I visited 3 EP churches. I heard no Psalms.

[smhbbag]

Two CREC and an RPCNA.

Thesis: Exclusive Psalmody seems not to exist.

What we sang were human riffs on the Psalms, changing the words around to fit rhythm and time and rhyme. Some verses repeated. Some not. Some looped. Some not. Not a single song matched the text in the preferred translation of the church. Most of them even proved difficult to match to the text if one had an open Bible next to the "Psalm"-book.

They wrote their own hymns inspired by the Psalms and then called them Psalms.

EHIP shall be the new name.

Exclusive Hymnody Inspired by Psalms.

 

[Logan]

Without knowing exactly what you experienced, I'm curious if you have an example in mind of what you would call a psalm that is singable?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

CREC is not EP that I know of; I know they have a BIG psalter-hymnal. The RPCNA should have been singing from their Psalter which from my experience checking translation for my church's eclectic mix Psalter are sound translations. If changing word order makes it not a translation, then no English translation for reading is a translation. The repeats and loops are arguably a problem but only a defect that can be addressed. Take the 1650 for example. It was a translation made for singing and while it can be improved here and there it is every bit the Word of God and not some summary or commentary as the KJV is the Word of God. Psalms in meter are translations like the KJV not commentary like Matthew Henry. A pastor can stand in the pulpit and say hear now the very Word of God whether he reads from the KJV or the 1650 Psalter. See this article.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I’m no fan of EP, so your observation does not bother me. But it does intrigue me.

 

[Tom Hart]

Two CREC and an RPCNA.

Thesis: Exclusive Psalmody seems not to exist.

What we sang were human riffs on the Psalms, changing the words around to fit rhythm and time and rhyme. Some verses repeated. Some not. Some looped. Some not. Not a single song matched the text in the preferred translation of the church. Most of them even proved difficult to match to the text if one had an open Bible next to the "Psalm"-book.

They wrote their own hymns inspired by the Psalms and then called them Psalms.

EHIP shall be the new name.

Exclusive Hymnody Inspired by Psalms.

The RPCNA doesn’t sing psalms? I think their members might be surprised to hear that.

Can you give an example of what was sung at the RPCNA church?

 

[Jake]

1 The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
(KJV 1611/1769)

1 The Lord's my shepherd, I'll not want.
2 He makes me down to lie
In pastures green: he leadeth me
the quiet waters by.
(SMV 1650)

Here is the first two verses of one of the most well known Psalms. The second version (SMV) is perhaps the best known metrical rendition of a Psalm in the English language, and even is included in many hymnals. Is the second not singing the Psalm because it is in meter?

I would assert it is possible to faithfully translate the Psalms to meter, but that not all translations are faithful. However, I'm also willing to call the NIV or even the NLT the word of God, even if they are not the most literal translations.

 

[Jake]

I'll add in addition to my former post, most RPCNA churches use the Book of Psalms for Worship (2009), though older authorized versions are also in use including the Scottish Metrical Version (1650) and the Book of Psalms for Singing (1973). The Book of Psalms for Worship includes very few examples with choruses or repeated phrases, and further editions have gotten rid of some of the only ones that existed. The Scottish Metrical Version (1650) does not include any of these, though some editions (such as the red split leaf) include a few in the back.

I did not know there were any EP CREC churches and the denominations do not have an official Psalter. I know some use the Lutheran hymnbook and chant Psalms from prose. But it could really be any Psalter.

All this to say, what Psalters were your singing out of? What is your standard for something being the word of God? Does it have to match exactly the prose translation in use by the congregation?

 

[JH]

CREC is not EP that I know of; I know they have a BIG psalter-hymnal. The RPCNA should have been singing from their Psalter which from my experience checking translation for my church's eclectic mix Psalter are sound translations. If changing word order makes it not a translation, then no English translation for reading is a translation. The repeats and loops are arguably a problem but only a defect that can be addressed. Take the 1650 for example. It was a translation made for singing and while it can be improved here and there it is every bit the Word of God and not some summary or commentary as the KJV is the Word of God. Psalms in meter are translations like the KJV not commentary like Matthew Henry. A pastor can stand in the pulpit and say hear now the very Word of God whether he reads from the KJV or the 1650 Psalter. See this article.

But can we indeed say in intellectual honesty that the 1650 is on basis with the word of God not rendered in metre? I ask this as someone who is EP, uses it exclusively based on preference, being used to KJV syntax, and finding no fault with it.

Consider various places wherein the 1650 has not merely a supplemented word or two, but entire lines. For a few brief examples pulled from William Annan's critique of Exclusive Psalmody (which though I do not share his conclusions, I find the best critique of the position so far that I've read):

Psalm 136:10 KJV - To him that smote Egypt in their firstborn
1650: To him that Egypt smote, who did his message scorn, and in his anger hot, did kill all their firstborn

Psalm 102:6 KJV - I am like an owl of the desert
1650: I like an owl in desert am, that nightly there doth moan

There are more examples of this as well. What are we to make of these, when we critique uninspired hymns, and words of men? Are not these words of men? Even if these critiques were valid, it would prove nothing, but that the EP position is inconsistent, and that we must chant the unaltered text. But what are we to make of this? Did the Westminster divines not have such a strict view of "literacy" in the metred renderings of the Psalms, whereas many of us do?

Even so, I confess there is much difference between sitting down and writing a hymn from scratch, and rendering the Psalms in metre suitable to be sung. Just my thoughts

 

[NaphtaliPress]

But can we indeed say in intellectual honesty that the 1650 is on basis with the word of God not rendered in metre? I ask this as someone who is EP, uses it exclusively based on preference, being used to KJV syntax, and finding no fault with it.

Consider various places wherein the 1650 has not merely a supplemented word or two, but entire lines. For a few brief examples pulled from William Annan's critique of Exclusive Psalmody (which though I do not share his conclusions, I find the best critique of the position so far that I've read):

Psalm 136:10 KJV - To him that smote Egypt in their firstborn
1650: To him that Egypt smote, who did his message scorn, and in his anger hot, did kill all their firstborn

Psalm 102:6 KJV - I am like an owl of the desert
1650: I like an owl in desert am, that nightly there doth moan

There are more examples of this as well. What are we to make of these, when we critique uninspired hymns, and words of men? Are not these words of men? Even if these critiques were valid, it would prove nothing, but that the EP position is inconsistent, and that we must chant the unaltered text. But what are we to make of this? Did the Westminster divines not have such a strict view of "literacy" in the metred renderings of the Psalms?

Even so, I confess there is much difference between sitting down and writing a hymn from scratch, and rendering the Psalms in metre suitable to be sung. Just my thoughts

Correct, the 1650 is not perfect. My pastor and I call it 'padding' or excessive padding when words not represented in the text are in the translation due strictly to fitting the tune. You cannot fully avoid extra words in any translation work, for reading or singing; but when it appears to be strictly to make the meter I think the thing to do is do the translation to a different tune that nixes the need for that kind of padding.

 

[JH]

Correct, the 1650 is not perfect. My pastor and I call it 'padding' or excessive padding when words not represented in the text are in the translation due strictly to fitting the tune. You cannot fully avoid extra words in any translation work, for reading or singing; but when it appears to be strictly to make the meter I think the thing to do is do the translation to a different tune that nixes the need for that kind of padding.

Thank you for your quick response. Though I prefer the 1650, and have Psalms memorized from it, would you then conclude something like the C&C Red Psalter has the potential to be objectively superior, insofar as it has more metre variety, and thus ability to render a text in metre "more faithfully" so to speak?

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Chris or anyone, is there a written history available of the work of those men as they translated the 1650-- their thinking, concerns, dissatisfactions, etc? I know they labored long and meticulously.

I'm a fan of the Genevan melodies. They're simple and beautiful, and so well fitted to the words. I guess those modes were more foreign to English speakers? But yet, they become very familiar in short order when used.

 

[Jake]

Chris or anyone, is there a written history available of the work of those men as they translated the 1650-- their thinking, concerns, dissatisfactions, etc? I know they labored long and meticulously.

I'm a fan of the Genevan melodies. They're simple and beautiful, and so well fitted to the words. I guess those modes were more foreign to English speakers? But yet, they become very familiar in short order when used.

My understanding is the Scots were not as educated as the Genevans, hence the reliance on simple meter that could be used with already familiar tunes and even the practice of lining of songs when congregants couldn't read or enough Psalters weren't available.

 

[Rom]

One must make a distinction between a doctrine being Scriptural and a practice of that doctrine being deficient. When men forget such distinctions, they often become antinomians (or on the other side, legalists convinced that they are perfect). A common tactic against Sabbath keeping is - no one can keep it perfectly. A tactic by atheists against our English Bibles is that there is no perfect translation of the Greek and Hebrew texts. I have no problem saying that my King James Bible is not utterly perfect. I have no problem saying my 1650 Psalter and my Book of Psalms for Worship can be improved.

The command in EP is to sing psalms exclusively. If there is a deficiency in the practice of metrical psalmody, we must seek to remedy it, not throw out the doctrine of EP entirely. For instance, in the red C&C psalter that Jerrod alluded to, there is a section on how to chant the psalms from out of your English Bible.

It is intriguing how many attempts to discredit EP have arisen as of late. I think it might well be kickback against the number of souls who are more and more convinced by the doctrine as many segments of the Church are returning and seeking out this Biblical practice.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Thank you for your quick response. Though I prefer the 1650, and have Psalms memorized from it, would you then conclude something like the C&C Red Psalter has the potential to be objectively superior, insofar as it has more metre variety, and thus ability to render a text in metre "more faithfully" so to speak?

My suspicion is folks will coincide [sorry, concede] this or that which could be improved in both and then come down on individual preference which defects they can live with more in making that choice.

 

[Logan]

My understanding is the Scots were not as educated as the Genevans, hence the reliance on simple meter that could be used with already familiar tunes and even the practice of lining of songs when congregants couldn't read or enough Psalters weren't available.

As I read/sing the 1650 and the sometimes convoluted wording I imagine some old Scots men sitting around (with great theology and knowledge of Hebrew but not very good poetic ability) saying things like "Och! We'll mek th'worruds fit yit! Jist shuffle 'em arond a bit moore 'nd cram 'em in thir."

 

[beloved7]

Do churches that hold to EP sing the psalms word for word or do they use psalters like the supplement found in hymnals? Also how do most people who are EP feel about hymns; would you refuse to sing them if visiting another reformed church?

Not a challenge, just genuinely curious.

 

[Romans922]

Also how do most people who are EP feel about hymns; would you refuse to sing them if visiting another reformed church?

This answer is simple concerning what you are asking, "If God has commanded us to sing Psalms (exclusively) would we break our conscience when visiting other churches by singing non-Psalms?" or "Should we do in worship that which God has not commanded just because everyone around us (who we certainly care about and agree on most things on) is doing it?"

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Chris or anyone, is there a written history available of the work of those men as they translated the 1650-- their thinking, concerns, dissatisfactions, etc? I know they labored long and meticulously.

I'm a fan of the Genevan melodies. They're simple and beautiful, and so well fitted to the words. I guess those modes were more foreign to English speakers? But yet, they become very familiar in short order when used.

Some is known but not anything close to what one would like. We have brief notices to show the work was extensive, but being a work of many you are going to have unevenness. It is unclear to me what the translation theory was. You also have the parallel track to translate the other scripture songs. It is arguable if that was to be for public worship use; it is never said. Durham clearly held some modified view since he held in theory it might be good to be able to sing portions of the Song of Solomon. The testing of boundaries to get refined views and arguments by the introduction of hymns would not be for another generation. My personal feeling was the other scripture songs endeavor was more a vanity project for Zachary Boyd who fancied his own poesy a bit much. *edit. Baillie, unbashful Baillie, at least in private, opines in his Letters and Journals that it was not very good poetry.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Some is known but not anything close to what one would like. We have brief notices to show the work was extensive, but being a work of many you are going to have unevenness. It is unclear to me what the translation theory was. You also have the parallel track to translate the other scripture songs. It is arguable if that was to be for public worship use; it is never said. Durham clearly held some modified view since he held in theory it might be good to be able to sing portions of the Song of Solomon. The testing of boundaries to get refined views and arguments by the introduction of hymns would not be for another generation. My personal feeling was the other scripture songs endeavor was more a vanity project for Zachary Boyd who fancied his own poesy a bit much. *edit. Baillie, unbashful Baillie, at least in private, opines in his Letters and Journals that it was not very good poetry.

We lack the General Assembly minutes for the 1640s-early 1650s. Thank Cromwell for that who took the volumes when they stormed the 1651 (? year, I'll have to check) GA. If these existed for a time they likely perished in the couple of English parliament fires that took out so much historical record. The MS of the Westminster assembly survived because in various places elsewhere.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Cromwell who took the volumes when they stormed

He felt free to do stuff like that.

 

[Jake]

Do churches that hold to EP sing the psalms word for word or do they use psalters like the supplement found in hymnals?

Most use metrical versions of Psalms, which was a tradition in the Reformed church which began with the Genevan Psalter under the direction of John Calvin. Common English versions of the Psalms include the Scottish Metrical Version (1650) and ay Psalm Book (1640) for older editions. You can also see this website for a modern publisher of Psalters (see the Psalters tab): https://crownandcovenant.com/collections/the-book-of-psalms-for-worship My denomination most often uses the ARP Psalter, though the denomination is no longer EP and it's usually used alongside a hymnal.

Many inclusive Psalmodist churches will also use of these volumes, or use a book that contains Psalms and Hymns like the Psalter-Hymnal, including older editions by the CRC and a newer one, the Trinity Psalter-Hymnal, that was a joint effort of the OPC and URC. Hymnals like the Trinity Hymnal also include many metrical versions of Psalms dispersed throughout.

Some Psalm-singers will chant the Psalms from a prose translation of the Psalms, which could be the same as the one in your Bible. Often chanters will have a separate version that is notated for chanting, such as the Coverdale Psalter included in some editions of the Book of Common Prayer. Chanting Psalms is more common as a supplementary practice in Anglican and Lutheran churches, though I'm sure there are some EP churches that chant Psalms as well.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The central fault with arguments of this nature is that it assumes that the regulative principle of worship is a covenant of works wherein something has to be perfect in order for it to be acceptable. Instead, we simply maintain that worship elements must be divinely authorised in order to be acceptable to God, not that we have to perform them perfectly. Hence, an imperfect translation of the psalms is acceptable, even if it is far from perfect.

 

[panta dokimazete]

The central fault with arguments of this nature is that it assumes that the regulative principle of worship is a covenant of works wherein something has to be perfect in order for it to be acceptable. Instead, we simply maintain that worship elements must be divinely authorised in order to be acceptable to God, not that we have to perform them perfectly. Hence, an imperfect translation of the psalms is acceptable, even if it is far from perfect.

Just as an imperfect translation of the Bible into English is acceptable. Yep, and that is why I have never really jumped on that wagon in my critiques of EP. My argument is that there are good and necessary consequences for newly composed worship songs.