25 Jun GS 1998 art 140

Posted at 16:38h in CanRC, GS 1998 by

GS 1998 Article 140 – Matters re The Book of Praise

Re: Report of the Standing Committee for the Publication of the Book of Praise Committee II presents:

Agenda Items: I.E, II.A, II.C.I, II.H, II.L, II.II, II.QQ, II.YY, II.XX, II.DDD, IV.B, IV.D, IV.H, IV.R, IV.T (part 3), IV.V (part 5), IV.BB, L7, L21,L27I.

I. MATERIAL

  • A. Report of the Standing Committee for the Publication of the Book of Praise
  • B. Letters from the churches at Watford, Burlington East (2), Cloverdale, Langley, Fergus, Burlington South, Grand Valley, Barrhead, Elora, London, Carman, Guelph, Fergus, Orangeville, Taber, Owen Sound, and Willoughby Heights, and a letter from br. J.D. Gansekoele
  • C. Letter from Standing Committee for Publication of the Book of Praise re: response to several letters received from the churches

II. GENERAL INFORMATION FROM THE STANDING COMMITTEE’S REPORT

  • A. Observation
    • 1. The Committee authorized a new printing of the Book of Praise shortly after Synod Abbottsford 1995. This edition incorporates the changes adopted by Synod 1995. It also includes an improved hardcover binding. Since then the stock has been depleted and another printing will have to be considered.
    • 2. The Introduction to the Church Order was included in the 1996 edition of the Book of Praise.
    • 3. In addition to placing the provisionally adopted text of the Nicene Creed in the 1996 edition of the Book of Praise, the Committee distributed the text to the churches with the request for comments. Having received these comments from the churches, the Committee provides the final form of the proposal of the text of the Nicene Creed. Subsequent to the report to Synod, several churches submitted further comments to which the Committee responds. (See below.)
    • 4. Regarding the availability of the Book of Praise in electronic format, the Committee suggests that Synod appoint a church to develop and maintain a formal web page of the Canadian and American Reformed Churches.
    • 5. The Committee notes that Rev. G. Nederveen is about to retire from the Committee and that br. L Kingma has requested to be relieved from the Committee due to other commitments.
    • 6. Ebenezer church at Burlington expresses its support for the Committee’s report.
    • 7. The church at Orangeville requests Synod not to incorporate provisional material into the published editions of the Book of Praise.
  • B. Consideration
    • 1. Since the current stock has been depleted, the Committee should authorize another printing, to serve the churches for the next 3 years. The Committee should clearly note the year of edition on the cover.
    • 2. Except by the specific mandate of General Synod, future printings of the Book of Praise should not include provisional material. The solicitation of comments from the churches must not be done by including provisionally adopted material into the Book of Praise.
    • 3. Synod concurs with the Committee to make available the Book of Praise in an electronic format and to develop and maintain a formal presence on the internet. Consideration must be directed to the matter of copyright and the matter of cost. Instead of appointing a particular church to maintain the web-page, several brothers who are competent in these matters can be appointed for this purpose.
  • C. Recommendations Synod decide
    • 1. to express gratitude for the years of service offered by br. L. Kingma and Rev. G. Nederveen.
    • 2. to continue the Committee, consisting of four members and appoint two members to fill the vacancies (at least one with musical talents).
    • 3. to appoint a new Committee for the purpose of creating and maintaining an official web page for the Canadian Reformed Churches with the following mandate:
      • a. to serve the churches by creating and maintaining an official web page which would contain official and semi-official materials that reflect the life of the churches, are of benefit to the membership, and of assistance to her witness in this world;
      • b. to report to the next General Synod regarding the activities and noticeable benefits of this web page.

III. ALTERNATE MELODY FOR HYMN 1A (ZWART; STRASBOURG),

  • A. Observations
    • 1. The Committee notes that it prepared the Strasbourg melody for distribution to the churches by adjusting the melody to fit the English text and by providing a harmonization which is in line with the historical time period of the melody. Both Zwart and Strasbourg melodies and their harmonization were distributed to the churches for comment. In view of the clear consensus of the churches that these melodies should not be considered, the Committee recommends that Synod Fergus put this matter to rest.
    • 2. The church at Burlington East urges Synod to direct the Committee to cease all efforts to find an alternate melody and harmonization for Hymn 1A, to lay the matter of an alternate melody to rest.
    • 3. The church at Orangeville agrees that the alternate melodies of Hymn 1A be put to rest.
    • 4. The church at Guelph requests that the existing melodies for Hymn 1A and 1B be maintained and this matter be put to rest.
  • B. Considerations.
    • Since both the Committee and a number of churches have made clear that the matter of an alternate melody of Hymn 1A is not desired, the Committee’s mandate should be considered completed and that the existing melodies for Hymn 1A and 1B be maintained.
  • C. Recommendation
    • To lay the matter of an alternate melody and harmonization of Hymn 1A to rest and to discharge the Committee of this mandate.

IV. OVERLEAF MUSICAL NOTATION

  • A. Observations
    • 1. Regarding the Overleaf Musical Notation, the Committee is of the opinion “that the overleaf repetition of the melody does not serve the churches well at this time” because, in an attempt to be consistent, all melodies will have to be repeated. The repeated melodies will likely add approximately 100 pages to the Book of Praise. The cost will likely increase by 30% because of the labour involved.
    • 2. The church at Owen Sound requests that the melodies of the psalms be repeated ‘overleaf’ to help improve congregational singing for the difficult tunes. They also state that while this will change the numbering of the pages, it is inconsequential as the page numbers are already different from previous editions.
    • 3. The church at Willoughby Heights senses a double standard in reference to the cost regarding the overleaf musical notation and changing the prooftexts from RSV to NIV.
  • B. Considerations
    • Although the Committee is not in favour of Overleaf Musical Notation, repeating the musical notation when a psalm or hymn continues on the over-leaf (as done in the Dutch church book) has merit (cf. Synod 1995, Art.44, Cons. H.). The church at Owen Sound correctly asserts that adopting overleaf musical notation will help improve congregational singing and appreciation for the (difficult) psalms and hymn in the Book of Praise. Since the cost should not be a over-riding factor in this matter, the concerns of Willoughby Heights are addressed.
  • C. Recommendation
    • To mandate the Committee to prepare the Book of Praise with an Overleaf Musical Notation, and to present this revision to the next General Synod.

V. FUTURE REVISIONS OF THE BOOK OF PRAISE

  • A. Observations
    • 1. Regarding a future revision of the Book of Praise, the Committee seeks direction from Synod on the modification of the rhyming of the Psalms to reflect the text of the NIV.
    • 2. Regarding the use of the NIV for the prose sections of the Book of Praise, the Committee, acknowledging that it was outside of its mandate, has been proactive at the Committee level in its decision to initiate an in-depth comparative review of the RSV/NIV proof-texts found in the Three Forms of Unity and the texts used in the prose of the Liturgical Forms. The Committee also occupied itself with an update of the Prayers with respect to addressing the Lord as ‘You’. The Committee urges Synod Fergus 1998 to provide the Committee with a clear mandate on these matters. The Committee wonders whether the NIV should replace the RSV in prose sections, or whether both versions should be made available.
    • 3. The church at Cloverdale asks Synod to mandate the Committee to update “the Scripture quotations and references used in the Canons of Dort, the Belgic Confession, and the Heidelberg Catechism from the present text quotations to reflect and be consistent with the NIV.” They also asks for the same in “the Liturgical forms and the Prayers to reflect the language used in the NIV.” Cloverdale makes these requests so that the present use of archaic language may be removed. Cloverdale also requests Synod to mandate the Committee to make it a high priority to have a suitable revised Book of Praise to present to the first Synod of the next century, Synod 2001. Furthermore, the church at Cloverdale asks Synod to mandate the Committee to update and change the language of the Psalms and Hymns to reflect the present usage as we have it in the New International Version of the Bible (as the translation recommended by General Synod 1995). This would include not only the pronoun forms (Thou, Thee, Thy, etc.) but also the antiquated verb forms used, e.g. “sitteth” to “sits,” “thence” to “there,” and others.”
    • 4. The church at Burlington South requests an updating of the language and the text of the psalms, hymns, forms and the prayers, as well as offering alternate melodies for the psalms.
    • 5. The church at Fergus is of the opinion that by revising the Book of Praise with NIV may result in two versions which “would cause confusion and would certainly not be beneficial for the federation, not to mention the cost involved.” They also feels that “to update the prayers to address the Lord with ‘You’ is not necessary as everyone is free to use the pronoun ‘You,’ ‘Thee,’ or ‘Thou.'” Furthermore, they state that “to change the rhyming of the Psalms would be detrimental to the whole generation of members who have learned the Psalms by heart and sing them from memory during the worship service.”
    • 6. The church at Grand Valley requests Synod to refrain from modifying the rhyming of the songs to reflect the text of the NIV. They state that the Book of Praise never intended to reflect a particular Bible translation, and that the poetic text always resists change.
    • 7. The church at Orangeville requests Synod “not to be too hasty in initiating revisions of the Book of Praise to reflect the use of the NIV, in light of the uncertainty in several churches as to which Bible translation to use.”
    • 8. The church at Guelph express concern over a possible future revision of the psalms. They feel “that revising the Psalms and prose section of the Book of Praise to reflect the NIV Bible translation would not be proper at this time. They suggest that we should take into consideration our Australian sister churches who have adopted the NKJV.
    • 9. Br. Gansekoele requests Synod not to adapt the Book of Praise to the NIV until more churches have switched to the NIV
    • 10. The church at Willoughby Heights suggests that any changes to the wording of the psalms be measured by the Hebrew original.
  • B. Considerations
    • 1. While some churches are uncertain in regard to which Bible translation to use, the NIV has been recommended to the churches, so it would be consistent to change the RSV quotations to the NIV in the confessions and prose section of the Book of Praise. In this revision, the Committee should take into consideration the input of our Australian sister churches.
    • 2. Changing the forms and prayers to incorporate the pronoun ‘You and Your’, would be consistent with the use of the current Bible translation as recommended by the Canadian and Australian General Synods, i.e. the NIV and NKJV.
    • 3. The churches at Cloverdale and Burlington South request a major revision of the language in the Psalms and Hymns to reflect the language of the NIV Bible translation. They also request allowing changes in the melodies in the Palms for Hymns. However, it is questionable whether such a major change is indeed necessary on this basis alone. It could be argued, as with
    • the Hymns of previous centuries (which have not been revised or altered by previous Synods) that the Psalms and Hymns are poetic and reflect the history and tradition of the reformation. Synod acknowledges that such a major change may also alienate a large section of our church members who have committed these Psalms and Hymns to memory.
    • 4. It is understood that any revision to the Psalms that is deemed necessary by Synod will remain faithful to the original text, thus the concern of Willoughby Heights is addressed.
  • C. Recommendation Synod decide
    • 1. To mandate the Committee to prepare the Prose section of the Book of Praise with NIV Bible references, and to present this revision to the next General Synod.
    • 2. To mandate the Committee not to proceed with changes to the Psalms and Hymns.

VI. PROPOSALS FROM THE CHURCH AT WATFORD

  • A. Observations.
    • 1. The church at Watford proposes that Synod instruct the Committee for the Book of Praise to do the following:
      • a. To find a suitable tune for the Nicene Creed for usage in the worship services. Watford reasons that this creed is very suitable for communal confession in the afternoon worship service (especially with the change from first person singular to first person plural). Such a confession is better sung by the entire congregation instead of just recited by the minister, since it is the confession of the entire congregation (cf. Rom10:10). The congregation at Watford would use the Nicene Creed more often if it were put to melody.
      • b. To find suitable music for the votum (Ps.24:8) used in our worship services. Watford reasons that the votum is the confession of the congregation, and is thus more appropriately sung by the entire congregation than spoken only by the minister on behalf of the congregation (cf. Rom10:10).
      • c. To find suitable music with which the congregation can sing a responsive Amen at the end of the worship services. Watford gives as grounds that the “Amen” is the response of the congregation to the blessing of the LORD and to the entire worship service, and as such is more appropriately sung by the entire congregation than spoken only by the minister on behalf of the congregation (cf. Rom10:10; Neh8:6; 1Co14:16; 2Co1:20; Rev5:14).
  • B. Considerations
    • The specific requests to set the Nicene Creed, Votum and the responsive Amen to music should be directed by the Church at Watford to the Committee for their consideration.
  • C. Recommendation
    • Synod decides not to accede the proposal of the church at Watford.

VII. CANONS OF DORT

  • A. Observations.
    • 1. The Committee reviewed the matter raised by br. L. van Zandwyk and recommends that Synod 1998 does not accede to his request. The Committee wishes to retain the present words ‘value and worth’ as they are used in a discriminatory sense and which have distinct meanings that best fit the context.
    • 2. The church at Guelph partially agrees with br. L. van Zandwyk’s proposal to translate ‘valoris et pretii’ as ‘power and value’ instead of ‘value and worth.’ and suggests that it be translated as ‘power and worth’, as the word ‘power’ is the primary meaning of ‘valoris.’
  • B. Consideration
    • The church at Guelph provides no new arguments.
  • C. Recommendation
    • To deny the submission of the church at Guelph and accept the Committee’s recommendations.

VIII. NICENE CREED

  • A. Observations
    • 1. General Synod 1995 decided, “To adopt provisionally the following revised edition of the Nicene Creed requesting the churches to test it and to send their comments (if any) to the Standing Committee of the Book of Praise for evaluation.” The revised edition of the Nicene Creed is found in the Acts, Recommendation F. Four churches responded to the Standing Committee. Typographical errors in punctuation were corrected and the appearance of the text in printed form was adjusted to facilitate the reading of the text. The Committee presents the final form of the text of the Nicene Creed to Synod. The Standing Committee sent a late report to Synod as an interaction with the church at Langley’s submission and several letters from other churches. The Standing Committee gives a careful response to the submission of Langley and does not concur with any of its suggestions. A final form of the text of the Nicene Creed is presented with some corrections in punctuation and a suggested lay-out of the text (indentations) as it would appear in the Book of Praise.
    • 2. The church at Orangeville requests that a drastic revision of the Nicene Creed not be undertaken. It can agree with a limited linguistic revision. Orangeville points out that the present version of the Nicene Creed has not been proven to be unscriptural and that a revised edition of the Nicene Creed would hinder ecumenical contacts with other churches.
    • 3. The church at Taber is not convinced that a change in the Nicene Creed be made from the singular “I” to the plural “We.”
    • 4. The church at Langley asks Synod to consider their submission regarding the Nicene Creed which had been sent earlier to all consistories and the Standing Committee.
    • 5. The church at London and the church at Carman express their concurrence for the proposal re Nicene Creed as proposed by the church at Langley. Carman expresses its agreement with the proposal. London states that the translation of the Nicene Creed submitted by Langley is linguistically sound, faithful to the originals, and sensitive to the longstanding version used in the English speaking world.
  • B. Considerations
    • 1. The revision of the Nicene Creed is not a drastic revision, as the church at Orangeville states, but it is as Synod 1995 stated, “The proposed revision of the Nicene Creed is more than a linguistic revision. It is also a structural change. The Committee has followed the suggestion of Dr. N. H. Gootjes and translated the original text making allowances for English language and theological development.” The present form of the Nicene Creed does not have to be proven unscriptural in order to have a linguistic and structural change. Revising the Nicene Creed into modern English does not create a hindrance in ecumenical contacts with other Reformed churches who subscribe to the same confessions.
    • 2. The Standing Committee has satisfactorily addressed the concern of Taber. The Committee demonstrates that the Greek text of the Nicene Creed uses the plural form (cf. Acts 1995, Art. 44 Considerations D.2).
    • 3. The letters of the churches at Carman and London give no proof in their letters to show that the Langley translation of the Nicene Creed is to be preferred over the translation of the Standing Committee.
    • 4. The Standing Committee has satisfactorily addressed the submission of the church at Langley. The final form of the text of the Nicene Creed as presented by the Standing Committee is to be preferred.
  • C. RECOMMENDATIONS
    • Synod decide
    • To adopt the revised version of the Nicene Creed, as recommended by the Committee, which reads as follows:
    • [Acts incomplete – to be included at a later date]

IX. STANDING COMMITTEE’S MANDATE

  • A. Observations
    • 1. The Committee suggests the following mandate:
      • a. To function according to the arrangements for publishing and distribution accepted by General Synod Cloverdale 1983 (Acts 1983, pp. 297-299).
      • b. To maintain its corporate status in order to be able to protect the interests of the Canadian Reformed Churches in all matters concerning the Book of Praise.
      • c. To foster an increased awareness of the existence of the Book of Praise among others and to promote the availability of a book of harmonization facilitating the use of the Book of Praise in the English-speaking world.
      • d. To serve as the address to which any correspondence regarding the Book of Praise can be directed.
    • 2. The church at Willoughby Heights is uncomfortable that the Committee saw it necessary to be “proactive” with respect to the RSV/NIV proof- texts of the confessions.
    • 3. The church at Elora requests Synod to disapprove of the fact that the “Committee is starting to take on a life of its own”, and to instruct the Committee to make two versions of the Book of Praise available to the churches, one with the prose in the NIV and the other with the prose in the RSV.
    • 4. The church at Burlington South is encouraged to read that the Committee is proactive in its work. They feel the Committee work in the future should be broader in scope, and therefore recommends that “an expanded mandate would ensure that we would be looking for continuous improvements in all facets of our Book of Praise
    • 5. The church at Barrhead and Burlington South request that the Committee’s mandate be expanded to be open to receiving additional music and to adding to the current selection of hymns to cover such subjects as “our missionary mandate, God’s gift in nature, the work of the Holy Spirit and the new covenant..”
    • 6. The church at Burlington South mention that the Committee should tap into the work that has already started in the Netherlands. They provided two names to serve on the Committee.
  • B. Considerations
    • 1. It is true that the Committee has been proactive by undertaking a comparative study of the RSV/NIV proof texts in the confessions and prose section of the Liturgical Forms. While this initiative troubles the church at Elora and Willoughby Heights, there should, however be no need for concern. Being proactive in their work, suggests that the Committee is ‘alive and well’ and prepared to address perceived needs of
    • the churches. However this does not imply that Synod supports all their initiatives or is compelled to take over any or all of their suggestions.
    • 2. While there may be possibilities to add additional hymns to the Book of Praise, the churches at Barrhead and Burlington South provide no compelling reasons or concrete suggestions for Synod to entertain this.
    • 3. Synod disagrees with the church at Elora to have a Book of Praise with NIV references and a Book of Praise with RSV references as it is more advantageous to have only one version of the Book of Praise.
  • C. Recommendation Synod decide:
    • 1. to acknowledge the work done by the Standing Committee for the Publication of the Book of Praise.
    • 2. to mandate the Committee:
      • a. to function according to the arrangements for publishing and distribution accepted by General Synod Cloverdale 1983 (Acts 1983, pp. 297-299).
      • b. To maintain its corporate status in order to be able to protect the interests of the Canadian Reformed Churches in all matters concerning the Book of Praise.
      • c. To foster an increased awareness of the existence of the Book of Praise among others and to promote the availability of a book of harmonization facilitating the use of the Book of Praise in the English-speaking world.
      • d. To serve as the address to which any correspondence regarding the Book of Praise can be directed.
      • e. To present to the next General Synod a revision of the Book of Praise incorporating the mandates mentioned above.

ADOPTED

Print page