With the recent release of the RPCNA’s new psalter, The Book of Psalms for Worship, we should remind ourselves that, strictly speaking, there really is no such thing as a “new psalter”. Only one psalter has ever existed in the church—the psalter God inspired and gave to us before the time of Christ. That psalter has not changed and cannot change. While the psalter itself does not change with time, our handling of the psalter does change. We change our translations and versifications of the psalms. We change the tunes which accompany the psalms.
What principles should direct our handling of the Book of Psalms? Since the Psalms themselves are old and unchanging, should not our handling of them reflect these important features? In other words, would it not be a wise course of action for us to handle the psalter delicately and to modify it as little as possible? A disconcerting trend in the RPCNA is the frequency with which the psalter is revised. For many members of our church, the 2009 edition of the psalter is the fourth RPCNA psalter of their lifetime. What has changed so much over the past 60-70 years to necessitate these revisions? Has the English language changed drastically during this interval? Were the previous editions intolerably poor translations? Why do we have this recurring impulse to revise the psalter?
My concern is that we may be revising for the wrong reasons. My suspicion is that we revise the psalms partly because we are not quite comfortable with their antiquity. The temptation is ever before us to tire of singing the same songs, generation after generation. Perhaps we think that a new edition of the psalter will give us fresh experiences of God’s Word, or we may think that those outside of our church will find a new edition of the psalter to be more appealing. This approach to the Scriptures is also evident whenever a new translation of the Bible is produced and read. Perhaps a fresh experience with God or renewed interest in his Word is gained, but for how long does the experience last, and how much is lost when an older translation is discarded? We ought to hide God’s Word in our hearts, but consider how much memory work is forfeited when a new translation is adopted! Further, is not there something to be said for being contented with God’s Word, knowing that the Word is sure and trustworthy, something changeless in an ever-changing world? It seems to me that frequent modifications to the psalter undermine our belief that the word of the Lord endures forever.
Another hunch of mine is that we revise the psalms partly because we are less than comfortable with the handling of the psalter by our forefathers. Apparently each generation desires to “improve” the psalter, but how much real “progress” have we made? Ask yourself this question of principle, “Should we handle the psalter as progressives or as conservatives?” In other words, should we view the psalter primarily as something to be refined and bettered from one generation to the next, or should we view the psalter, first of all, as something to be preserved and maintained from one generation to the next? Which takes precedence in our handling of the psalms, conserving or progressing, seeking to maintain continuity with the past or trying to advance toward a more “perfect” psalter (as if perfection were attainable in this life)?
The latest edition of the RP psalter departs radically from previous editions in this significant respect: its utterly “modernized” English. Gone entirely are “Jehovah”, “thee”, “thou”, “ye”, and the like. While we may not use these words in our everyday conversations, this older language has abided within the church’s liturgical vocabulary. This language is still intelligible to nearly all English-speakers, and it is still cherished by many worshippers, because this older vocabulary lends to the majestic style of praise of which God is most worthy. Even uninspired hymnals in other churches continue to employ the traditional language of the 17th and 18th centuries. If non-RPs are not modernizing their old hymns, why must RPs feel compelled to modernize thoroughly the psalms? Personally, I view the mix of traditional and contemporary English in the psalter of 1973 to be quite satisfactory for our corporate worship services. I harbor grave concerns about the consequences of breaking substantially from the past in the words that we utilize for divine worship.
We should celebrate the old age of the psalter and not try to conceal its age by continually revising it. Further, we should honor the service of our forefathers in their singing of the psalms and seek to keep the noble tradition of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. Surely the ancient Israelites of the old covenant were not revising the psalter every few decades, and certainly the New Testament exhorts us to guard the good deposit entrusted to us, the form of sound words (cf. 2Tim 1:13-14). I hope and pray that The Book of Psalms for Worship will prove to be a blessing to the RPCNA, but I believe that the questions I have raised here need to be pondered by the church.
Why not make Coverdale our new psalter? After all, tucked in the back of the BPFS is that note which commends chanting.
LikeLike
Charles, thank you for this post. I think you have raised a question that haunts the church. Why are we addicted to change? Why does the RPCNA have a Constitution in a three ring binder? Maybe a Psalters should be thus bound. It makes our addiction to change less of a financial burden.
It raises the broader question of the meaning of the 5th Commandment in the daily lives of God’s people.
LikeLike
Charles,
Although I agree that the RP Church has had too many psalters in her liturgical history; I do believe that this ‘new’ psalter is to be received with great joy.
Here are some thoughts:
1. The history of Psalter revision in the RP Church is a strange one. Remember that we were involved in the United Presbyterian Revision (1912) because we saw need to move away from the Psalms of David In Meter (1650). When the RP Church pulled out of that work, a number of the following revisions were because the church was attempting to keep up with what the UPs had already done. We saw a 1911, 1919, and a 1929 which essentially were reworkings of the UP Psalter with textual faithfulness that satisfied our synod. The 1950 was really the first work that was not connected with the UP/RP attempt at a common psalter. So the 1973 was to be a bridge between the 1950 and what we see today.
2. The fact that liturgical language has common usage is not to be our standard for translating the word of God. The medievals had liturgical language and the Reformers broke through that because they believed that the principle of ‘vulgar tongue’ was to be the standard for translation. We do not have that in the liturgical language of the Elizabethan tradition. We now have a psalter that is in the vulgar and, with the hopes that the RP Church will keep growing (from conversions?) we will not have a ‘liturgical language’ hurdle to make new Christians jump over.
With that said, I am sure that you know, that I LOVE the United Presbyterian Psalter of 1912- it will always have a special place in my heart… but now we have faithfulness to the text, singable tunes (which the 1973 lacked in many places), and the Word of God in the vulgar tongue. Who could ask for anything more?
Warmly,
Nate
LikeLike
I am with Nate. We now have a vulgar Psalter. Yeah us!
LikeLike
Nice. 🙂
LikeLike
Obviously I am scoring cheap points based on your use of vulgar. On a more principled level, has the absence of “liturgical language” been consistent since the reformation? listening to the prayers among older believers, it appears that Reformed Protestants have clung to a liturgical language rooted in the King James Bible, the Book of Common Prayer, and the old hymnals.
None-the-less, Nate is correct on the principle as he has defined it. I wonder, has an absence of liturgical language and our tradition of being anti-traditional served us well?
LikeLike
Charles Hodge had some interesting thoughts on liturgy in the presbyterian churches.
LikeLike
As far as the new Psalter having singable tunes, there is no longer a complete version of psalm 119 in singable tunes they failed to remove the 2 most difficult tunes from the old psalter. As far as the new Psalter’s faithfulness to the text I will point out two places where the new psalter took unnecessary liberty’s with the text the first one is Psalm 24B they have added a course of Hallelujah’s, and the second is Psalm 136 they have seen fit to combine verses to make the words fit the tune instead of finding a tune that will fit the words, which I know they could do in the old psalter they have a double meter tune with 12 1/2 stanzas I can see why they would want to move away from that but they could have kept the same general translation and moved it to a full meter with 26 stanzas. So in the new Psalter there are 4 selections which are unfit to be sung in worship because they have either added or taken away from the original, Psalm 136 can not be sung at all.
LikeLike
Having had about a month now to look at the new Psalter, I must say that there are a few things in it that are disturbing to me:
1. From Psalm 8: “Yet You created him to be Just less than one divine; You gave him honor as a crown and made his glory shine”.
This suffers under two problems in my opinion 1) It is a flat contradiction of the inspired interpretation of this Psalm in Hebrews 2 and lends itself to an Arian reading if somehow one tries to reconcile it to Hebrews 2. 2) You will notice the “him” is not capitalized. Now I have never been a fan of the NKJV cpatilization of references to the divine (the same sort of idea applied in the psalter) because it leads to confusion. By not capitalizing the “he” the “translators” of this psalm are indicating they do not believe it is a Messianic reference (again contra Hebrews 2). Doubly problematic.
2. From Psalm 24B: “Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Amen, Amen, Amen.” This is not found in Psalm 24. This is an unispired addition to this psalm rendering. In my opinion, such additions compromise the pricniple of exclusive psalmody.
3. From Psalm 150D: “O Praise Him! O praise Him! Allelujah! Allelujah! Allelujah! Allelujah!” Again this is an insertion into the psalm. How can people promoting exclusive psalmody not see the problem here?
4. There are various other places where the historic Reformed understanding of verses has been translated away. But for the moment, I forebear.
I caution people very strongly before buying into this new psalter just because it is “modern’. Old doesn’t always mean better, I admit. But neither does new.
LikeLike
Dear Adam,
Good insights; good comments. It seems that singing the Psalms is becoming a mere fad.
Mary
LikeLike
Just wanted to respond to a few comments and then add some thoughts of my own on the new Psalter.
First in regards to the departure from the “church’s liturgical vocabulary” that has existed in the church for centuries. We must remember that the Reformers pushed for a departure from the “church’s liturgical vocabulary” which had existed in the church for centuries during their time as well. Language is always changing and so if we stand by the call to have Scripture in the common tongue of the people – it is not unforeseeable that each generation (or perhaps every other generation) would have a “new” translation of the Scriptures and the Psalter.
Also, I would argue that what makes the Word “majestic in style” is not the words themselves but the fact that the Holy Spirit gives power and majesty to the words for those who have ears to hear. So the Word of God is “majestic in style” in any language it is translated into. We must not think that somehow ‘ye olde englishe’ is more majestic than modern English, Spanish, Japanese, Korean etc. Unless of course you are an extreme KJV only person who believes that missionaries need to first teach the natives English so they can read the Word of God in the Kings English.
I do agree that Synod has been on a “revision rampage” for the last 10-15 years. This does seem to be overkill. I am waiting for someone to now recommend we “revise” the Book of Government? I agree with Bill, also that it is strange our “standards” come in a three ring binder.
For Nathan: What are the two “unsingable” tunes in Ps. 119? I wasn’t aware of the issue with Ps. 136 but just looked at it. I don’t know if I would go so far as saying that it cannot be sung at all, but I agree that the committee could have worked it out differently.
For Adam: I don’t think the revision committee is promoting Arianism or denying the messianic implications of Psalm 8 at all. That is a pretty serious charge. You need to remember that this is a revision of the Psalter and not Hebrews 2! Hebrews 2 follows the LXX in quoting Psalm 8 – the committee chose to follow the Hebrew of Psalm 8 which has “elohim”. The NAS also follows the Hebrew here. There is really no contradiction if you render the term “angels” or “God” or “divine” because the Son did in fact humble himself greatly and set aside His glory when He came in the likeness of sinful flesh (see Phil. 2 where ye olde language says “emptied himself” ).
Also I have found no bible translation that capitalizes “him” in Psalm 8. When you do your Psalm explanation before singing it you then make the connection to Heb. 2 as you would in preaching from Psalm 8 or any text in the OT that refers prophetically to Christ. A capitilization is not necessary for the Psalm. I believe there are some dutch psalters that render some passages with “Christ” but again that is not following the Hebrew at all. So I hope this helps you to be able to sing Psalm 8 with great joy and confidence.
As to Psalm 24B and 150D – again these are perhaps unnecessary additions. But there are other selections for both of these psalms. The committees report to Synod noted in a footnote regarding Ps. 24B “is used in its historic, familiar arrangement from the Scottish and Irish Psalters.” So with this Psalm “compromising exclusive psalmody” apparently has a long history. But again I wouldn’t condemn the whole psalter because of these (at least there are alternates as opposed to Psalm 136 as Nathan pointed out) – just sing one of the other selections.
I would be very interested to see some examples of “where the historic Reformed understanding of verses has been translated away.” Again this is a serious charge (like Arianism and the denial of Messianic reference) so please enlighten us.
Now finally to my own thoughts about the Psalter as we in the Lisbon congregation have dove in and been using them for the last 3 weeks. Just some quick points:
1) I love the fact that I and my children and my congregation are able to sing the psalms and not have to translate the english as we do so. There were times in my Psalm explanation preparation that I had to look in a modern bible translation to actually see and understand what the words of the psalter meant. To me the words of the new psalter follow more like reading Scripture than the red psalter.
2) I like many of the new tunes although I already came across one 76B that I wrote “no” next to in my study copy.
3) I will miss singing Psalm 146 without the “Jehovah” – and there are other wordings and tunes that I enjoyed in the red psalter that are now gone/changed – but that is just my preference.
4) Many of our music type people have grumbled a bit about the changes in some of the harmonies. I don’t understand the music language and don’t think I notice a difference but to them it does.
5) A curious observation that I have come across is that this psalter is less a “Covenanter Psalter” from an historical perspective. In fact the tune “Covenanters” (Ps. 40B and 89F in red) is completely omitted from the new psalter (I loved that tune). Also in this vein I noticed the other day that “Louisville” for 45A and “Varina” for 24A in the red psalter are also missing in the new (though Louisville is in the psalter just not with 45A). For those in older, likely rural and more traditional RP churches these tunes were closely tied to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Some people won’t know what to do when they get up to sing and come forward for the Lord’s Supper and the familiar tunes are gone (smile). Then when you look at the committee there are really only two, maybe three long term blue blood RPs (Bob Copeland, Elaine Tweed and perhaps Lori McCracken). I don’t think any of these folks are from what we might call traditional RP churches (I could be wrong) and so there seems to have been a lack of sensitivity to remove good singable tunes that were so closely tied to the overall historic RP experience. Again, this is just a preference and I am sure people will adapt but it will be a challenge come the next communion season for some of these congregations.
Overall, with some minor exceptions, I am pleased with the new psalter. And the blue is much more majestic and covenanterish than the red/maroon too. 🙂
LikeLike
“Also in this vein I noticed the other day that “Louisville” for 45A and “Varina” for 24A in the red psalter are also missing in the new (though Louisville is in the psalter just not with 45A). For those in older, likely rural and more traditional RP churches these tunes were closely tied to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Some people won’t know what to do when they get up to sing and come forward for the Lord’s Supper and the familiar tunes are gone (smile).”
I’m trying to read this charitably and not be offended, but I at least find this frustrating. I’ve only been attending a RP church for four years now and so I’m not as tied to the red psalter as others are; however, I’ve not had a more emotionally moving moment singing the Psalms than singing Psalm 24A while proceeding forward for communion. I find it a wonderful tradition to sing with those older saints that stirring Psalm prior to breaking bread with them. It seems that for whatever the reason, that Psalm is sung very heartily by them and I can see the effect that it has had in them through the years. I’d be very sad to see that go.
What I find frustrating about the comment is that it seems to make tradition into something that is only worth breaking. And for whose sake? Surely it isn’t for those of us who are younger and are looking for some permanence in an ever shifting world?
Certainly our older generations in the church did not learn to speak using “thee” and “thou”, but I don’t imagine it was a daunting challenge to figure out what those words and those older Psalms mean either. A few minutes of extra thought would suffice and certainly wouldn’t necessitate a new Psalter.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that older is better, but rather that tradition can be a very good thing when studied in the light of God’s Word. As a counterpoint, a tradition that I think could go is four-part singing. That would have been a move I would have been excited to see in our new Psalter.
Anyway, thanks to all those posting for this helpful discussion.
LikeLike
Joel,
I think you may have misread my point on this or else I didn’t make it clear. I pastor one of those “older, likely rural and more traditional RP churches”. In fact, every RP church I have been a member of has sung these particular psalms (24A and 45A) at Communion times. I recently did a communion service for a vacant congregation and used these psalms – after the service one of the elderly saints commented to me – “that was just like it used to be”. So I am not real excited to see them gone in the new psalter (especially since they were actually singable tunes). The (smile) at the end of the comment was just the reaction to a funny mental image I got of people all discombobulated and not knowing what to do when the singing starts. It is funny (to me at least) but in a sad kinda way. But that is just my sense of humor.
As to tradition – I agree we should not disregard tradition just because something different comes along. But the funny thing is that many folks who are crying foul for traditions sake in regards to the new psalter have also cast to the wind a host of other traditions that were once greatly held in the RP Church (e.g. more frequent – even weekly communion in place of Communion Seasons). This only proves the point that we must be careful when it comes to the traditions of men. So while I will greatly miss the traditional psalm settings when we have our Fall Communion – I realize that at the root it is just a preference and preferences ought not to be held up as unmovable standards.
LikeLike
Charles, thank you very much for sharing your thoughts. I’m with you on this brother. It troubles me to see such a drastic overhaul of the previous Psalter.
Without a doubt, there are some deficiencies in the red (73) Psalter. That was the point behind raising the revision committee to begin with. The whole and only purpose of the revision committee was to examine and REVISE those deficient areas; they were not commissioned to produce an altogether new Psalter; they were not commissioned to examine and make changes to every selection in the red Psalter. Their charge was to revise the current Psalter. They’ve done much more than revise and have taken up the task of producing something they were never commissioned to do, IMO.
Additionally, I’m also in agreement with Adam’s comments. I’m troubled by including ANY repeater lines in the Psalter that are not there in the inspired text. So, for us to go further and add lines that aren’t just repeater lines of the inspired text, but to add uninspired lines, is absolutely contrary to our position on singing the Psalms in worship. Those who argue against EP sometimes do because they claim that some of our translations are so poor that they can hardly be considered a true singing of the Psalms. Now, we’ve added fuel to their fire by adding uninspired portions to God’s Word. What will be our answer to them on that front? There isn’t one. WRT these particular Psalms, they would be correct, IMO.
It’s also disconcerting that our current Hebrew scholar (C.J. Williams) was never consulted by the committee and I’m not sure we had any input from our current Systematic scholar either (Dr. Gamble). Seems most of the “gifts” of those on the committee were those who are gifted in music, which is fine and very welcome, but much more important is content. It would have also been worth consulting the OPC scholars and perhaps even coming together with them to produce a common Psalter. They just finished their Psalter recently. We should be pushing for unity with our brothers on this front and we had a great opportunity to do so, but didn’t.
Another thing to consider is how many of the red Psalters that have been sold over the years. We’ve been told that we sell more Psalters to fellow brothers and sisters in Christ outside the RPCNA than we do in… Just when our common Psalter is beginning to take root across denominational lines, we decide to produce an altogether new Psalter. Sad…
Thanks again for the OP. I pray more RP’s will give some attention to these issues before changing out their old Psalters for the new one. The red one will continue to be available for those who don’t think the change is warranted.
Remember new does not always mean better, and neither does old, of course. But let’s make sure we’re not taking up this new Psalter just because it’s new.
LikeLike
Not prepared to take a position on this article yet, but wish to interact briefly with Steve B’s comments.
Regarding Hebrew scholarship: the recent revision committee included Dr. Duncan Lowe, who contributed to the 1973 revision and was also a member of Synod’s Psalm Translation Committee. It’s not as if the committee had no one with credentials in Hebrew.
But you might also take a look at those involved in the 1973 revision; in both revision committees it is fair to say that there was not a heavy emphasis on Hebrew scholarship.
Your point about missing an opportunity to interact with the OPC on this is excellent, but this was undoubtedly an oversight/missed opportunity more than anything.
LikeLike
A word with regard to Steve R.’s comment that those quickest to cry foul for traditions sake have been quick to reject RP tradition in other areas.
I am guilty on this note and I admit it. I do believe that the Bible teaches frequency of communion and have, in the past, pressed for greater frequency and stronger continuity with the more general tradition of Reformed liturgy.
However, I feel the sting of the accusation. My short years as a churchman have taught me a lesson. In the ecclesial realm I started as a “conservative reformer” after the image of Burke (I hoped). After five years of participation in the courts of the church I am not sanguine about the prospects of conservative reform. My position now is one of unflinching reactionary. Just say no is my new motto, based on a strong sense that any attempt to reform, re-write, re-arrange, or re-organize will lead to a less healthy, less rooted, and less faithful church.
This is my repentance… mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
LikeLike
I think I can echo the comments. I’ve noticed quite a few things that people have touched on here and there.
1) Modern language. I initially was upset by the fact that the modern language seemed to lose the richness of the “original” (aka 1973), but when I actually compared the language of a few translations I thought odd in the two psalters against the NAS, it seemed as though the translations were roughly equivalent, and the newer psalter seemed closer to the NAS than the old. I don’t want to be a neo-KJV-type, saying that the majestic language in the 1973 psalter is somehow inspired. I agree that the majesty is of the text itself, and not a more archaic translation of it.
2) Tunes. I’ll go 50/50 on this. I think, for the most part, the committee did an excellent job of eliminating arbitrary repeats. Of course, we had to keep the abominable 98A, 119X and others that repeat the words unnecessarily. We also have tunes like 72E where the words are broken up so that no part sings all of the psalm.
As a pedestrian musician (piano and vocal), I find that the many of the committee’s revisions and new tunes lack a lot. If you look at 1973, Eleanor Hutcheson was the most prolific RP composer, but then again, her tunes, including 100C and 150B are among the favorites in most congregations. Brian Coombs is by far the most prolific in the new psalter and I find that his work is cumbersome and not terribly memorable. The psalter is not meant to be a vehicle to show the skills of the individual committee members, but is meant to have singable, memorable tunes that fit the music.
3) Exclusive Psalmody. I think Steve Bradley’s comment is quite compelling. Our argument for exclusive psalmody falls flat on its face when we willingly cut verses out of Psalm 136, add gratuitous Alleluias and Amens to the end of psalms and allow for repetition that does not appear in the original. One might say that a tune that forces repetition does not “fit” the words.
4) Revisions in general. I agree with Mr. Chellis on this one. When we say “Semper Reformanda” my understanding is revision as keeping the good parts and changing the bad parts. When someone comes to Synod saying that we need to throw away our current X and rewrite it, my Covenanter alarm bells go off. Unfortunately, that’s the way our church has worked recently. We throw away the old and bring in the new and the only decision we can make is whether the new is better or whether the old is better – a false dichotomy. We need to identify what is bad and fix it without throwing away the good.
That is why I think that any paper offering or suggesting a complete rewrite of anything should be returned to the author. Instead, the papers should bring substantive claims against specific sections or doctrines and recommend corrections. I think there are substantive claims to be brought against our Constitution, but the solution is not to rewrite the whole Constitution, hoping to avoid discussion of our personal grievances. The same goes for the Psalm.
LikeLike
I understand (and in some cases, agree with) the specific criticisms leveled here at particular psalm translations/versions.
But this article is not about this translation or that tune, it is a critique of the entire enterprise of modernizing the translation of the psalter, so I’d like to first speak about that.
The task of updating our Psalter translation was given to the committee by the Synod of 1997 and subsequent Synods. It reported its methods and activity to Synod every year. In my opinion, waiting until after the revision is published to question the entire endeavor is an insult to those Synods and to the people who gave their labors to the church for free, for years, to complete the work.
Most of you men writing here are members of Synod. The courts of the church have been open to you to air any of your concerns. The committee’s reports have been before you, year after year. Which of you has submitted papers questioning the underlying notion of updating the language of the Psalter?
—
It would be instructive to know why the translators of the KJV decided not to follow Coverdale’s rendering of Psalm 23: “thy staffe & thy shepehoke comforte me.” When their work began, fewer than 70 years had passed since Coverdale, the first printed English Bible. Were they ashamed of their forefathers, or desirous of concealing the age of the text? My own hunch is this: they did not follow Coverdale here because English orthography had changed and because 17th –century English people did not know what a “shepehoke” was.
A major emphasis of the Protestant Reformers was a commitment to have worship and the Scriptures in the “vulgar tongue.” It’s ironic that Bill Chellis’ response to Nathan Eshelman plays off the fact that “vulgar” is now almost never used in the sense of “vernacular,” but instead usually means “ignorant,” or “crude” – because Bill’s jibe illustrates perfectly the point that ought to be at the heart of this discussion: language changes.
God’s Word does not change, but language does. Not one of you men has shown how the preservation of archaic language constitutes greater faithfulness to God. With all due respect to Charles Brown, he has not explained here how continuing to sing, (e.g.) “to thy house will I repair,” or “my heart is fixed,” would result in greater faithfulness to the principles of worship regained at the Reformation. The idea that liturgical vocabulary ought to remain invariant over the years would have astonished the translators of the KJV.
Having been born a few years after the publication of the RSV, I’m probably in the last generation of people who grew up reading the KJV, outside of KJV-only churches. As one who loves the beauty of the KJV, I’m glad that in 1604 there was no prevailing sentiment that it would have been a grave error to pass over Coverdale, Matthew’s Bible, the Great Bible (authorized by Henry VIII), the Geneva Bible, and the Bishop’s Bible, to start work on – what – the sixth Protestant English Bible translation to be done in only a few generations.
But despite my love for the language of KJV, I do not expect children, college students, non-native English speakers, and others unfamiliar with Elizabethan English to worship in a tongue unknown to them. Moreover, it does the aged no violence to ask them to worship in the language that they use every day. Insofar as is possible, worship should be done in words readily understandable to the worshipers – yes: in the “vulgar” tongue. This, in my opinion, was our motive for revision.
—
Regarding Psalms suitable for the Lord’s Supper: Our most recent pastor, Christian Adjemian, did a wonderful job of making use of the whole Psalter in worship. One of the things that I realized when we began having weekly communion (and singing as the elements are distributed) was that Psalm 24A is only one of many psalms well-suited to the observation of the Supper. Has our justifiable love for that selection blinded us to the contents of the rest of the psalter?
It’s my understanding that the selection with extra hallelujahs came into this revision direct from an Irish RP psalter. It would not have been my choice to include them, but their inclusion at least has a credible source.
Steve Rockhill has already responded to Mr. King re: Psalm 8. To his remarks I add only the observations that insinuations of heresy are most appropriately made in church courts, not in blog comments – and that accusations against elders should be brought by two witnesses.
Re: Steve Bradley’s assertion that the committee was not tasked with creating a new psalter – reading the 1997 report that started this work, I believe that’s debatable. For example, the report noted that some versions in the 1973 psalter needed improvement or deletion. It refers to the existence of many other translation versions and tunes worthy of inclusion in a revision. Is there no room for a more charitable interpretation of the committee’s work?
That is all that I can say for now. I trust I have not left behind a superfluity of naughtiness.
LikeLike
For anyone interested in a modern Psalter, I would recommend the RPCI’s “The Psalms for Singing: A 21st Century Edition.” Over in the UK, some people would hold that American Psalters generally take undue liberties in the translation.
LikeLike
Now that someone has produced a nice graphical representation of the revised Psalter ( http://www.crownandcovenant.com/v/vspfiles/assets/images/psaltercomparisontable.pdf ) it is a bit easier to address Steve’s comment that this is more of a revision than Synod authorized.
70% of the 459 selections fall into the categories of “minor word change/same tune,” new words/same tune,” “familiar tune (different psalm portion)” or “same as maroon psalter.” Moreover, if you look closely you will see that some of the cases of “familiar tune” selections involve carrying a tune across two selections from the same psalm (e.g. 66A and 66B); in other words, taking an “old” tune and using it more than we used it in the “old” revision.
We can debate whether all this constitutes too much of a revision, but the graphical display makes it a little easier to grasp the whole thing.
LikeLike