What do you think?
Rate this book
The Songs of Zion
Great book for looking into exclusive psalmody
240 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 1993
5 people are currently reading
153 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
September 2, 2014
Simple the best treatment on exclusive psalmody in print today.
July 14, 2022
It was actually my third attempt at reading the fourth edition of Michael Bushell's defence of exclusive psalmody. (I read the third edition a long time ago, but the fourth edition is effectively a new book.) Previously, I found the author's tone much too severe. Nowadays, I can understand why he believed that such vehemence was necessary. Leaving aside the question of whether or not we should supplement the Psalter, the complete neglect of Psalm-singing by the modern church is a heinous sin and a crying scandal. The only solution is repentance on the part of those responsible and bringing forth fruit in keeping with repentance. In other words, start singing the Psalms.
August 3, 2016
Top-notch introduction to psalm singing for me.
November 30, 2024
Bushell makes the case for exclusive psalmody convincingly. He shows that exclusive psalmody is consistent with the regulative principle of worship while uninspired hymnody is not. He shows biblically that the Old Testament saints, the Lord Jesus, and the Apostles sang and loved the Psalms and that the Psalter is about Christ. Finally, the most convincing part of the book for me was the final chapter on church history. Exclusive psalmody was the practice of the fathers as well as the Reformed church of the Reformation. Uninspired hymnody did not take root in modern Evangelical and Reformed churches until Watts, who speaks blasphemously of the Psalter and deceptively introduced his own hymns, in the eighteenth century. This book is a must read and is a pertinent call for Christian to return to the Songs of Zion for private, family, and public worship for in the Psalter the heart of our Lord Jesus Christ is found.
“Whenever the Psalter is abandoned, an incomparable treasure vanishes from the Christian church. With its recovery will come unsuspected power.” -Bonhoeffer
“No one can sing songs worthy of God unless he receives the from Himself” -Augustine
“Whenever the Psalter is abandoned, an incomparable treasure vanishes from the Christian church. With its recovery will come unsuspected power.” -Bonhoeffer
“No one can sing songs worthy of God unless he receives the from Himself” -Augustine
April 25, 2025
This is “the book” on Psalmody. Very good. Major emphasis on the supremacy and sufficiency of the Psalter, everything else flows from there.
April 24, 2023
The best modern book I've read defending the biblical practice of exclusive psalmody.
The Reformed church needs to recover psalm singing: "Whenever the Psalter is abandoned, an incomparable treasure vanishes from the Christian church. With its recovery will come unsuspected power" D. Bonhoffer.
The Reformed church needs to recover psalm singing: "Whenever the Psalter is abandoned, an incomparable treasure vanishes from the Christian church. With its recovery will come unsuspected power" D. Bonhoffer.
July 14, 2024
This book has some value for its exposition of the regulative principle of worship and the history of psalm-singing in the church. Despite that, Bushell's entire argument for exclusive psalmody hangs from a single slender thread that does not support his conclusions. I write this as a practitioner and advocate for exclusive psalmody. There is great wisdom in singing the Psalms. I believe every church's public worship would be improved immeasurably by adopting the practice of singing only the Psalms of the Bible. Wisdom, I think, should lead us to the practice, but contrary to Bushell's insistence, this does not come to us as a command from God.
Bushell's case depends on one supposition, which he repeats frequently throughout the book: the inclusion of a book of songs in the canon of Scripture means that God commands his people to sing the songs found in that book, and only those songs, in worship.
"The Book of Psalms is the only devotional guide given by God to direct us to how to worship Him in song. ... The inclusion of the Psalter in the Canon of Scripture and its separate role as a manual of praise demand this conclusion" (p. 18).
"Why did God choose to place a complete book of worship song in the Canon of Scripture? ... The Psalter is in the Bible because God wanted us to have a collection of songs with which to praise Him" (p. 20).
"The Book of Psalms is the only book in the Bible which was written specifically for the purposes of telling us how to praise and worship God in a manner that is pleasing to Him" (p. 21).
"The very presence of the Psalter, a book of songs, in the Canon of Scripture constitutes a command to sing the Psalms so clear and emphatic that it is a wonder a sane man should require more" (p. 26).
"The inclusion of a collection of songs in the Canon of Scripture, without any demonstrable limits to its use, constitutes a divine command to use the whole of that book in services of worship" (p. 27).
"By placing the Psalter in Scripture God is telling us that the production of worship song is something that He has reserved for Himself" (p. 95).
Bushell's error is in confusing literary form or genre, which has to do with the psalms' historical purpose or use, with their ongoing purpose and use as part of the canon of Scripture. The books of the Bible come to us in many forms and represent a variety of genres. Their genres tell us something about their historical use or purpose and help us to interpret them but do not thereby dictate anything to us about how we use them as Scripture. Knowing that Philemon is a personal letter helps us interpret it correctly but does not require us, somehow, to use it as a letter.
The canon of Scripture is a canon of *Scripture*, which is a reflection of its inspired content and says nothing about how it is to be used apart from, for example, what Paul says in 2 Tim. 3:16: for teaching, reproof, correction, training in righteousness. The canonicity of the book of Psalms has to do with what God reveals, what he teaches us, and how he shapes us through inspired Scripture. The Psalms constitute part of the canon of Scripture because they are Scripture, God's word written, not because they are a book of songs as such, nor a devotional guide nor manual of praise. The individual psalms that comprise the Book of Psalms undoubtedly were written to be sung. They may have been collected together into songbooks meant for singing sometime before they were assembled into what we know as the Book of Psalms. None of that matters. It does not follow from that fact that the Book of Psalms as such is meant to be sung, nor that this was the reason for its inclusion in the canon (it certainly was not).
I advocate for Psalm singing because I think it wise. It is, as Bushell emphasizes, Scripture that comes from God himself, so what better way to praise God can there be than taking his word into our hearts and letting it flow from our lips in song? Psalm-singers universally testify to the blessing of learning and singing the Psalms. The singing of Psalms has been central to the worship of the church since the beginning. Singing the Psalms is a way to ground the congregation in Scripture and the history of the church of which they are a part. It helps pastors and music leaders in the church to center worship on God, for whom it should be intended, rather than choose songs and instrumentation that will appeal to people in an emotional and sensual way (which describes most contemporary worship music) or reflects the stylistic preferences of one person or group in the church in contradistinction to others. In other words, there are many good and wise reasons to adopt or maintain the practice of singing the biblical Psalms exclusively, but "God commands it" is not one of them because it simply isn't true.
Bushell's case depends on one supposition, which he repeats frequently throughout the book: the inclusion of a book of songs in the canon of Scripture means that God commands his people to sing the songs found in that book, and only those songs, in worship.
"The Book of Psalms is the only devotional guide given by God to direct us to how to worship Him in song. ... The inclusion of the Psalter in the Canon of Scripture and its separate role as a manual of praise demand this conclusion" (p. 18).
"Why did God choose to place a complete book of worship song in the Canon of Scripture? ... The Psalter is in the Bible because God wanted us to have a collection of songs with which to praise Him" (p. 20).
"The Book of Psalms is the only book in the Bible which was written specifically for the purposes of telling us how to praise and worship God in a manner that is pleasing to Him" (p. 21).
"The very presence of the Psalter, a book of songs, in the Canon of Scripture constitutes a command to sing the Psalms so clear and emphatic that it is a wonder a sane man should require more" (p. 26).
"The inclusion of a collection of songs in the Canon of Scripture, without any demonstrable limits to its use, constitutes a divine command to use the whole of that book in services of worship" (p. 27).
"By placing the Psalter in Scripture God is telling us that the production of worship song is something that He has reserved for Himself" (p. 95).
Bushell's error is in confusing literary form or genre, which has to do with the psalms' historical purpose or use, with their ongoing purpose and use as part of the canon of Scripture. The books of the Bible come to us in many forms and represent a variety of genres. Their genres tell us something about their historical use or purpose and help us to interpret them but do not thereby dictate anything to us about how we use them as Scripture. Knowing that Philemon is a personal letter helps us interpret it correctly but does not require us, somehow, to use it as a letter.
The canon of Scripture is a canon of *Scripture*, which is a reflection of its inspired content and says nothing about how it is to be used apart from, for example, what Paul says in 2 Tim. 3:16: for teaching, reproof, correction, training in righteousness. The canonicity of the book of Psalms has to do with what God reveals, what he teaches us, and how he shapes us through inspired Scripture. The Psalms constitute part of the canon of Scripture because they are Scripture, God's word written, not because they are a book of songs as such, nor a devotional guide nor manual of praise. The individual psalms that comprise the Book of Psalms undoubtedly were written to be sung. They may have been collected together into songbooks meant for singing sometime before they were assembled into what we know as the Book of Psalms. None of that matters. It does not follow from that fact that the Book of Psalms as such is meant to be sung, nor that this was the reason for its inclusion in the canon (it certainly was not).
I advocate for Psalm singing because I think it wise. It is, as Bushell emphasizes, Scripture that comes from God himself, so what better way to praise God can there be than taking his word into our hearts and letting it flow from our lips in song? Psalm-singers universally testify to the blessing of learning and singing the Psalms. The singing of Psalms has been central to the worship of the church since the beginning. Singing the Psalms is a way to ground the congregation in Scripture and the history of the church of which they are a part. It helps pastors and music leaders in the church to center worship on God, for whom it should be intended, rather than choose songs and instrumentation that will appeal to people in an emotional and sensual way (which describes most contemporary worship music) or reflects the stylistic preferences of one person or group in the church in contradistinction to others. In other words, there are many good and wise reasons to adopt or maintain the practice of singing the biblical Psalms exclusively, but "God commands it" is not one of them because it simply isn't true.
August 27, 2025
I read the fourth edition (2011), which adds about 50 more pages compared to the first edition at a total of 295 pages of content, 688 footnotes and very detailed research from various sources in French, German, and Latin as well as some exegetical discussions of Hebrew and Greek texts relating to the use of Psalms in corporate worship. I hearty recommend this book to theology students and every minister to consider the benefit of the Psalter for corporate worship even if you are not fully persuaded of exclusive Psalmody.
Bushell's candor and charity is clear in the book as he engages many contemporary arguments (such as Gore, Gordon, Frame, Morey, Douglas Wilson, Leithart, and many others) and starts with a defense of the sufficiency and Christology of the Psalter rather than a defense from the relative principle of worship.
The 4th edition has the following chapter divisions:
Introduction
The sufficiency and superiority of the Psalter
The Regulative Principle of Worship
The Scriptural Basis of the Regulative Principle
The Psalms in Scripture
The Psalms in History
As a particular Baptist I didn't find disagreement with this book. Our own Congregational heritage has a history of exclusive Psalmody such as Henry Ainsworth, John Cotton, and John Owen. Nehemiah Coxe, co-editor to the 1677 London confession wrote a letter defending exclusive psalmody and recommended John Cotton's treatise, which shows the early particular baptists held to EP. Even after Benjamin Keach's hymn controversy some later particular baptists still defended EP such as John Gill, but the exclusive hymnody view has eclipsed the rich heritage of the earlier particular baptists and their acapella Congregational Psalm singing in modern worship. Sadly many modern evangelical and many modern reformed churches follow Isaac Watt's paraphrases and hymns and have forgotten how the reformation was a retrieval of the Psalter as found both in Scripture and the practice of the first 400 years of the early church.
Even if you disagree with EP it is worth accepting the challenge by Bushell at the end or his book,
"But I draw comfort from the fact that you have in your possession a much better advocate for the Psalter than I myself could ever write in a thousand lifetimes. It is the book of Psalms itself. I would like to offer the a challenge to any skeptical reader. Read through the book of Psalms a couple of times this year, a Psalm every morning and a Psalm every evening. Get a copy of " the Book of Psalms for Singing" and sing a couple of Psalms every day with your family. Get a copy of Spurgeon's "Treasury of David" to help you through some of the more difficult Psalms and to help you see Christ more clearly in them. Don't just read through the Psalms. Pray through them. Ask God to help you understand them and to understand Him better through them. Remember as you read that Jesus was immersed in these Psalms from his earliest childhood and that he carried them in His heart to the cross. Try as best you can to understand and love them as He did" (pg. 294-295).
Bushell's candor and charity is clear in the book as he engages many contemporary arguments (such as Gore, Gordon, Frame, Morey, Douglas Wilson, Leithart, and many others) and starts with a defense of the sufficiency and Christology of the Psalter rather than a defense from the relative principle of worship.
The 4th edition has the following chapter divisions:
Introduction
The sufficiency and superiority of the Psalter
The Regulative Principle of Worship
The Scriptural Basis of the Regulative Principle
The Psalms in Scripture
The Psalms in History
As a particular Baptist I didn't find disagreement with this book. Our own Congregational heritage has a history of exclusive Psalmody such as Henry Ainsworth, John Cotton, and John Owen. Nehemiah Coxe, co-editor to the 1677 London confession wrote a letter defending exclusive psalmody and recommended John Cotton's treatise, which shows the early particular baptists held to EP. Even after Benjamin Keach's hymn controversy some later particular baptists still defended EP such as John Gill, but the exclusive hymnody view has eclipsed the rich heritage of the earlier particular baptists and their acapella Congregational Psalm singing in modern worship. Sadly many modern evangelical and many modern reformed churches follow Isaac Watt's paraphrases and hymns and have forgotten how the reformation was a retrieval of the Psalter as found both in Scripture and the practice of the first 400 years of the early church.
Even if you disagree with EP it is worth accepting the challenge by Bushell at the end or his book,
"But I draw comfort from the fact that you have in your possession a much better advocate for the Psalter than I myself could ever write in a thousand lifetimes. It is the book of Psalms itself. I would like to offer the a challenge to any skeptical reader. Read through the book of Psalms a couple of times this year, a Psalm every morning and a Psalm every evening. Get a copy of " the Book of Psalms for Singing" and sing a couple of Psalms every day with your family. Get a copy of Spurgeon's "Treasury of David" to help you through some of the more difficult Psalms and to help you see Christ more clearly in them. Don't just read through the Psalms. Pray through them. Ask God to help you understand them and to understand Him better through them. Remember as you read that Jesus was immersed in these Psalms from his earliest childhood and that he carried them in His heart to the cross. Try as best you can to understand and love them as He did" (pg. 294-295).
January 9, 2024
though I disagree with bushel on exclusive solemnity, I think that the two main points of the book are solid. If scripture is sufficient, then the psalms are a sufficient book for worship. If you hold to the regulative principle of worship, then it also follows that you need scriptural precedent for every element of worship. There’s explicit precedent laid out in scripture for the singing of psalms. Where I disagree with bushel is that there does seem to be precedent for singing, uninspired hymns in new covenant worship. This can be necessarily inferred from the scripture.
This is a good book, and all worshipers should consider the points that are brought here. However, the reader should keep in mind that this book is very emotional and often answers, minor objections to exclusive solemnity with “ only a stupid person could believe this,” without any solid reasoning. However, as I stated before, the main points are solid, and need to be considered.
This is a good book, and all worshipers should consider the points that are brought here. However, the reader should keep in mind that this book is very emotional and often answers, minor objections to exclusive solemnity with “ only a stupid person could believe this,” without any solid reasoning. However, as I stated before, the main points are solid, and need to be considered.
October 26, 2020
Second edition, A bit of trying to prove the point through blunt repetition at times.I think it may have been a mistake to have the scriptural basis chapter before the regulatory principle chapter. The chapter on the regulatory principle was generally stronger and makes a clearer lens for that scriptural chapter. The final chapter on church history was very informative.
The language is at times 'undiplomatic' if you can get past that it makes a reasonable case and covers the issue of exclusive psalmody extensively from most angles. A couple objections I thought of were not covered and some things had weaker reasonings. Well researched and quality footnotes abound.
The language is at times 'undiplomatic' if you can get past that it makes a reasonable case and covers the issue of exclusive psalmody extensively from most angles. A couple objections I thought of were not covered and some things had weaker reasonings. Well researched and quality footnotes abound.
September 24, 2019
The chapters on the sufficichcy of the Psalter are the best. Admittedly, church history is at least somewhat on his side. However, his formulation of the regulative principle—as is so often the case—is not coherent and so leads to ad hoc results. (The maxim "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is also relevant here.)
January 16, 2022
I find this a very thorough treatment on the topic of Psalm-singing and an excellent defence of exclusive Psalmody. It also touches quite a fair bit on the theology of the Psalter and the history of the Psalms in the Church. Simply an excellent book!
December 24, 2025
This book is really well written, and the arguments that are put forth are very compelling. As I’m studying and becoming convicted of purity of worship issues, this book might be the start of my downfall 😂
Want to read
October 31, 2022Newer 4th edition on Amazon here.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews