Importance of psalter unity

[nwink]

What are the benefits/importance of psalter unity (for example, if all EP churches, regardless of the denominational differences, used the same psalter)? In other words, what is the importance of unity in worship?

I understand that unity is important, but am having a hard time thinking of the reasons of why it's important in the sphere of worship.

 

[Peairtach]

I understand that unity is important, but am having a hard time thinking of the reasons of why it's important in the sphere of worship.

It's important because some are going to feel that there liberty is being stepped on if e.g. they are obliged to sing hymns or sing with/use musical instruments in worship, if we believe that it is not commanded in this more mature, more spiritual, more simple New Covenant era of Israel i.e. the New Covenant Church.

No-one can disagree that the Lord commands us to sing Psalms in this New Covenant era, the dispute is over whether hymns and instruments should be added.

In many evangelical churches you'd get the impression that God had commanded us to sing hymns, forbidden us to sing Psalms, and required that singing always be accompanied with musical instruments, Davidic disco- dancing, arm-waving, shouting, clapping, applause, etc.

Where these additions to the simplicity of New Covenant worship are given free reign, they soon grow legs and become monsters and kill off what has been commanded by suffocation.

In the Free Church we now have two versions of the Psalms in one book, the Scottish Psalter of 1650, and "Sing Psalms" which is a more modern version of the Psalter.

 

[nwink]

bump

 

[markkoller]

Unity is always desired, but not essential for worship to take place. Many times we will not have everything we believe to be "essential" in a worship setting. Even on a Session composed of a plurality of Elders there will be men who have preferences that are not met.

It would be ideal if every church sang from the same Psalter, but unlikely. It seems to me that every RP church should use the 1650 Psalter. It is an "authorized" Psalter approved by the same men who prepared the Westminser Confession of Faith. It is a great translation edited by the likes of Samuel Rutherford and George Gillespie. It doesn't need revision.

The constant need for new translations of the Psalter is akin to the constant need for new translations of the entire Bible. People are dissatisfied with the content of Scripture and they are generally searching for an easier way to digest it. Money also is a big factor in the multiplicity of translations. Others believe that a new translation of the Psalter will make the church more attractive to a younger audience or to the unconverted. We will always have people who think like this among us. I don't particularly care for this approach, but we must deal with it.

 

[yeutter]

Neither the Prayerbook Version [Coverdale's 1535 translation] of the Psalter nor the 1650 Scottish Psalter were written with the intent of being accompanied by musical instruments. It is easier to chant the Prayerbook version then to sing it. The Anglo-Geneva Psalter of the Canadian Reformed Churches also is set to simple Psalm tunes that do not require instrumental accompaniment. I wish someone would publish all three translations in one book.

 

[Kaalvenist]

I would say that unity in a single Psalter version is akin to unity in a single Bible version (or unity in the same subordinate standards, etc.). When I attend a church where the minister is reading or preaching from a version other than the Authorized Version, suspicions are aroused, and I tend to pay attention to the differences (especially in the New Testament), rather than the similarities or the actual message. If the Authorized Version is used, I am less concerned with the form, and more concerned with the message. Similarly, when I am using a Psalter version which I know is generally less accurate that the Scottish Metrical Version, I tend to pay more attention to the form (because of perceived inadequacies, whether real or not), and less to the actual worship of God through the use of that form.

Although we all claim exclusive psalmody, our unity in this principle is more evident in our use of the same form of words. When American EP churches use "The Psalms of David in Metre," "The Psalter" (1912), "The Book of Psalms for Singing," "The Book of Psalms for Worship," and who knows what else (aside from different Psalters used in Australia, Ireland, Scotland, etc.), artificial barriers are set up between brethren who are supposedly in agreement as far as principle is concerned. If we were all using only the 1650 Psalter (The Psalms of David in Metre), we would not only demonstrate our unity with our brethren of the past, but with all others today who use that same form.

Some "Psalters" have become so paraphrastic that their selections are hardly recognizable as Psalm selections -- many who use the Trinity Hymnal are unaware that some of their selections are actually taken from the 1912 Psalter, because of the excessive liberties taken with the text. The unity which we maintain in this principle is not demonstrated by the use of a poor Psalter version, if its selections are not recognizable as taken from the Psalter.

 

[Tim]

Good point. In Cape Town, more often than not, what is announced as a Psalm, I cannot sing. This is because the "arrangement" is so loose that it cannot even be considered a Psalm anymore. If Psalms are commonly taken from a Psalter that is known to be looser or more toward a paraphrase in some places, there is a burden on the conscientious EP Christian. That person must always be assessing the quality of what is being sung. This hinders worship greatly.