Defining Theology With Dr. Girardeau

Zachary Groff is the Director of Advancement & Admissions at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary and Pastor of Antioch Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Woodruff, SC.

John Lafayette Girardeau (1825-98) occupies a significant place in the history of American Presbyterianism. His importance is most evident in his record of service to the Church as a preacher, pastor, churchman, and seminary professor. In 1875, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS) voted to replace William Swan Plumer with Dr. Girardeau as Professor of Didactic and Polemic Theology at Columbia Theological Seminary in South Carolina. On this development, Dr. C. N. Willborn notes, “For the next twenty years, [Dr. Girardeau] carried forth the Thornwellian tradition from the theological chair in Columbia. . . . Girardeau committed himself to working on those areas of doctrine Thornwell had not been able to complete.”[1]

The profundity of Dr. Girardeau’s theological thought is demonstrated in the important (and posthumously published) volume recently posted to Dr. Girardeau’s Log College Press author page: Discussions of Theological Questions. In this anthology of articles and essays, Dr. Girardeau develops a definition (and division) of theology along the lines of his teacher and predecessor at Columbia, Dr. James Henley Thornwell (1812-1862). In doing so, he identifies and confounds variants of the aberrant theology he denominates as Rationalism, including pantheism, intuitionalism, deism, technical rationalism, mysticism, and Romanism. Beyond the discussion of theology as such, the volume includes a brief article on the person of Christ and a very significant contribution to the development of the doctrine of adoption in Christian soteriology.

Students of American Presbyterian theology will mine rich rewards from a careful consideration of Dr. Girardeau’s Discussions of Theological Questions. What follows here is a brief introduction to the volume by way of a consideration of Dr. Girardeau’s definition of theology as an objective scientific discipline distinguishable from – but necessarily correlative to – subjective religious experience.

When Dr. Girardeau joined the faculty of Columbia Theological Seminary in 1875, he possessed the Thornwellian definition of theology as “the science of religion” available to him to accept, reject, or refine. Though his modifications were not great in number or substance, he did propose several refinements to the Thornwellian understanding of the relationship between theology and religion. In agreement with his predecessor, Dr. Girardeau regarded theology as an objective scientific discipline with a clear definition derived from its object of study. However, Dr. Girardeau further refined the relationship between doctrine and devotion as necessarily correlative.

For his inaugural address as the Seminary’s new Professor of Didactic and Polemic Theology, Dr. Girardeau took as his subject “Theology as a Science, Involving an Infinite Element,” delivered before the General Assembly of the PCUS on May 23, 1876 (available from LCP). The working definition he proposed in that address he further elaborated on in his essay “The Definition of Theology,” included as the opening chapter of Discussions of Theological Questions. In this important essay, Dr. Girardeau put forward the goal of theology as a scientific discipline: to “reduce the crude mass of facts into the coherence of a system” through “voluntary reflection” or discursive reasoning (“The Definition of Theology,” 3). These “facts” he identified with “the objective contents of the Scriptures” (18).

However, Christian theology is in no way coordinate with the theology of other world religions. Dr. Girardeau contended that the Christian religion “utterly rejects the hypothesis that it is merely a specific instance of a generic religion, and absolutely claims for itself the competency and the right to be the only religion of the [human] race” (5). The science of Christian religion stands apart from the science of non-Christian religion. The separation is insuperable, the distinction incontrovertible, and the differences irreconcilable. Dr. Girardeau’s words at this point seem to threaten his own definition of theology as the science of religion. He wrote, “Although, then, the broad definition, Theology is the science of religion, is upon logical grounds justifiable in the general, it is for all practical purposes inoperative and nugatory. It is not a working definition. It possesses only a theoretical value” (13). His solution was to specify the religious content of theology as being that of Christianity alone. He continued, “We are warranted in narrowing [the definition]. Since among the religions of mankind only one is entitled to be considered as true, we may define theology as the science of true religion – meaning the Christian religion” (13). Therefore, true theology as such involves the systematization of the raw data of Christianity. For Dr. Girardeau, the objective science of theology must be biblical from beginning to end. There must not be any subjective element allowed into the object-matter of theology. In other words, Dr. Girardeau limited the object-matter of theology to the content of the Bible. His emphasis on the objective nature of theology as a science matched his equally strong emphasis on theology’s necessary correlation to subjective religion.

Dr. Girardeau emphatically and indivisibly connected theology and religion as correlative pursuits – the first objective and scientific, the second subjective and practical – distinguishable from and mutually dependent upon one another. In order to be substantively biblical and orthodox, religious devotion needs true theology. “It is God’s external, verbal, authoritative delineation of the standard to which subjective religion, of the religious life, ought to be conformed, and by which it is to be judged” (18). On the other hand, scientific theology is utterly useless without spiritual vivification brought on through the regenerating activity of the Holy Spirit. “It is, therefore, not to be supposed that theology possesses any inherent power to produce true internal religion. It is an instrument adapted with exquisite wisdom to all the needs of the soul, but it is only an instrument requiring, in order to accomplish the end designed by it, the quickening, illuminating and applying energy of the Holy Spirit. The agent who makes it efficacious is the Spirit, and the organ through which he exerts his grace is faith. The spiritual knowledge, thus resulting, transmutes the frozen system of speculative science into a living scheme of saving truth” (20). Implicit in Dr. Girardeau’s definition of theology as an objective science is a necessary correlation to subjective religion as the end and aim of all such science. Theology without religion is pitifully incomplete, just as religion without theology is woefully incoherent. Dr. Girardeau went so far as to conclude, “Theology, consequently, is both the theory of true religion and the application of that theory to the concrete cases of religious experience” (18).

The correlation between theology and religion is, in Dr. Girardeau’s estimation, indestructible. He argued, “The very end of supernatural revelation is holiness of life to the glory of God. There is an indestructible relation between the Bible as the standard of religious truth and the religious character which was designed to be formed in accordance with it, between the mould and the life which is to be adjusted to it” (18-19). Theology as an objective science proceeds along the same lines as any other science: discursive reasoning concerning a specified set of facts and propositions. Theology as necessarily correlative to subjective religion departs from all other sciences in that it will be doomed to failure and uselessness without the active intervention of its ultimate principle, which is the Triune God Himself.

As much as we might admire Dr. Girardeau’s careful reasoning, his definition of theology was not without deficiencies. The principal weaknesses appear in the realm of the devotional life of the soul. As we have seen, Dr. Girardeau emphasized the necessary and mutually dependent correlation between the objective science of theology and the subjective practice of religion for either doctrine or devotion to thrive. However, theology as such is better understood to correspond – and not merely to correlate – to the practice of religion. Doctrine and devotion are enmeshed one with another. For true theology maximally to regulate religion, it must admit the centrality of devotion to its own purview. Such is reflected in the following definition of theology: the true doctrine of living unto God the Father, through God the Son, by God the Holy Spirit. Such a definition addresses a second weakness in Dr. Girardeau’s definition of theology. Dr. Girardeau’s definition lacks an explicitly trinitarian understanding of God in the definition itself. Whereas the doctrine of the Trinity is unavoidably to be inferred from Girardeau’s presentation of the correlation between objective doctrinal truth (the Word) and subjective religious devotion (made possible by the Spirit), the Triune God Himself must be central to any definition of true theology. Nonetheless, Dr. Girardeau’s refinements on the Thornwellian definition of theology mark a positive development in the theological tradition of American Presbyterianism in that Dr. Girardeau proposed a necessary correlation (tending toward true correspondence) between theology as such and religion as lived.

[1] C. N. Willborn, “John L. Girardeau (1825-98), Pastor to Slaves and Theologian of Causes” (PhD diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 2003), 304, 305.

From A Cappella to Accompaniment: The 19th Century Journey of Southern Presbyterians

R. Andrew Myers is the website manager for Log College Press. He has a B.A. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He served as editor of the Matthew Poole Project (2006-2012), and enjoys the study of church history and historical theology. He is a member of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA).

For centuries the public and stated worship of Presbyterians in Europe and America was a cappella (Italian for “in the manner of the chapel”), that is to say, praise without the use of musical instruments. This was consistent with the views and practice of the historic Congregational and Baptist branches (also descended from the Puritans) of the Protestant church as well.

Calvin had been opposed to the use of musical instruments in public worship on the grounds that it distracted the worshippers’ minds from the meaning of what they sung. None of the Reformed Confessions had sanctioned the use of musical instruments. The Westminster Divines had caused the great organs of St. Paul and St. Peters in Westminster to be removed and the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland had approved. Leading Calvinistic divines in recent times had remained opposed to the use of organs, among them [Thomas] Chalmers in Scotland, [Charles] Spurgeon in England, [James H.] Thornwell in America.[1]

In the 21st century, to survey Presbyterian churches in America – excepting the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America and a few other groups which still adhere to a cappella worship – musical accompaniment is the rule. The transition between these diverse practices can be dated to the 19th century, but there was resistance among Southern Presbyterians and others who held to the historic a cappella position and practice. This article briefly examines the body of literature generated by 19th century Southern Presbyterian debates that took place over this key aspect of worship.

The first Puritan church in America to introduce the organ (the ecclesiastically-preferred modern musical instrument) into its public worship was First Congregational Church in Providence, Rhode Island, in 1770. Some of the earliest Presbyterian churches in America to follow suit were First Presbyterian Church of Alexandria, Virginia (1817); Independent Presbyterian Church of Savannah, Georgia (1820); First Presbyterian Church of Rochester, New York (1830); First Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (c. 1845); First Presbyterian Church of Chicago (1852); and Second Presbyterian Church of Charleston, South Carolina (1856). Tabb Street Church of Petersburg, Virginia (1870); First Presbyterian Church of Lynchburg, Virginia (c. 1871); College Church of Hampden-Sydney, Virginia (1890); and the First Presbyterian Church of Tallahassee, Florida (1891), are later examples of the introduction of organs into public Presbyterian worship. In the case of the College Church at Hampden-Sydney, the building was designed in 1860 by its pastor, Robert L. Dabney, specifically to have entrances narrow enough that pipe organs could not get through. “When a pipe organ was installed in 1920, in the generation following his death, its parts were painstakingly taken up the slave gallery steps, piece-by-piece, and assembled in the balcony.”[2]

Dabney played an important role in the debates which played out in 19th century religious journals and newspapers. A flurry of letters to the editor of the Richmond, Virginia, Watchman and Observer in 1849 included writings by “H” in support of the use of musical instruments (which necessitated a letter by Moses Drury Hoge to deny that he was the author of H’s correspondence), as well as by “Simplex,” “Inquirer” and “Rusticus” in opposition to their use, along with a February 22, 1849, letter by Dabney, using the pseudonym “Chorepiscopus,” in which he argued against “this Popish mode of worship” (the organ).[3]

Robert J. Breckinridge issued a pamphlet in 1851 in which, while allowing Christian liberty for believers to use musical instruments for edification in private, he too identified the use of instrumental music in public worship as “a relapse towards Rome.”[4]

In 1855, John Douglas wrote the first of a series of articles on this topic which appeared in The Southern Presbyterian Review. He memorably began his argument thus: “If we agitate this subject, and seek to expel from the house and worship of God, all the lovers and devotees of Jubal, who was a descendant of that wicked one, Cain, it is simply because we know the beginning of evil is as the letting forth of water.”[5]

Thomas E. Peck published articles in The Critic (November and December 1855) titled “Liturgies, Instrumental Music and Architecture” and “General Principles Touching the Worship of God” in which he argued that the question was a matter of principle:

…a Christian may find it to edification to use a musical instrument in his private or domestic worship, as the sweet singer of Israel seems to have done, and as Martin Luther did; but it is a very different affair to introduce apparatus of this sort into the public worship of God. Before it can be done, there must be a covenant to do it; and before such a covenant can be righteously made, the word of God must be consulted; a thing it would be well for those to do who laugh, in the fulness of their self-conceit, at their brethren for seeing any principle in the matter.[6]

One of the most significant essays in defense of the use of musical instruments in worship was Thomas Smyth’s 1868 response to John Douglas in The Southern Presbyterian Review. He makes the case that the sound of the musical instrument served as legitimate auxiliary aid to human praise, and is justified in Christian worship today on the basis of God’s approval of such in the Old Testament.[7]

Thomas Smyth’s article called forth an anonymously-authored response by John Bailey Adger the following year. Adger takes issue with Smyth’s conjecture that the harp and organ were associated with divine public worship “under every economy [italics used by Smyth and Adger] of the church militant” from the time of Jubal. Adger further responds to Smyth directly:

This plea of the organ’s being a mere circumstance of worship, whilst it may be offered by others, is not and could not be employed by Dr. Smyth. With characteristic frankness he boldly defends the organ as a competent part of the worship of God under the New Testament. This is the only manly and fair position its advocates can take. But whenever they do take it, they have to encounter the condemnation which awaits those who presume to add to God’s commands respecting his worship. [8]

John L. Girardeau was finally called upon by his students to put his views on the matter in print. His 1888 treatise Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church is perhaps the most enduring work by either side of the 19th century debate and has been often republished since. Girardeau thoroughly covers both the Scriptural principles at issue and the ecclesiastical history of musical instruments from the perspective of the historic Reformed church.

The question was discussed at length and from various angles but was based on the general proposition that whatever is not commanded by God as part of his worship is thereby forbidden. Instruments of music were indeed used in the Temple worship (as distinct from the Tabernacle and later the synagogue) but all elements of the Temple worship, Dr. Girardeau argued, pointed to Christ, and were elements in the old dispensation done away with in Christ.

Dr. Girardeau realized, however, that he was fighting a losing cause, as indeed he was….The church at large...rejected Dr. Girardeau’s argument and was not disturbed by Dr. Dabney’s warning.[9]

Girardeau further addresses the several classes of arguments in favor of the use of musical instruments in worship, including those from his fellow Presbyterians who claimed adherence to the Biblical and Confessional regulative principle of worship, but assigned the place of musical instruments to the category of “circumstances,” about which the church clearly has discretionary power, rather than “elements,” which require positive warrant from the Scriptures to be employed and otherwise constitute a binding of the conscience to the traditions of men, a distinction also found both in Scripture and in the Confession. After noting that men such as R.J. Breckinridge and J.H. Thornwell were barely in their graves before organs began to be used in their very own churches, Girardeau emphasizes the importance of understanding the “Doctrine of Circumstances.” As Girardeau argues, borrowing from the Scottish Presbyterian George Gillespie as well as from Thornwell, the church has only ministerial and declarative authority, not legislative, and thus, to understand where instruments fit in and the bounds of the church’s discretionary authority, it is necessary that we comprehend that “[c]ircumstances are those concomitants of an action without which it either cannot be done at all, or cannot be done with decency and decorum.” Girardeau argues that, given the fact that ceremonial worship is abrogated and only that worship which is moral and spiritual remains for the Christian to offer, the use of instruments, unlike the selection of a place of worship (a necessary adjunct to performing the elements of worship), is not a necessary adjunct to praise. Therefore, its use falls under the rubric of “element,” which makes it unauthorized, rather than “circumstance.”[10]

Dabney had again joined the battle with an 1889 review of Girardeau’s treatise,[11] but significant Southern Presbyterian resistance to the use of musical instruments in public worship largely ended in 1898 with the death of both men. With their pens set down for good, the basis of theological opposition to the use of musical instruments in Presbyterian places of worship seemed to disappear with them. As mentioned above, other dissenting groups of Presbyterians continued, and some still continue, to sing praises to God a cappella, and there is an important body of literature produced by American Reformed Presbyterians and others which continues to witness to the practice.[12] But as for the Southern Presbyterian Church, with the passing of these two theological giants in particular in one year, the tide had turned.  

—————

[1] Ernest Trice Thompson, Presbyterians in the South (Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press, 1973), 2:429.

[2] Bruce C. Daniels, Puritans at Play: Leisure and Recreation in Colonial New England (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1995), 59; John Price, Old Light on New Worship: Musical Instruments and The Worship of God, A Theological, Historical and Psychological Study (Avinger, Texas: Simpson Publishing Company, 2005), 133; Julius Melton, Presbyterian Worship in America: Changing Patterns Since 1787 (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001), 35; Lowry Axley, Holding Aloft the Torch: A History of the Independent Presbyterian Church of Savannah, Georgia (Savannah: Publication Committee of the Independent Presbyterian Church, 1958), 46; Thompson, Presbyterians in the South, 2:430-431; Jonathan Jakob Hehn, “American Presbyterian Worship And The Organ” (2013), 29-30, 66, 109, accessed on February 21, 2019, http://purl.flvc.org/fsu/fd/FSU_migr_etd-7417. Thompson, citing Richard McIlwaine, Memories of Three Score Years and Ten (New York and Washington: The Neale Publishing Company, 1908), 262, places the date of the introduction of an organ into the College Church as 1890, but the College Presbyterian Church at Hampden-Sydney website says this took place in 1920 (http://people.hsc.edu/organizations/collegechurch/history/history2.shtml).

[3] The Blue Banner 3, nos. 1-2 (January-February 1994): 1-11; Robert Lewis Dabney, Discussions (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, 1999), 5:311.

[4] Robert Jefferson Breckinridge, A Protest Against the Use of Instrumental Music in the State Worship of God on the Lord’s Day (Liverpool: D. Marples, 1856), 8.

[5] John Douglas, “On Organs,” The Southern Presbyterian Review 9, no. 2 (October 1855): 224-225.

[6] Thomas Ephraim Peck, Miscellanies (Richmond, Virginia: The Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1895), 1:73, 85-89.

[7] Thomas Smyth, “The Scriptural and Divine Right for Using Mechanical as well as Vocal Instruments in the Worship of God,” The Southern Presbyterian Review 19, no. 4 (October 1868): 517-556.

[8] John Bailey Adger, “A Denial of Divine Right for Organs in Worship,” The Southern Presbyterian Review 20, no. 1 (January 1869): 101-102.

[9] Thompson, Presbyterians in the South, 2:430.

[10] John Lafayette Girardeau, Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church (Richmond, Virginia: Whittet & Shepperson, 1888), 135-154, 188-199; James Henley Thornwell, Collected Writings (Richmond, Virginia: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1873), 4:244-248.

[11] Robert Lewis Dabney, “A Review of Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church, by Dr. John L. Girardeau,” The Presbyterian Quarterly III, no. 9 (July 1889), 462-469.

[12] See, for example,  Alexander Cameron Blaikie (ARP), A Catechism of Praise (Boston: S.K. Whipple and Co., 1849, 1854) and The Organ and Other Musical Instruments as Noted in the Holy Scriptures (Boston: Lee & Shepard, 1865); Robert Johnson (RPCNA), A Discourse on Instrumental Music in Public Worship (Burlington, Iowa: Osborn, Snow & Co., 1871); William Wishart (UPCNA), “Psallo,” The Evangelical Repository LIX (First Series), no. 13, IX (Fourth Series), no. 18 (June 1882); Proceedings of the Convention of United Presbyterians [UPCNA] Opposed to Instrumental Music in the Worship of God (Pittsburgh: Myers, Shinkle & Co., 1883); and Robert J. George, Instrumental Music a Corruption of New Testament Worship (Pittsburgh: The Witness Committee of the Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, n.d).