preference, was huge.
I know plenty of acapella Psalm-singing RP folks who, contrary to what one might think, aren’t anti-instrument. For ex, a piano-playing pastor with trombone and flute-playing children. They love music and instruments just as much as any other Bach-loving or Skillet-jamming Christian we might know. However, they’d never dream of playing them in public worship because they are simply persuaded that the Word doesn’t authorize their use (nor are they needed to sing, so out goes the circumstantial argument—let the reader understand 😉).
That said, if they’re to be included in the congregational worship of the church (and they’re not circumstantial), it must be shown that Word demands it (this is the confessional position of 3FU (HC 96) and WCF (21:1) confessing churches, after all.
From the ‘principle point of view,’ this has nothing to do with whether one finds instruments beautiful, lovely, or emotionally moving.
Nor is it appropriate to say that instruments ‘enhance’ our worship. A congregation is of no disadvantage for not having the funds to buy a Stenson or for lacking a resourceful craftsman in the congregation to make cheaper instruments. In fact, if the P&R and majority view throughout church history are correct, then the sung praise of the churches with instrumental accompaniment would actually be doing the exact opposite of enhancing or beautifying worship in this regard (cf. the “more pure, less pure” language in WCF 25:5-6).
I think another good parallel to instruments might be the contemporary practice of “Children’s Church.” It’s well-intended. But the exodus of covenant children from the gathered worship of the congregation is also foreign to the Word. I imagine we might need a measured pastoral approach to undo this practice in many contexts as well.
May the Lord be pleased to continue reforming his church and help us all to love one another despite some of these deep-held differences in interpretation and practice.
Fully agree, Dr Clark! I still ‘wince’ often in church as the drums, electric guitars, etc, rumble into our hymns! I still don’t find them necessary or pleasing.
Up in Sacramento (CRC-US) I was there when a recent college grad introduced his electric guitar there, and it just noticeably changed things so much! I’d see folks in the pews wincing and surging their shoulders upwards, at that time, at the new ‘sounds.’ We simply enjoyed it before w/o those added instruments. Btw, the guitarist ended up marrying the pastor’s daughter. And he’s a great friend and Christian man. I always have my thinking along the lines as=‘ sheesh, I left long ago the rock and Metal world after Salvation, and those same instruments are here in our churches?!’ Sinceriously! I’m all in for little to no instruments, and improving our collective singing!🎶🎼🎵🎤✝️📖🇺🇸🙏👍😊Thanks for your article!
Rob,
I think it’s important to discuss this issue on the basis of principle. If the pro-instrument people are correct, then the argument against contemporary instruments comes down to taste and that is subjective.
My argument is not about taste (e.g., organ vs band) but about principle. If the instruments belong to the types and shadows, then they are fulfilled and their use has expired for Christians just as the food laws and holy war has expired.
Agreed. Just expressing my thoughts, experiences, and opinions along with and concerning this topic! Sorta like ‘we ARE all in this together.’ Kazillions of us don’t like or want drums, electric guitars, tambourines, etc, in our beautiful, Biblical, meaningful, and Holy Hymns!✝️📖🙏👍
Outside of Lord’s Day worship, is Handel’s Messiah permissible? If yes, is it permissible in a church building (e.g., a Saturday performance)?
Absolutely!
Is your position also for exclusive psalmody?
Hi Nicole,
No. In Recovering the Reformed Confession I argued for a minority position held by Beza, Calvin, and some in the Scottish Kirk, that we should sing all of Scripture but only Scripture because it is sufficient for public worship. The position of the confessional Dutch Reformed churches has been, since the Synod of Dort (1618–19) that, as the URCNA church order says, the Psalms should have the “principal place” in worship. Principal means first. Were the churches to decide to sing only Psalms, I would happily submit to that but I’m not persuaded by the EP position.
Very good article Dr. Clark, and especially helpful for those working gently within their congregations to sing more a cappella psalms. While I lean toward this form of worship, I’d settle for a blend of both as a good first step….my experience has shown that people really enjoy singing psalms especially when coupled with good teaching.
But I feel compelled to share a story I recently read in Presbyterian missionary John G. Paton’s autobiography detailing his work to bring the gospel to the “heathen cannibals” of the New Hebrides islands of the Sough Pacific (now called Vanuatu). As one might imagine, the circumstances of his ministry were exceptionally difficult and dangerous and the people there very resistant to the “worship” which sought to remove their many idols. Having spent his entire life espousing and practicing worship without instruments, his views changed radically when his second wife (his first wife died shortly after beginning his work on Tanna) began teaching hymns to the native children using her harmonium. He was greatly humbled on the subject as he noticed the marvelous interest the natives had in the instrument and how it changed their view of worship. Anyone who has read this inspiring (and highly recommended) story will know that Mr. Paton always gave all credit and glory to Christ alone for the success in the ministry, however, he said he would never again push back against those using instrumentation in worship.
So it is with full understanding on the RPW (I’ve read your RTRC, much of it numerous times), and even being in agreement with you in my personal view, I still find, by God’s grace, room in my heart for those that find instrumentation inspiring, helpful, and even beautiful for use during worship. If worship is Glorifying to God and inspired by the Holy Spirit should we be finding fault with those who prefer to use instrumentation? I, for one, would not be at all surprised to find instruments in Glory…..I expect at that point none of us will care one way or the other. If it won’t divide us there, why should it divide us here? Advocating for something is different than letting it divide us.
Jerry,
Bear with me. Let’s think through your logic.
My major question is whether we could operate on this basis in other spheres? Let’s say we meet a tribe that doesn’t have oral communication and they respond better to pictures, than to preaching. Should we then, for the sake of reaching that tribe abandon preaching/teaching and use images of God in order to reach that tribe? What if reaching a tribe meant asking them to give up bigamy or polygamy or incest? What if a tribe were fascinated by weapons of violence and reaching them required us to go on a sort of a holy war against a neighboring tribe?
You see how this goes. People often use stories from missionaries to leverage the truth. The approach you’re advocating here is exactly how we got where we are. People have always offered emotive, touching grounds for setting aside the truth. This is a kind of dead orthodoxy. When we do this we make the truth mere theory. This is just why I keep saying, “theology, piety, and practice. If we’re not practicing what we confess, then how are we different from the liberals we condemn?
The first and most fundamental question is this: what has God said? Once we have determined that everything else must take second place. Obeying God is always an act of faith. The consequences of obeying God are in his hands not ours.
Why would the types and shadows re-appear in glory? Will there be bloody animal sacrifices in glory? Will there be circumcision in glory? What other types and shadows will literally re-appear in glory? Holy war? The intent of the types and shadows is twofold: 1) to point us forward in redemptive history to their fulfillment (i.e., their termination) and 2) upward to the eschaton (heaven). That was the intent of the holy of holies. That was the intent of the herem holy war. That was the intent of all the types and shadows.
Yes, by all means, we must be gracious with the 99.99% of the rest of the church which has neither considered a cappella singing nor practices it. I did my best in this series and in today’s essay to counsel that very thing. We are family. We are not our own. We’ve been bought with a price. We our bound together by the Spirit, in union with Christ, as one body. Yet, we may also patiently and graciously love the body while simultaneously urging them toward reformation. That’s my goal.
As usual Dr. Clark, your reasoning is well thought out and persuasive. Thankfully acknowledging the kindness in your reply, and in agreement with most of the arguments you make in favor of the RPW in general and a cappella psalm singing in particular, I’m not sure that instrumentation can be fairly associated with types and shadows such as bloody sacrifice or circumcision. Jesus put an end to the need for sacrifice by making Himself the final sacrifice once for all (Hebrews 10:10). Circumcision was replaced by baptism, neither of which will be necessary in Glory. But we will continue to praise God throughout all eternity, and while fully acknowledging the reformed tradition, I don’t see direct Biblical evidence that this praise will necessarily be devoid of instrumentation.
In a marvelous article titled “Heaven: Not Just an Eternal Day Off “, Anthony Hoekema writes:
“In the beginning man was given the so-called cultural mandate—the command to rule over the earth and to develop a God-glorifying culture. Because of man’s fall into sin, that cultural mandate has never been carried out in the way God intended. Only on the new earth will it be perfectly and sinlessly fulfilled. Only then shall we be able to rule the earth properly.
The possibilities that now rise before us boggle the mind. Will there be “better Beethoven” on the new earth, as one author has suggested? Shall we then see better Rembrandts, better Raphaels, better Constables? Shall we read better poetry, better drama, and better prose?
Will scientists continue to advance in technological achievement, will geologists continue to dig out the treasures of the earth, and will architects continue to build imposing and attractive structures? Will there be exciting new adventures in space travel? Shall we perhaps be able to explore new Perelandras? We do not know. But we do know that human dominion over nature will then be perfect. Our culture will glorify God in ways that surpass our most fantastic dreams.
This all means a lot for us now. If there is continuity as well as discontinuity between this earth and the new earth, we must work hard to develop our gifts and talents, and to come as close as we can to producing, in the strength of the Spirit, a Christian culture today. Through our kingdom service, the building materials for the new earth are now being gathered. Bibles are being translated, peoples are being evangelized, believers are being renewed, and cultures are being transformed. Only eternity will reveal the full significance of what has been done for Christ here on earth.”
That last line is striking in it’s implications, “Only eternity will reveal…..” We cannot say with certainty what will be revealed in Glory, but I would not be at all surprised to find musicians and instruments being used in our eternal worship. “Our culture will glorify God in ways that surpass our most fantastic dreams.” Soli Deo Gloria.
Jerry,
Read 2 Chronicles 29:20–26 slowly and carefully please. For your convenience I supply the ESV:
Who among the Israelites are making bloody sacrifices? Who amongst them are playing the instruments?
It appears that the priests performed the sacrifices and the Levites were stationed with the instruments of David and accompanied the priests who blew trumpets. Throughout the process the whole assembly worshiped, the singers sang, and the priests blew their trumpets until the offering was finished. (Did I read carefully enough?)
I find it interesting that the author of 2 Chronicles (Ezra?) seems to indicate that Hezekiah orchestrated the ceremony believing that David had commanded the use of instrumentation because they were commanded by the LORD through his prophets, but in Amos 6:1-6 we find the people being rebuked for singing idle songs to the sound of the harp, and like David, inventing for themselves instruments of music. Is Amos here rebuking the the people for singing idle songs, or for doing so with the instruments of David, or rebuking David for inventing instruments, or for using instruments at all for worship?
At the very least, the question of instrumentation seems to have been around for a long time.
So will there be instruments in Glory? Almost certainly (at least I sure hope so). Will we use them in our worship of God? Probably not, but who can say for sure? Is the use of instrumentation during worship prescribed by God? No, I don’t think it is. So I am in agreement that those who really follow the RPW will necessarily abhor the use of instruments during worship. And while I find worship much more fulfilling sans instruments (they are distracting to me), I expect my real problem, admittedly, is that I’m just not yet reformed enough, but I am moving in that direction (to the praise of Jehovah Mekoddishkem). The Heidelblog and dialog such as that found in the comments here (not to mention your patience and graceful gift of your time Dr. Clark) are quite helpful. I pray those reading this will be as blessed by it as I have been. Thank you!
Jerry,
I think that you got the big point: it was Levites (priests) who were playing instruments, by divine command, and Levites who were slaughtering animals. What the ancient church and later the Reformed churches understood is that it is impossible coherently to defend the use of instruments in Christian worship without also re-instating sacrifices.
Of course, this is what happened, mutatis mutandis, during the Middle Ages. Ministers became priests and the Supper became a sacrifice. As we lost track of the movement of redemptive history instruments also reappeared.
As to heaven, I take the imagery in the Revelation to be figurative and illustrative of the glory of the New Heavens and the New Earth and the glory of the Lord. If there will be no sacrifices (and Hebrews says that they’ve been fulfilled by the once for all sacrifice of Christ) I don’t expect them to re-appear. I don’t think we’ll need them to stay on key.
Is “harmonizing” allowed in the RPCNA or in a Psalm (without instruments)? A lot of folks come by it quite naturally, and it may assuage the disappointments that those of us who are musicians may feel at heading towards Reformed worship in earnest. Teaching the congregation to sing should probably include harmonies, since the melody is often out of reach for folks on the low and high ends of vocal range.
Robin,
Sure! I was just looking for ways to simplify things.
RC Sproul really influenced the “reformed” world by having paid orchestral accompaniment and choral performances as part of worship and then baptizing them as examples of “beauty” in worship.
Perhaps his viewpoint is also legitimate from a biblical perspective. Not yours or Scott’s, but he was a solidly Reformed theologian and would have had good Scriptural reasons for it. He wasn’t a minister who did things randomly. He was well read, a critical thinker, and knew church history well.
Nicole,
R. C. was a friend and a wonderful instrument in the hands of our sovereign God but he did not agree with the historic Reformed view of worship and he was open about that. He took a view more like the Lutherans on images of Christ (the Reformed confessions clearly them and R C favored them) and also in his principle of worship, which, like the Lutherans, held that we may do in worship what is not forbidden. The Reformed principle says that we may do in worship only what God requires.
Those last 14 words have me thinking, Dr Clark. I appreciate this=“The Reformed principle says that we may do in worship ONLY WHAT GOD REQUIRES.” I find that quite Biblical, too. Thank you!✝️📖