greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
I have a question. It's been germinating in my mind for quite some time now.
First point: most Psalms I've seen set to music are set to music that is in meter. This requires a poetic translation of the Psalms. Of course, the Psalms are already poetry, but still, in order to set them into English meter, some level of paraphrase is necessary. Even if the meter is not present, most of the Genevan Psalms are paraphrases as well (albeit excellent ones). The point here is that most Psalms that I've seen set to music are in fact paraphrases of the Psalms set to music.
Second point: many advocates of exclusive Psalmody also advocate catechetical preaching (in addition to expository preaching, not usually in competition with it). Catechisms are summaries of Biblical truth.
The excellent hymns I know are not translations of biblical texts, but summaries of biblical truth.
So the question is this: where is the limit for how paraphrastic one can be in exclusive Psalmody, or in exclusive Scripture-only singing; and how does one go about setting the biblical limit for how paraphrastic one can be? If we were to allow preaching on the catechism, for instance, which is a summary of biblical teaching, why could we not allow hymns which are a summary of biblical truth? This question assumes, of course, that there are many hymns out there which are anything but biblical.
One objection I can hear already is that this would let the door in for anything, to which I would answer that all excellent worship requires careful thought and wisdom to make sure that it is biblical.
To make the question concrete, let's take a few phrases from Amazing Grace. "I once was lost, but now am found" could easily be a personal adaption of the parable of the lost sheep. "Was blind but now I see" could be a personalized appropriation of the miracles that Jesus performed on the blind, or the story of Saul. These two phrases are surely biblical in a broader sense. Why would they be excluded, but paraphrases of the Psalms be allowed? Of course, this all presupposes the arguments about exclusive Psalmody already out there. My point is this: if any paraphrasis is allowed, then why are summaries not allowed? How paraphrastic is too paraphrastic? What level of paraphrase is acceptable, and how does one justify this biblically?
First point: most Psalms I've seen set to music are set to music that is in meter. This requires a poetic translation of the Psalms. Of course, the Psalms are already poetry, but still, in order to set them into English meter, some level of paraphrase is necessary. Even if the meter is not present, most of the Genevan Psalms are paraphrases as well (albeit excellent ones). The point here is that most Psalms that I've seen set to music are in fact paraphrases of the Psalms set to music.
Second point: many advocates of exclusive Psalmody also advocate catechetical preaching (in addition to expository preaching, not usually in competition with it). Catechisms are summaries of Biblical truth.
The excellent hymns I know are not translations of biblical texts, but summaries of biblical truth.
So the question is this: where is the limit for how paraphrastic one can be in exclusive Psalmody, or in exclusive Scripture-only singing; and how does one go about setting the biblical limit for how paraphrastic one can be? If we were to allow preaching on the catechism, for instance, which is a summary of biblical teaching, why could we not allow hymns which are a summary of biblical truth? This question assumes, of course, that there are many hymns out there which are anything but biblical.
One objection I can hear already is that this would let the door in for anything, to which I would answer that all excellent worship requires careful thought and wisdom to make sure that it is biblical.
To make the question concrete, let's take a few phrases from Amazing Grace. "I once was lost, but now am found" could easily be a personal adaption of the parable of the lost sheep. "Was blind but now I see" could be a personalized appropriation of the miracles that Jesus performed on the blind, or the story of Saul. These two phrases are surely biblical in a broader sense. Why would they be excluded, but paraphrases of the Psalms be allowed? Of course, this all presupposes the arguments about exclusive Psalmody already out there. My point is this: if any paraphrasis is allowed, then why are summaries not allowed? How paraphrastic is too paraphrastic? What level of paraphrase is acceptable, and how does one justify this biblically?