Office Bearers

GS 2025 Article 182 – APPENDIX A-1

Suggestions from the churches to approve specific alternate psalms and additional hymns

1.    Suggestion to approve Alternate Psalm 11

  • 1.1    Observations:
  • 1.1.1    Winnipeg (Grace) notes that the Psalm received more support than opposition from the churches surveyed.
  • 1.1.2    The SCBP notes that the text seeks to be faithful, but there are several textual concerns with the lyrics.
  • 1.2    Considerations:
  • 1.2.1    The most important principle when evaluating songs is whether the lyrics are in harmony with the Word of God as confessed in the Three Forms of Unity. There are textual concerns with the lyrics of Psalm 11.
  • 1.3    Recommendation: To not approve Alternate Psalm 11 for inclusion.

2.    Suggestion to approve Alternate Psalm 32

  • 2.1    Observations:
    • 2.1.1    Owen Sound believes the variety this setting provides is valuable.
    • 2.1.2    The SCBP had no concerns about the faithfulness of the lyrics to the text.
    • 2.1.3    The SCBP recommended exclusion because it is a partial rendering of the Psalm, and the tune was deemed inferior to the Genevan Psalm 32.
  • 2.2    Considerations:
    • 2.2.1    The most important principle when evaluating songs is whether the lyrics are in harmony with the Word of God as confessed in the Three Forms of Unity, and this psalm is such.
    • 2.2.2    The reasons the SCBP recommended exclusion are unconvincing. Partial renderings of psalms can still be faithful to the text. Further, it is a common practice in the churches to sing just part of a psalm during worship. Evaluation of melodies is a largely subjective exercise.
  • 2.3    Recommendation: To approve Alternate Psalm 32 for inclusion.

3.    Suggestion to approve Alternate Psalm 39

  • 3.1    Observations:
    • 3.1.1    Owen Sound notes that the lyrics are faithful to the original text.
    • 3.1.2    The SCBP had no concerns about the faithfulness of the lyrics to the text.
    • 3.1.3    The SCBP recommended exclusion because it believed it was not more singable than the current Genevan melody.
  • 3.2    Considerations:
    • 3.2.1    The most important principle when evaluating songs is whether the lyrics are in harmony with the Word of God as confessed in the Three Forms of Unity, and this psalm is such.
    • 3.2.2    Evaluation of melodies is a largely subjective exercise.
  • 3.3    Recommendation: To approve Alternate Psalm 39 for inclusion.

4.    Suggestion to approve Alternate Psalm 51

  • 4.1    Observations:
    • 4.1.1    Owen Sound notes that the strength of this setting is offering the other side of the Psalm’s message, making it more fully biblical.
    • 4.1.2    The SCBP recommended exclusion because it is a partial rendering of the Psalm, and the Genevan tune better conveys the mood of penitence.
  • 4.2    Considerations:
    • 4.2.1    The most important principle when evaluating songs is whether the lyrics are in harmony with the Word of God as confessed in the Three Forms of Unity, and this psalm is such.
    • 4.2.2    The reasons the SCBP recommended exclusion are unconvincing. Partial renderings of psalms can still be faithful to the text. Further, it is a common practice in the churches to sing just part of a psalm during worship. Evaluation of melodies is a largely subjective exercise.
  • 4.3    Recommendation: To approve Alternate Psalm 51 for inclusion.

5.    Suggestion to approve Alternate Psalm 59

  • 5.1    Observations:
    • 5.1.1    Owen Sound believes that the more familiar melody in this setting will encourage greater use.
    • 5.1.2    Owen Sound notes that while it is not a full versification, it does convey the imprecatory nature of the Psalm.
    • 5.1.3    The SCBP recommended exclusion because it is a paraphrase of the Psalm, and they believe the melody does not improve the singing of the psalm.
  • 5.2    Considerations:
    • 5.2.1    The most important principle when evaluating songs is whether the lyrics are in harmony with the Word of God as confessed in the Three Forms of Unity, and this psalm is such.
    • 5.2.2    The reasons the SCBP recommended exclusion are unconvincing. Partial renderings of psalms can still be faithful to the text. Further, it is a common practice in the churches to sing just part of a psalm during worship. Evaluation of melodies is a largely subjective exercise.
  • 5.3    Recommendation: To approve Alternate Psalm 59 for inclusion.

6.    Suggestion to approve Alternate Psalm 84

  • 6.1    Observations:
    • 6.1.1    Owen Sound believes that this setting is well-loved and will be frequently sung.
    • 6.1.2    Owen Sound notes that while it contains older language, that is not necessarily a flaw.
    • 6.1.3    The SCBP notes that archaic language has been removed in their recommendation to GS 2022.
    • 6.1.4    The SCBP believes that since Genevan Psalm 84 is well-loved, there is no need for an alternative.
  • 6.2    Considerations:
    • 6.2.1    The most important principle when evaluating songs is whether the lyrics are in harmony with the Word of God as confessed in the Three Forms of Unity, and this psalm is such.
    • 6.2.2    The reason the SCBP recommended exclusion is unconvincing. Having an additional setting of an already loved Psalm will likely increase the singing of this Psalm.
  • 6.3    Recommendation: To approve Alternate Psalm 84 for inclusion.

7.    Suggestion to approve Alternate Psalm 90

  • 7.1    Observations
    • 7.1.1    Winnipeg (Grace) notes that the Psalm received more support than opposition from the churches surveyed.
    • 7.1.2    Aldergrove notes that more than 70% of churches surveyed recommended inclusion.
    • 7.1.3    The SCBP notes that the lyrics are a faithful summary of the text.
    • 7.1.4    The SCBP recommended exclusion because the melody uses the melody of a hymn from the TPH (Faith of our Fathers). Also, Psalm 90 is already covered in Hymn 54.
  • 7.2    Considerations
    • 7.2.1    The most important principle when evaluating songs is whether the lyrics are in harmony with the Word of God as confessed in the Three Forms of Unity, and this psalm is such.
    • 7.2.2    The reasons the SCBP recommended exclusion are unconvincing. The melody mentioned is not included in our Book of Praise and only makes this setting easier to sing.
  • 7.3    Recommendation: To approve Alternate Psalm 90 for inclusion.

8.    Suggestion to approve Alternate Psalm 95

  • 8.1    Observations:
    • 8.1.1    Winnipeg (Grace) notes that the Psalm received more support than opposition from the churches surveyed.
    • 8.1.2    Aldergrove notes that more than 70% of churches surveyed recommended inclusion.
    • 8.1.3    The SCBP notes that the lyrics are good, faithful, and biblical.
    • 8.1.4    The SCBP recommended exclusion because they prefer the melody of Genevan Psalm 95.
  • 8.2    Considerations
    • 8.2.1    The most important principle when evaluating songs is whether the lyrics are in harmony with the Word of God as confessed in the Three Forms of Unity, and this psalm is such.
    • 8.2.2    The reasons the SCBP recommended exclusion are unconvincing. Evaluation of melodies is a largely subjective exercise.
  • 8.3    Recommendation: To approve Alternate Psalm 95 for inclusion.

9.    Suggestion to approve Alternate Psalm 100

  • 9.1    Observations:
    • 9.1.1    Winnipeg (Grace) notes that the Psalm received more support than opposition from the churches surveyed.
    • 9.1.2    Aldergrove notes that more than 75% of churches surveyed recommended inclusion.
    • 9.1.3    The SCBP notes that the lyrics are a faithful rendition of the Psalm.
    • 9.1.4    The SCBP recommended exclusion because they believe the melody is associated with another song (Crown Him with Many Crowns).
  • 9.2    Considerations:
    • 9.2.1    The most important principle when evaluating songs is whether the lyrics are in harmony with the Word of God as confessed in the Three Forms of Unity, and this psalm is such.
    • 9.2.2    The reasons the SCBP recommended exclusion are unconvincing. Evaluation of melodies is a largely subjective exercise. High levels of support from the churches suggest an appreciation for this setting.
  • 9.3    Recommendation: To approve Alternate Psalm 100 for inclusion.

10.  Suggestion to approve Alternate Psalm 104

  • 10.1  Observations:
    • 10.1.1  Winnipeg (Grace) notes that the Psalm received more support than opposition from the churches surveyed.
    • 10.1.2  Aldergrove notes that more than 75% of churches surveyed recommended inclusion.
    • 10.1.3  The SCBP notes that the lyrics faithfully reflect the text of the Psalm.
    • 10.1.4  The SCBP recommended exclusion because they believe the melody is associated with another song (Book of Praise Hymn 84). Shorter stanzas than the Genevan version stunt the flow of thought in the song.
  • 10.2  Considerations:
    • 10.2.1  The most important principle when evaluating songs is whether the lyrics are in harmony with the Word of God as confessed in the Three Forms of Unity, and this psalm is such.
    • 10.2.2  The reasons the SCBP recommended exclusion are unconvincing. Evaluation of melodies is a largely subjective exercise. High levels of support from the churches suggest an appreciation for this setting.
  • 10.3  Recommendation: To approve Alternate Psalm 104 for inclusion.

11.  Suggestion to approve Alternate Psalm 150

  • 11.1  Observations:
    • 11.1.1  Winnipeg (Grace) notes that the Psalm received more support than opposition from the churches surveyed.
    • 11.1.2  Aldergrove notes that more than 65% of churches surveyed recommended inclusion.
    • 11.1.3  The SCBP notes that the lyrics faithfully convey the text of the Psalm.
    • 11.1.4  The SCBP recommended exclusion because they believe the melody is associated with another song (All Creatures of Our God and King). They also note that the Genevan Psalm 150 is well-loved.
  • 11.2  Considerations:
    • 11.2.1  The most important principle when evaluating songs is whether the lyrics are in harmony with the Word of God as confessed in the Three Forms of Unity, and this psalm is such.
    • 11.2.2  The reasons the SCBP recommended exclusion are unconvincing. Evaluation of melodies is a largely subjective exercise. High levels of support from the churches suggest an appreciation for this setting.
  • 11.3  Recommendation: To approve Alternate Psalm 150 for inclusion.

12.  Suggestion to approve Angels, from the Realms of Glory

  • 12.1  Observations:
    • 12.1.1  Winnipeg (Grace) notes that this hymn received more support than opposition from the churches surveyed.
    • 12.1.2  Winnipeg (Redeemer) was disappointed to see this song omitted.
    • 12.1.3  The SCBP notes difficulties with stanza 4 “saints before the altar bending…the Lord descending in his temple.” It is unlikely a congregation would make sense of these references, and therefore, recommended exclusion.
  • 12.2  Considerations:
    • 12.2.1  The most important principle when evaluating songs is whether the lyrics are in harmony with the Word of God as confessed in the Three Forms of Unity, and this hymn is such.
    • 12.2.2  The liturgical needs of the church indicate that more hymns relating to Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection would be beneficial.
    • 12.2.3  The concerns of the SCBP would be addressed by removing stanza 4.
  • 12.3  Recommendation: To approve Angels, from the Realms of Glory for inclusion, excluding stanza 4.

13.  Suggestion to approve Before the Throne of God Above

  • 13.1  Observations:
    • 13.1.1  Flamborough (Redemption) believes this hymn powerfully articulates the intercessory work of Christ and highlights the doctrine of justification and assurance of salvation—essential truths which are notably underrepresented in our current Book of Praise Hymn section.
    • 13.1.2  Owen Sound notes the lyrics are meaningful and the melody is beautiful.
    • 13.1.3  The SCBP notes that the text is scriptural and the melody acceptable.
    • 13.1.4  The SCBP recommended exclusion because they believe the topic of this hymn is covered sufficiently in Book of Praise Hymns (Hymns 38, 40, 42).
  • 13.2  Considerations:
    • 13.2.1  The most important principle when evaluating songs is whether the lyrics are in harmony with the Word of God as confessed in the Three Forms of Unity, and this hymn is such.
    • 13.2.2  The reasons the SCBP recommended exclusion are unconvincing. The message of this song is quite different from the hymns referenced.
  • 13.3  Recommendation: To approve Before the Throne of God Above for inclusion.

14.  Suggestion to approve Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing

  • 14.1  Observations:
    • 14.1.1  Flamborough (Redemption) notes that this hymn is rich in doctrinal truth.
    • 14.1.2  Flamborough (Redemption) objects to the SCBP recommendation to exclude this hymn because they deemed it individualistic (c.f. Psalms 42, 51, 116, and more).
    • 14.1.3  Winnipeg (Grace) notes that this hymn received more support than opposition from the churches surveyed.
    • 14.1.4  Aldergrove notes that more than 70% of churches surveyed recommended inclusion.
    • 14.1.5  The SCBP notes that the text does not derive directly from a passage in Scripture.
    • 14.1.6  The SCBP recommended exclusion because they believed the lyrics are somewhat individualistic.
  • 14.2  Considerations:
    • 14.2.1  The most important principle when evaluating songs is whether the lyrics are in harmony with the Word of God as confessed in the Three Forms of Unity. The SCBP did not express any concerns with the doctrine expressed in the lyrics.
    • 14.2.2  The reasons the SCBP recommended exclusion are unconvincing. Flamborough (Redemption) correctly noted that this hymn is no more individualistic than many psalms and hymns (e.g. Psalm 42, 88, 116, and others). High levels of support from the churches suggest an appreciation for this hymn.
  • 14.3  Recommendation: To approve Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing for inclusion.

15. Suggestion to approve Joy to the World! The Lord Is Come

  • 15.1  Observations:
    • 15.1.1  Winnipeg (Grace) notes that this hymn received more support than opposition from the churches surveyed.
    • 15.1.2  Aldergrove notes that more than 75% of churches surveyed recommended inclusion.
    • 15.1.3  The SCBP notes that the text derives from Psalm 98 and is familiar and well-known.
    • 15.1.4  The SCBP recommended exclusion because they believe the repetition at the end of each stanza limited the message of the song and because it is known as a Christmas carol even though it accents the kingship of Christ.
  • 15.2  Considerations:
    • 15.2.1  The most important principle when evaluating songs is whether the lyrics are in harmony with the Word of God as confessed in the Three Forms of Unity. The SCBP did not express any concerns with the doctrine expressed in the lyrics.
    • 15.2.2  Repetition of a particular line is not a reason to exclude a song (e.g. Psalm 136).
    • 15.2.3  The reasons the SCBP recommended exclusion are unconvincing. High levels of support from the churches suggest an appreciation for this hymn.
  • 15.3  Recommendation: To approve Joy to the World! The Lord is Come for inclusion.

16.  Suggestion to approve Man of Sorrows! What a Name

  • 16.1  Observations:
    • 16.1.1  Owen Sound believes that the objections against this hymn re: awkward wording and a perceived lack of reverence are highly subjective.
    • 16.1.2  The SCBP notes that the hymn highlights scriptural truths related to the atonement of Christ.
    • 16.1.3  The SCBP recommended exclusion because the melody is short and repetitive, further emphasized by the recurring end phrase “Hallelujah! What a Saviour”.
  • 16.2  Considerations:
    • 16.2.1  The most important principle when evaluating songs is whether the lyrics are in harmony with the Word of God as confessed in the Three Forms of Unity, and these lyrics are such.
    • 16.2.2  The reasons for which the SCBP recommended exclusion are subjective.
  • 16.3  Recommendation: To approve Man of Sorrows! What a Name for inclusion.

17. Suggestion to approve Threefold Amen

  • 17.1  Observations:
    • 17.1.1  Winnipeg (Grace) notes that the song received more support than opposition from the churches surveyed.
    • 17.1.2  Aldergrove notes that more than 65% of churches surveyed recommended inclusion.
    • 17.1.3  The SCBP notes that this is not really a hymn but a liturgical response to the blessing at the end of the service.
    • 17.1.4  The SCBP recommended exclusion because approval by synod is not required in their opinion.
  • 17.2  Considerations:
    • 17.2.1  Many churches in our federation make use of this song in their worship services.
    • 17.2.2  It would be helpful for those churches and others to include this song in the Book of Praise.
    • 17.2.3  Because this is not a hymn, it is not clear if it requires a separate hymn number.
  • 17.3  Recommendation: To approve Threefold Amen for inclusion.

18.  Suggestion to approve When Peace Like a River

  • 18.1  Observations:
    • 18.1.1  Edmonton (Immanuel) notes that this hymn has strong support from the churches, is used often throughout the year, and the language of the hymn is well-known.
    • 18.1.2  Langley notes this hymn is beloved in their congregation and is concerned it was excluded for purely subjective reasons.
    • 18.1.3  Owen Sound was surprised to see this hymn questioned. They believe its richness and the depth of emotion and comfort it brings their congregation make it a valuable addition to the Book of Praise.
    • 18.1.4  Winnipeg (Grace) notes that the Hymn received overwhelmingly positive support from the churches. They note that claims that the hymn is individualistic are questionable and that the SCBP is inconsistent in applying this measurement.
    • 18.1.5  Winnipeg (Grace) believes that the fact that this hymn is meant to be sung in harmony is not a good reason to exclude it. If an approved hymn is meant to be sung in harmony, it should be published with the harmony included.
    • 18.1.6  Winnipeg (Redeemer) pleads that this hymn be adopted because it is one of the well-known and well-loved songs of Christendom.
    • 18.1.7  Aldergrove notes that more than 85% of churches surveyed recommended inclusion.
    • 18.1.8  Winnipeg (Grace) notes that the SCBP’s assumption that additional hymns must “fill a gap” directly contradicts the mandate given by GS 2022 to consider the deletion of existing hymns.
    • 18.1.9  The SCBP recommended exclusion because, in their opinion, this hymn does not ‘fill a gap’ in the Book of Praise and raises concerns about individualism, archaic language, repetitiveness, sentimentality, and four-part harmony. They are also concerned it may be sung too often.
  • 18.2  Considerations:
    • 18.2.1  The most important principle when evaluating songs is whether the lyrics are in harmony with the Word of God as confessed in the Three Forms of Unity. The SCBP did not express any concerns with the doctrine expressed in the lyrics.
    • 18.2.2  Repetition of a particular line is not a reason to exclude a song (e.g. Psalm 136). Individualism, archaic language, and sentimentality are subjective measures that appear not to be consistently applied by the SCBP.
    • 18.2.3  High levels of support from the churches suggest an appreciation for this hymn.
    • 18.2.4  Winnipeg (Grace) correctly notes that songs should not be rejected out of hand by the SCBP simply because they do not ‘fill a gap’.
  • 18.3  Recommendation: To approve When Peace Like a River for inclusion.

19.  Suggestion to approve Yet Not I But Through Christ In Me

  • 19.1  Observations:
    • 19.1.1  Flamborough (Redemption) believes this hymn is rich in doctrinal truth and ought not to be rejected on a subjective measure of ‘individualism’.
    • 19.1.2  Langley notes this hymn is beloved in their congregation and is concerned it was excluded for purely subjective reasons.
    • 19.1.3  The SCBP notes that many of the churches found the words to be biblical.
    • 19.1.4  The SCBP recommended exclusion because they believe the style and arrangement of the melody is not suitable for congregational singing, and the lyrics are somewhat individualistic.
  • 19.2  Considerations:
    • 19.2.1  The most important principle when evaluating songs is whether the lyrics are in harmony with the Word of God as confessed in the Three Forms of Unity.
    • 19.2.2  The reasons the SCBP recommended exclusion are unconvincing. Many congregations sing this hymn well. The evaluation of individualism by the SCBP is subjective and inconsistently applied.
  • 19.3  Recommendation: To approve Yet Not I But Through Christ In Me for inclusion.