D
Deleted member 12919 by request
Guest
Similar to my other thread regarding head coverings, how did we get from near universal psalms-only worship at the time of the Reformation, to where we are now?
- Status
Hymns drove out psalms.
D
Deleted member 12919 by request
Guest
That much is clear. But why? How? Why also in solid Reformed churches? What was the reasoning?
I don't think we can be definitive. Fashion, poor views of the psalms as sub Christian, growing worldliness in the church, preferring sentimentality, doctrinal decline. I don't know, but it is simply the case that the introduction of hymns drove out the predominant use of psalms, at least in the Presbyterian tradition.
D
Deleted member 12919 by request
Guest
Any idea what the argument from the faithful on the other side would be?
Greater clarity/understanding of the doctrine surrounding it? Obviously they think of it as a biblical change.
Greater clarity/understanding of the doctrine surrounding it? Obviously they think of it as a biblical change.
Again it will vary from denomination/tradition. In some instances it may have been rejection of the psalms as sub Christian (so folks adopted Watts's paraphrases instead of the actual psalms). In other instances the tradition may have started with simply declaring hymns were to be sung, and they slowly over time drove out psalms altogether, which is the case with many churches in the PCA (which traces its history back to the PCUSA founded in the US in 1787, I may have that year wrong).
Poimen
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
“The actual transition from the old Psalmody… into the new Hymnody, was a gradual one, proceeding through the eighteenth century. It was effected not by a formal displacement of the metrical Psalter, but by the admission of the Hymn Book to an equal status and the churches’ preference of the hymns.” Louis Fitzgerald Benson, “John Calvin and the Psalmody of the Reformed Churches.”
Poimen
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I also observed that in Reformed settings there is an inherent reliance on the tradition without understanding the tradition and how it is undergirded by scripture. We become lax over time with respect to certain practices to the point that we assume the next generation will hold on to these as tenaciously as our own. This is by no means a given and these practices are often jettisoned once the next crop of leaders takes the helm because they cannot justify their opposition to the new practice, never having been sufficiently taught as to why they should have a conviction about it in the first place.
De Jager
Puritan Board Junior
I am in the URC. I have to admit, I am not convinced of EP but would be perfectly happy in an EP church. It has also struck me that the position of our own federation doesn't make sense.
Our church order states that the 150 Psalms of David are to be given the priority in our worship. But we also allow the singing of doctrinally sound hymns approved by the consistory.
My question, that has never been answered is this: if both are acceptable, why do we prefer Psalms? It seems logically inconsistent. If it is just as acceptable to sing "How Great Thou Art" and Psalm 150, why do we have any rule whatsoever as to Psalms being "preferred"? It seems as though by saying that Psalms are preferred, we have also said they are "better". If they are "better", then why do we not always sing the best?
Our church order states that the 150 Psalms of David are to be given the priority in our worship. But we also allow the singing of doctrinally sound hymns approved by the consistory.
My question, that has never been answered is this: if both are acceptable, why do we prefer Psalms? It seems logically inconsistent. If it is just as acceptable to sing "How Great Thou Art" and Psalm 150, why do we have any rule whatsoever as to Psalms being "preferred"? It seems as though by saying that Psalms are preferred, we have also said they are "better". If they are "better", then why do we not always sing the best?
Lectio continua preaching is undoubtedly best and therefore preferred, but that doesn't mean we should never preach topically. (This is not an objection on my part; just thinking out loud.)
De Jager
Puritan Board Junior
It seems like a valid point. I'm not saying our church order is wrong....I'm saying I don't understand their position.
At the same time, I think your point is valid, too. I hadn't considered it. I will have to think on this.
De Jager
Puritan Board Junior
Something that also has bothered me is the history of our church practice (to the point of the OP).
In 1857 the CRC was formed after it was determined that the new immigrants could not join the already established RCA. One of the reasons why the CRC was formed was because they couldn't abide with the RCA practice of singing hymns (among other things).
Fast forward to the 1920s and there is already a push to sing hymns, and finally in 1934 you have the first edition of the "Psalter Hymnal". Each edition of the Psalter Hymnal throughout the years has included more and more hymns. The URC has attempted to push back on that trend in their church order. Hence the Psalms of David being given the "primary place".
In general, I am very suspicious of practices that began in the 20th century in our churches. I admit, history is not a sufficient argument, you have to go to the Bible. But it always, always makes me suspicious.
In 1857 the CRC was formed after it was determined that the new immigrants could not join the already established RCA. One of the reasons why the CRC was formed was because they couldn't abide with the RCA practice of singing hymns (among other things).
Fast forward to the 1920s and there is already a push to sing hymns, and finally in 1934 you have the first edition of the "Psalter Hymnal". Each edition of the Psalter Hymnal throughout the years has included more and more hymns. The URC has attempted to push back on that trend in their church order. Hence the Psalms of David being given the "primary place".
In general, I am very suspicious of practices that began in the 20th century in our churches. I admit, history is not a sufficient argument, you have to go to the Bible. But it always, always makes me suspicious.
AReformedFundamentalist
Puritan Board Freshman
The Psalms are undoubtedly far superior to any man made songs as the Psalms are inspired by God. Holding to the regulative principle it is evident that no uninspired songs belong in the meeting of the church.
The EP literature on this can be a bit simplistic and reductionistic. You're on the right track with the qualifier "near universal" though.
From the start the Genevan Psalter and liturgy among the reformers included more than just the psalms sung. The GP of 1562 already contained Marot’s version of the Song of Simeon and the versified Ten Commandments.
An example of some historical factors: over time the French lost their militancy and didn't feel the need to sing the imprecatory psalms as part of their holy war and instead desired to sing other scripture songs. Furthermore, the language of the GP itself proved problematic. The language changed significantly in just 50 years that the GP grew increasingly from antiquated to unintelligible.
The tunes themselves didn't help. (For the GP - Calvins melody rules; and for the Scottish Psalter - not having fixed tunes lost the benefit of having a specific tune or melody associated with the respective psalm).
Here's a book on the subject that goes deeper into the history: https://ccel.org/ccel/benson/psalmody/psalmody.
Jake
Puritan Board Senior
It'll be different depending on what period of church history you're talking about. It seems the immediate post-apostolic period worship was somewhere between exclusively or predominately Psalms, and hymns gradually came in. At the Reformation, the Reformed branch re-emphasized Psalmody (though it was much more limited in Lutheran churches as Luther wrote and valued hymns). Especially the Scottish kirk. The continential Reformed tended to be predominate Psalmody, and often included other Scripture songs and the Apostle's Creed (they may have viewed it as inspired as well) in their sung praise. As far as I can tell, among Reformed Baptists exclusive psalmody was never a primary view. Among Presbyterians every non-EP body has a different history of how they abandoned Exclusive Psalmody.
C4MERON
Puritan Board Freshman
The FCoS denomination, which I am a member of, switched from an EP position in 2000 I believe. I have yet to fully understand why. I lack the theological prowess to back up an EP position but I certainly do hold to a ‘Psalm Priority’ position and I guess I would have to ask myself the question..’why?’. Seems to me that for a start we need not worry or be concerned about the need to go over the words to ensure we aren’t singing anything the least bit dodgy.
We know that the three views, uninspired hymnody, just the words of Scripture (inspired praise) and exclusive psalmody all date to the earliest days of the Reformation. In the 2011 seventh issue of The Confessional Presbyterian journal there was a translation of the preface to the Constance Hymnal (1533) that ran in the translation feature. The translator notes that the prefacer, Joannem Zwick, “argues that our worship should not be limited to exclusive psalmody, and the Constance Hymnbook is a classical model for inclusive psalmody.” However, while this is a very early argument for uninspired hymnody in the public worship of God, some of the argument is strikingly Lutheran, rather than from the stand point of that regulative principle of worship defended just some ten years later by John Calvin in his Necessity of Reforming the Church and later by John Knox in his writings. The preface is also of note because it acknowledges at that time early in the Reformation there were also those who contended for the singing of the Psalms alone in the services of the church and others only what is in scripture (inspired praise).
"Many affirm this truth—that one may sing and it is not against God—but they have other objections, such as that one should sing nothing but Psalms or whatever else is spelled out in the Bible."
The Reformed tended to pursue the practiced labeled erroneous by the prefacer, while those holding more Lutheran principles embraced uninspired hymnody. The passage in question has a side heading, Allein Psalmen singen (translated as exclusive psalm singing), which may be the earliest use of that term to label the position. The original preface in facsimile and the translation are presented in “The Preface to the Constance Hymnbook by Joannem Zwick,” translated by Ephraim Schafli The Confessional Presbyterian 7 (2011) 216-229. Issue 7 is currently still in print. http://www.cpjournal.com/store/
"Many affirm this truth—that one may sing and it is not against God—but they have other objections, such as that one should sing nothing but Psalms or whatever else is spelled out in the Bible."
The Reformed tended to pursue the practiced labeled erroneous by the prefacer, while those holding more Lutheran principles embraced uninspired hymnody. The passage in question has a side heading, Allein Psalmen singen (translated as exclusive psalm singing), which may be the earliest use of that term to label the position. The original preface in facsimile and the translation are presented in “The Preface to the Constance Hymnbook by Joannem Zwick,” translated by Ephraim Schafli The Confessional Presbyterian 7 (2011) 216-229. Issue 7 is currently still in print. http://www.cpjournal.com/store/
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
I would imagine because the church wanted to sing explicitly about Jesus.
See this chapter in the link Claudiu provided. https://ccel.org/ccel/benson/psalmody/psalmody.title.c11.html
I read and speak French with some fluency. I have never studied early modern French. Apart from occasional odd vocabulary (comparable to the experience of an English-speaker reading the Geneva Bible) I have no trouble reading the text of the old Genevan Psalter. To say that the Genevan Psalter became “unintelligible” - and in 50 years! - is something of a stretch.
The earliest edition of the Genevan Psalter was published in 1539. Beza’s contributions come in starting in 1542. Beza died more than 50 years later, in 1605.
Note also that the French language did not even get close to standardization until after the French Revolution. Even today, there are significant dialectal differences in France (not to mention Wallonia and Switzerland). With such a wide variety of dialects in the French-speaking regions, to say that the psalter became “antiquated” or “unintelligible” (as a result of the passage of a mere fifty years, rather than something such as linguistic differences between regions) is frankly a bit ridiculous.
For those who are interested, the French-language text of the 1587 revision of the Genevan Psalter (in which revision Beza played a significant part) is available here (seemingly with updated spelling, but retaining antiquated vocabulary).
All the EP’s are thinking it, I’m just saying it:
The Psalms are explicitly about Jesus.
Jake
Puritan Board Senior
Perhaps this is a better way to put it: I don't have a citation ready, but one of the arguments used in the ARP church when hymnody was allowed was a desire to sing about the completed work of Christ in fulfilled language, such as is seen in Revelation 5:9 (where a "new song" was "sung" including the language of "for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood").
Zach
Puritan Board Senior
Exactly. If the saints in heaven, with whom we worship when we ascend to the heavenly Mt. Zion, aren't singing the Psalms exclusively...
What is your argument? That because saints in heaven do not sing the psalms exclusively we therefore have license (or perhaps we are commanded?) to compose our own songs for worship?
Moderating. Gentlemen, keep to the OP, which is an historical matter, and save arguing or high fiving the arguments against or for EP for an EP forum thread (which this isn't).
Zach
Puritan Board Senior
Sorry, Chris.
In keeping with the reminder to keep to the question of the original post, I appreciated and wanted to highlight what Jake posted because in threads about this historical question and others like it the tone and tenor is the usual assumption that, since the time of the Reformation, those who may not hold to the exact position as it was historically practiced have just compromised, sought out many schemes, etc. when there are in fact biblical arguments that the we are not required to only sing the Psalms.
Last edited:
Poimen
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
It is clear from church history that a variety of practices were adopted early in the Reformation era (see my joint article with Andrew Myers on Calvin's amended practice) but the standard amongst Reformed and Presbyterian churches was always Psalmody of some sort and often exclusively so (as in the Dutch Reformed churches and as I think has been conclusively shown in the Westminster standards). After that came a time where churches gradually departed from that practice (as per the Benson quote above) to the point we are today where in many Reformed and Presbyterian churches, psalms will not be sung at all and where they are they are no longer exclusively or predominantly so.
In short, a practice is not necessarily an expression of a principle. But once a principle has been established, a practice that departs from is a declension.
- Status
Similar threads
