GS 2019 art 142

GS 2019 Article 142 – Overtures – RSW 2018 regarding Trinity Psalter-Hymnal

1.   Material

  • 1.1    Letter from RSW Nov. 2018 re: overtures (8.4.1.1), including: Overture Classis Pacific East TPH – originating in Aldergrove CanRC (8.4.1); Overture Classis Manitoba TPH – originating in Denver ARC (8.4.2). RSW includes letters from: Nooksack Valley ARC (8.4.1.2), Chilliwack CanRC (8.4.1.4), Lynden ARC (8.4.1.5)
  • 1.2    Letters from the following churches: Dunnville (8.5.2), Elora (8.5.3), Fergus-North (8.5.4), Guelph-Living Word (8.5.5), Ottawa-Jubilee (8.5.6), Carman-West (8.5.7), Burlington-Ebenezer (8.5.8), Ancaster (8.5.9), Barrhead (8.5.12), Hamilton-Cornerstone (8.5.13), Grand Rapids (8.5.14), Toronto-Bethel (8.5.15), Calgary (8.5.16), Grassie-Covenant (8.5.17), Burlington-Fellowship (8.5.18), Glanbrook-Trinity (8.5.19), Lynden (8.5.20), Orangeville (8.5.21), Neerlandia-(North) (8.5.22), Fergus-Maranatha (8.5.24), St. Albert (8.5.25), Edmonton-Immanuel (8.5.26)

2.   Observations

  • 2.1    RSW 2018 decided:
    • 2.1.1    To overture GS 2019 (Edmonton-Immanuel) to approve, in addition to the adopted Book of Praise, the Psalms and Hymns of the Trinity Psalter-Hymnal for use in public worship as per CO Article 55;
    • 2.1.2    To submit the texts of both overtures and all letters received by RSW to GS 2019 for its consideration;
    • 2.1.3    To submit matters of interaction with the overtures and direction on the topic to GS 2019 for due consideration.
  • 2.2    Overture Classis Pacific East submitted to GS 2019 by RSW 2018: 
  • We recommend that Synod Edmonton 2019 approve the Psalms and Hymns of the Trinity Psalter Hymnal as adopted by the United Reformed Churches in North America and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church for use in public worship as per Article 55 of the Church Order.
    • Grounds:
    • 2.2.1      In regard to the Psalm section of our Book of Praise: There is a measure of discontent in our congregations concerning the exclusive use of Genevan melodies in the singing of the Psalms. This discontent is expressed in home visits made by elders, in letters to Council, in discussions during group Bible Study and also in many informal settings. Discontent seems to revolve around the following points:
      • (a)       While the virtues of our current Psalm tunes are widely appreciated, church members desire a greater variety of musical style;
      • (b)       Exclusive use of melodies originating from one short period of church history and from one Reformed community seems inherently parochial; we should aspire to be more catholic in our expressions of praise to the God of the whole world. Singing melodies that are better known in the broader Christian world would help to guard us against unnecessary isolation.
      • (c)       Our churches frequently attract guests and new members. We are also increasingly engaged in the work of church planting. Both Christians who are being attracted to the Reformed faith as well as new converts often express difficulty in appreciating and singing the Psalms set to Genevan melodies. If a person has not been raised with these tunes, it can be difficult to learn to sing them let alone truly love them. For this reason, it would be a good thing to use in worship some of the Psalm-settings and melodies which are more broadly familiar in the Christian world.
    • 2.2.2      In regard to the Hymn section of our Book of Praise: 
      • (a)       Having more common ground with our English-speaking sister churches in regard to hymnology, would serve to express and nurture church unity.
      • (b)       Having a broader selection of familiar hymns and spiritual songs would benefit us as we seek to be churches in which new Christians and ‘inquirers’ can find a church home.
      • (c)       As can be seen from various events at which believers from our churches gather, people find joy in singing hymns and spiritual songs which are not currently found in our Book of Praise. This is evident at funeral services, weddings and family gatherings as well as school events. It is not hard to sense a genuine desire in the hearts of many to sing some of these hymns and songs in public worship.
      • (d)       In the past, various churches in our federation have submitted fairly large selections of hymns for the consideration of the Standing Committee for the Book of Praise (SCBP). This shows that there is a desire for singing more than the current selection of hymns in our Book of Praise.
      • (e)       Synod Dunnville 2016 renewed the mandate of the SCBP to receive suggestions for more hymns for the hymn section of the Book of Praise (Article 122).
    • 2.2.3      In regard to the process of change:
      • (a)       In the past, changes to the Book of Praise happened at a glacial pace. Church members and church councils find the process of seeking change very daunting. In the past, some of our congregations have sent annotated lists of carefully selected hymns to the SCBP. Not many of these have become part of our current edition of the Book of Praise. At times, worthwhile suggestions seemingly get lost at the level of the SCBP. This causes frustration especially when no reasons are offered for not accepting recommendations.
      • (b)       Instead of mandating our SCBP to expand the hymn section of the Book of Praise, a process which will undoubtedly take a number of years, we have the option of availing ourselves of the work of our sister churches, the United Reformed Churches of North America and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
        • (i)     In regard to the URCNA, we can point to a strong history of interaction between our respective federations in matters of liturgy. Until recently, our two church federations were working together on a new Psalter. This indicates that the CanRC were open at that time to significant changes to the Book of Praise. While our partnership with the URCNA in working to a new song book ultimately stalled (though not because of any reluctance on the part of our churches), the URCNA went on to work with the OPC to produce a new Psalter. This work was recently completed when the Trinity Psalter Hymnal (2017) was approved by the General Assembly of the OPC (2014, 2016) and the Synods of the URCNA (2014, 2016). It is expected that this new Psalter Hymnal will be published in early 2018.
        • (ii)    We have confidence that our Reformed brothers and sisters in the URCNA and the OPC have worked with good principles in putting together the Trinity Psalter Hymnal. In the process of evaluating and selecting songs for this new project, they were guided by the clear and sound ‘Principles and Guidelines’ adopted by Synod Calgary 2004 of the URCNA (see Appendix 1). The songs in the new Trinity Psalter Hymnal have been approved by Synods of the URCNA (2014 and 2016) as well as by the General Assemblies of the OPC (2014, 2016). If we have confidence in our sister churches, such approval should carry much weight for us.
        • (iii)   The new Trinity Psalter Hymnal contains the full text of each Biblical Psalm in at least one primary version; in addition, there are secondary selections of some Psalms that contain a partial Psalm text (see the ‘URCNA Psalter Hymnal Committee Report of April 2011’ meeting available at the following website: https://www.urcna.org/1651/custom/24189.). The Psalm settings come from a variety of traditions and include some contemporary versions.
      • c)         Adopting our proposal would not require any change in Article 55 of the Church Order. Furthermore, should our proposal be accepted, implementation of this decision would be a matter decided upon by each consistory.
  • 2.3    Overture Classis Manitoba submitted to GS 2019 by RSW 2018:
  • To approve the Psalms and Hymns of the Trinity Psalter Hymnal (TPH) as adopted by the United Reformed Churches in North America (URC) and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) for use in public worship as per Article 55 of the Church Order in addition to the Book of Praise. The purpose of this request is not to replace the Book of Praise but to enhance the unity in worship between our sister churches in North America by allowing the churches to also sing from the TPH.
  • The overture presents the following reasons:
    • 2.3.1    The promotion of uniformity and unity among the sister churches of Jesus Christ in North America. The use of the TPH would not only benefit the Denver-Emmanuel ARC (EARC) particularly when we meet with sister churches for public worship on Days of Commemoration (Art 53 of the Church Order) but more broadly in view of the CanRC’s close and regular contact with the URC and OPC, using the TPH may enhance uniformity in public worship.
    • 2.3.2    It could facilitate unity between the CanRC and URC in particular and other faithful churches in North America in general, along the lines of Christ’s prayer in John 17. As sister churches and as Christians in North America we will need each other more and more in the environment we live in. The EARC in Denver is especially conscious of this need because of our unique history (more than 60% of the congregation do not have a CanRC background) and because of our location (a growing interdependency with the URC and OPC congregations in our area).
    • 2.3.3    The lack of familiar faithful hymns. As mentioned above, the membership of Emmanuel Church is gathered from diverse backgrounds. Those coming from other Christian traditions have had to overcome various challenges in order to join the EARC, but one challenge stands out: that they would seldom sing familiar Christian hymns in public worship and that most congregational singing would take considerable effort for some time. We believe that the use of the TPH would alleviate some of this challenge and provide new opportunities for outreach and evangelism.
    • 2.3.4    The challenge of some of the Genevan tunes. Again, especially noted by those from other Christian musical traditions, even after years of singing from the Book of Praise, some tunes and some note intervals remain difficult. The more demanding the tune, the more one’s attention is drawn away from the words. The TPH offers alternative tunes for many of the Psalms.
    • 2.3.5    In light of the fact that our sister churches, the OPC and URC, have published the new Trinity Psalter Hymnal after a rigorous test of the psalms and hymns and music, we request that we apply their work to our benefit. We request that Classis propose to RSW to propose to Synod 2019 to approve the Trinity Psalter Hymnal for use in worship as per Art 55 of the Church Order.
  • 2.4    The Acts of RSW 2018 submitted to GS 2019 adds the following actions and considerations:
    • 2.4.1    RSW adopted and modified the overtures and interacted with the other materials in the following manner to give direction on this topic:
    • 2.4.2    Those letters which were submitted as appeals were received as letters of the churches interacting with the overtures.
    • 2.4.3    The overtures demonstrate a commonality in speaking about the Trinity Psalter-Hymnal (TPH) and its merits in addition to the Book of Praise (BoP).
    • 2.4.4    The purpose is not to replace the BoP but to enhance the unity in worship between us as sister churches in North America by allowing the churches to also sing from the TPH.
    • 2.4.5    The language of the overtures and the other materials received by RSW demonstrates that this is a topic that lives in our churches. In addition, the material shows that some of the arguments either supporting or opposing these overtures are subjective.
    • 2.4.6    There is great value in maintaining the principle of a federative approach to corporate worship. While not wanting to make exceptions to the rule, RSW acknowledges the uniqueness of certain congregations in their circumstances.
    • 2.4.7    The SCBP’s (Standing Committee for the Publication of the Book of Praise) evaluation process of suggestions for new hymns from the churches is perceived as not sufficiently responsive to what the churches through decisions of general synods have requested. It is debatable whether the SCBP is the appropriate forum to evaluate the TPH.
    • 2.4.8    In order to have the churches appreciate the quality of the TPH, the churches should have ample opportunity to interact meaningfully with its contents, as has happened in the past with the introduction of the Augment.
  • 2.5    Letters forwarded to GS 2019 by RSW and letters interacting with the overture submitted to GS 2019 from the churches:
    • 2.5.1    The Nooksack ARC states that the RSW overture proposes to bypass the work of the SCBP which previous synods have created precisely for the work of creating and establishing the music which the church sings. The ‘grounds’ used in the overture and the overture’s reference to the ‘glacial pace’ of the SCBP are based on subjective and anecdotal arguments. The overture ignores the fact that Synod Chatham 2004 capped the number of hymns to be included in the Book of Praise (BoP) at 100 in an effort to continue to retain an acceptable balance between the number of Psalms and Hymns. Adoption of more than 400 hymns with such little reflection and deliberation is not in keeping with the spirit of decisions of Synod 1968, 1971, 2004. Subjective arguments are used to suggest that the Genevan melodies of the BoP are a hindrance to visitors to the worship services. Nooksack does not believe that the CanRC have unnecessarily ‘isolated’ themselves from the rest of the Reformed and Presbyterian world, that we ‘get in line’ with other Reformed and Presbyterian churches when it comes to our music tradition in worship, and that adopting the TPH would formalize many of the songs already being sung at family gatherings, informal congregational meetings, or professional meetings such as teacher’s conventions, where a wide variety of hymns are often used. Nooksack asks the question: ‘is it actually true that the music often employed at CanRC informal meetings will in fact be the music found in the new Trinity Psalter Hymnal?. . . Over the years, the OPC and the publishers of the Trinity Hymnal have been removing overtly Arminian and otherwise non-Reformed hymns from this hymnal. It has gone through several revisions, each shorter than the one previous to it. Finally the United Reformed Churches and the OPC have created this psalter-hymnal, still with many more hymns than in the BoP. We look for expansion of our music selection while they have gone through editions of contraction. It is ironic. . . Ultimately, we fear the loss of Psalm singing….’
    • 2.5.2    The Chilliwack CanRC reminds that GS 2004 limited the number of hymns to 100. The TPH far exceeds this limit. Adopting this overture would bypass a ‘long standing and accepted process by the churches for approving Psalms and Hymns for use in the worship services.’ ‘The overture from Aldergrove does not interact with any of the previous Synod decisions regarding this process or why we have a common Book of Praise that is to be used by all of the Canadian Reformed Churches.’ Chilliwack disagrees that discontentment among the members is sufficient grounds for support of the overture as this is a subjective observation. Chilliwack disagrees with the grounds that suggest adopting the TPH will nurture church unity. They suggest that the opposite is true, as some churches will decide to use the TPH, while others will decide to continue using the BoP, this will cause unrest within the churches. Then they ask the question: ‘Should we be pursuing further unity with sister churches at the expense of unity within our own federation?’  ‘The proposal states as grounds that people find joy in singing hymns and spiritual songs which are not currently found in our Book of Praise. Chilliwack questions whether a decision should be made based on people’s feelings?  Can we modify anything in our worship services simply because people find joy in it?’  ‘The proposal states as grounds that changes to the Book of Praise happen at a glacial pace and that this causes frustration. Once again, these grounds are merely subjective. Chilliwack appreciates the careful and methodical approach taken by the SCBP and past synods when making changes to the Book of Praise’  ‘Chilliwack questions whether we can simply adopt decisions of our sister churches because we have confidence in them’  Chilliwack believes that ‘using such a large Psalter Hymnal will cause a lack of familiarity with the songs, especially for the young children.’ 
    • 2.5.3    The Lynden ARC (8.4.2 and 8.5.21) requests that GS 2019 ‘appoint a committee with the specific mandate to complete an in-depth review of’ the TPH, studying ‘the arguments of the churches that are both for and against’ and provide a report and recommendations for GS 2022. Lynden does not believe the overture ‘follows an orderly process for evaluating and adopting new music for use in the churches.’  Since GS 2016 mandated the SCBP to monitor the development and give a sense of the TPH, ‘the overture interferes with the process that has already been initiated for evaluation’ of the TPH. Lynden further draws attention to the report of the SCBP to GS 2019 in which, according to Lynden, the SCBP ‘expressed concerns that should be investigated further’. In the letter of Lynden to RSW, forwarded by RSW to GS 2019, Lynden draws attention to our ‘history of carefully regulating the ratio of hymns to Psalms in our songbook. It would be imprudent to abruptly break this precedent with the adoption of a whole new songbook.’
    • 2.5.4    The Dunnville CanRC requests that GS 2019 proceed with caution and, referring to SCBP report 7.2, asks whether it would not be hasty to approve hymns that could be argued to have questionable theology or contain individualism and sentimentality. Dunnville urges GS 2019 to approve for public worship only material that has been analyzed and can be conclusively stated to be faithful to Scripture.
    • 2.5.5    The Elora CanRC states that singing in the worship is a very important part of how we worship, and any changes made to the choice of songs in corporate worship must be done carefully. If there is a strong desire as federation to add the TPH, then we should take due diligence and review the TPH. We therefore recommend that synod form a committee to review the TPH and report their findings and recommendations to GS 2022.
    • 2.5.6    The Fergus-North CanRC notes that GS 2016 mandated the SCBP ‘To monitor the development of a joint OPC-URCNA songbook and when possible to provide the churches with a sense of this new song book’s composition, quality, and theological accuracy.’  Any review, regardless of the committee responsible, should be given specific timelines. Adoption of the TPH could cement federation relationships dramatically. However this should not trump theological accuracy and a personal ownership of the material used in one’s service to our Lord. The Genevan tunes are not equal to Scripture and should not be treated as such. Frustration with tunes is a reality in our churches, the same feelings would or could be voiced about the TPH. To rush into an approval of an alternative collection of songs based on the acceptance of our sister churches seems irresponsible. Adopting the TPH would mean immediate introduction of hundreds of versifications of the psalms and over 400 hymns. The path forward should include a full review by a committee separate from the SCBP.
    • 2.5.7    The Guelph-Living Word CanRC has a two-fold concern regarding the RSW recommendation: it seems rushed and does not allow the local churches to make an informed decision and does not give enough time to consider the implications this kind of change has for our federative unity as well as for our schools. Guelph states that we need to be on guard to the onslaught of the world and the devil and do well to consider things that may, in fact, promote disunity and fragmentation within our federation. Guelph asks GS 2019 to make sure that we consider carefully the impact a decision would have on our local congregation as well as the bond of fellowship we enjoy within our federation.
    • 2.5.8    The Ottawa-Jubilee CanRC expresses support for the RSW overture to approve, in addition to the adopted BoP, the TPH for use in public worship. They note that GS 1958 appointed deputies to prepare an English psalter together with appropriate hymns, using the CRC Psalter Hymnal, and possibly other Psalters. (Acts 1958, Art. 172 1.). The GS 1962 mandate states that deputies do not have to confine themselves to Mr. Dewey Westra’s Psalms or to the Genevan tunes. (Acts 1962 Art.21 p.26). GS 1965 authorized the use of other melodies and authorized that by way of exception two different rhymes of the same Psalm (one on a Genevan tune, one on a different tune). GS 1968 mandates include – To give preference to the Genevan tunes as melodies for the rhymed Psalms, with the understanding: 1. That identical tunes for different Psalms be avoided as much as possible. 2 that those tunes which are hard to sing be replaced by other melodies of . . . priceless of value (Acts 1968 English 88. Pg 30). A godly desire to sing a broader variety Christian hymns in the worship services is found in our local church. GS 2001 mandated the SCBP to increase the hymnary to include up to 100 hymns. 18 years later we have increased the selection by 19 hymns and are still 15 short of a hundred. Suggested is ‘please bring us back to the original vision of our churches, strengthen our federation and don’t harness us to a SCBP process that is not working’.
    • 2.5.9    The Carman-West CanRC is of the opinion that allowing the use of the TPH as a whole would add too many psalms and hymns for use in our churches. Allowing this could come at the expense of our psalms, which we believe should be avoided. Additional hymns could be added to our present BOP and some possibly removed to allow for a more varied selection of better-known songs, but that total number should be restricted. It is in the best interest of the churches that either the SCBP or another appointed committee should work on adding to the hymn section in our BoP. Attention should especially be paid to the songs presently in the TPH, particularly on those known in the broader Christian community. Carman-West states that we should maintain a common song book to be used within our federation.
    • 2.5.10  The Burlington-Ebenezer CanRC supports the decision of RSW for the reasons stated in the overtures from RSW 2018 as well as for the reasons stated in their own decision of April 16, 2018 (which Ebenezer appended) and in the letter which Ebenezer sent to the SCBP (also appended to Ebenezer’s letter to GS 2019). Among others, the following can be gleaned from Ebenezer’s writings: Ebenezer expresses confidence in the work of the OPC and URCNA and that since they are our sister churches, the ‘prevailing assumption must be that the songs [of the TPH] are acceptable for use in the worship service and theologically accurate.’  Ebenezer notes that the conviction that the singing of psalms should have priority in the worship service ‘is given expression, not in the composition of the psalter hymnal, but in the choosing of songs by the local minister and consistory.’  Ebenezer also writes: ‘The TPH has a larger selection of tunes, and many of them are more familiar and easier to sing and would contribute to an increase in the use of psalms in the worship service.’
    • 2.5.11  The Ancaster CanRC does not support the overture: Immediate adoption of the overture would go against our practice of careful review by the churches and bypasses the mandate given to the SCBP. Ancaster draws attention to the cautions about the TPH included in the report from the SCBP to GS 2019. Ancaster recommends denying the overture, appoint a separate committee to give a thorough examination of the TPH, and that committee would report its finding to the churches in a timely way before GS 2022.
    • 2.5.12  The Barrhead CanRC believes that ‘it is premature to give approval to the TPH prior to undertaking a comprehensive review which provides the churches with a good sense of the TPH.’  Barrhead does express ‘support for a thorough investigation’ of the TPH and advises to appoint a new committee which should ‘take into account the cursory review made by the SCBP’ while correlating and collaborating with the SCBP. Barrhead does express reservation about GS 2019 granting the request of the SCBP that the SCBP not be involved in a review of the TPH.
    • 2.5.13  The Hamilton-Cornerstone CanRC suggests that instead of simply adopting the TPH it would be better to address the topic of adding more well-known hymns and psalms with alternate and well-known melodies by preparing an augment by the fall of 2020 for use in the worship services of the churches for a period of testing. Hamilton-Cornerstone observes that the URCNA and OPC have only recently adopted the TPH to meet their specific needs, that we have different needs than they do because we already have a songbook with updated language in the psalm section, and so we are able to instruct the SCBP to add to the Book of Praise those hymns and psalms of alternate melodies which our churches specifically request.
    • 2.5.14  The Grand Rapids ARC does not support the overture at this time because they believe that it is necessary to act more slowly and cautiously, to mandate the SCBP to give a full evaluation of the TPH, and to give the churches an opportunity to see and evaluate the TPH. Grand Rapids argues that the reasons for denying a similar overture by RSE 2017 remain valid. They further point out that the federation is responsible to evaluate its own songbook. Since the URCNA and OPC do not have the equivalent of our Article 55 CO, it is necessary to wait longer before we can see how widely accepted and used it is within those federations. Since dissatisfaction with the BoP is the motivation for adopting the TPH, it could cause the hasty demise of modal Genevan tunes that have been in use in the churches for many centuries.
    • 2.5.15  The Toronto-Bethel CanRC supports the overture in all its parts but does not agree that it is necessary for the churches to interact with the TPH as happened in the past with the introduction of the Augment. They observe that after reviewing the TPH the SCBP ‘did not recommend not adding the TPH’. Toronto states that the TPH does not need review by the CanRC because the review has already done by the OPC and URCNA and trusting their work shows and promotes unity. Toronto favors that the overture allows for flexibility concerning how the local churches decide to use the TPH. Many of the songs found in the TPH are already used at combined CanRC and URCNA events as well as weddings and funerals. All the churches in the federation are presently dealing with requests concerning the use of the TPH. A limited selection of songs for worship has led some congregations to replace the worship services on Christmas and Good Friday with a program to justify the use of songs outside the Book of Praise. The churches and synods must recognize and accept that although a matter may be considered as a matter for consideration by the churches in common, upon deliberation and consideration, it is possible that once decided by the churches when gathering in synods, uniform policy and practice do not necessarily follow if not mandated by Scripture or confession. Fear of singing different songs in different local congregations should not be a factor. GS 2016 (Article 87, Consideration 4.8) is cited; that ‘Church Order Article 30 does not say that a matter for the churches in common is one in which uniformity of practice is demanded’.
    • 2.5.16  The Calgary CanRC recommends to not adopt the TPH. Calgary expresses concern that the overture does not address that GS 2004 limited the number of hymns to 100, which decision sought to maintain the centrality of Psalm singing in the churches. Calgary points out that the cursory evaluation of the SCBP ‘found that some of the hymns [of the TPH] did not meet the criteria previously established by the churches.’  Calgary expects that the promotion of the TPH in fostering unity with sister churches ‘would be at the expense of unity within our own federation as some congregations choose to use the TPH and some do not.’
    • 2.5.17  The Grassie-Covenant CanRC is concerned about ‘unintended consequences’ of the overture. Grassie-Covenant states: ‘this overture side steps any due procedure for approving songs for use in the worship service’; ‘care should be taken to evaluate this publication’; ‘the current process … is inadequate for this kind of proposal’. Grassie-Covenant agrees with the SCBP that if GS 2019 would like a more in-depth evaluation of the TPH, ‘such a review be done by another committee’ which would be an ad hoc committee; this would prevent the SCBP from receiving conflicting mandates. ‘We would ask Synod to consider this overture carefully and perhaps conduct a thorough evaluation of the TPH.’
    • 2.5.18  The Burlington-Fellowship CanRC recommends (‘we strongly encourage’) that GS 2019 adopt the overture. Adopting use of the TPH ‘is an affirmative expression’ of unity with the URCNA  and ‘it is unreasonable for the CanRC to assume that any federative unity with the URCNA will not also include the use of the TPH in combined federation.’  Burlington-Fellowship highlights the North American context, including the early history and synod decisions (1958, 1962, 1965, 1968) of the CanRC, when the CanRC sought to create an ‘English Psalter (not exclusively Genevan) with an English Hymnary.’ Burlington-Fellowship draws attention to what the Denver-Emmanuel ARC writes in its initial proposal to CM about its particular context of contact with sister churches in which the TPH would have a beneficial function in public worship. And Burlington-Fellowship (with Denver-Emmanuel) sees that the use of the TPH would support the work of mission in the North American context.
    • 2.5.19  The Glanbrook-Trinity CanRC notes in relation to RSW’s overture that we have specifically decided that we will limit the number of hymns in the BoP to 100, it becomes a moot point whether those hymns are between the covers of the BoP or the covers of the TPH as they would all be ‘in the pew’ and available for singing. The TPH and BoP total of hymns would be 480 which is almost 5x beyond the limit that we’ve agreed upon as churches. The URC has taken a breather on all unity discussions with CanRC for the foreseeable future, therefore the argument of RSW item 6.3 regarding possible unity, loses much of its force.
    • Another argument from RSW deals with ‘mission churches’ standing to benefit from adopting the TPH, that argument is brief and somewhat vague. Much of church life, including the songs, will involve a big learning curve for new believers. Drawing lines of distinction between so called missional congregations and regular congregations and then potentially under-lining such a distinction with different congregations emphasizing different song books is fraught with the potential to fray the unity of our federation. Regarding ‘singability’ of the Genevan tunes remember that they were specifically composed to be sung by people who were not used to singing in corporate worship. We still have room to add fifteen more hymns such as ‘Abide with me’ [allusions to Ps 27,102 and 1Cor 15] suitable for worship and may well be helpful for newcomers because they are more widely known. Maintaining unity in our worship services ought to be a high priority. Note that RSE 2017 decided on the same topic in the opposite direction. We have the potential for disunity, something that no one wants. For accompanists the thought of being prepared to play well from a song collection of almost 900 tunes could be overwhelming to some, especially in congregations that only have one or two accompanists. It would be unwise for GS 2019 to decide to allow congregations to put the TPH in their pews beside the BoP, even for ‘testing purposes’. The SCBP could put together a booklet of 10-15 additional hymns for testing in the churches with a view to possible eventual inclusion in the BoP. GS decisions should be seen to uphold the valuable and long-standing relationship we have as federation with the SCBP.
    • 2.5.20  The Orangeville CanRC does not support the overture at this time because the overture asks GS 2019 to approve the TPH sight unseen and skips the step of provisionally approving the TPH for testing in the churches, it is not a valid argument to equate trusting sister churches with adopting all their documents as our own; it is a subjective statement to conclude that adding the TPH to the BoP will enhance the unity in worship between us as sister churches in North America. The conclusions concerning the minimal value of the SCBP are subjective as indicated by the use of the words ‘perceived’ and ‘debatable’ in the overture; it is not a strong argument to adopt the TPH because many people want this and are already doing it, since we don’t know how many people really want it, in what settings they are using the songs, the Word of God is standard not the number of people involved, the TPH is not known to be the solution; it has not been shown that the songs of the TPH will meet the needs of those who are new to the faith or those who come to us from other reformed church backgrounds. To suggest that the TPH will address the difficulty some experience in learning to sing and love the Genevan melodies is not only subjective, but also an argument for abandoning the BoP and choosing only the songs that are in the TPH; wealth of choice will impoverish familiarity; the prominence of the psalms in worship will be put under pressure by the presence of 425 hymns. Therefore Orangeville recommends that GS 2019 does not adopt the overture and that if a committee be appointed to do a review of the TPH, such a committee should take note of the work of the SCBP leading up to the Synod Smithers 2007, when they reviewed more than 500 hymns as well as their preliminary evaluation of the TPH.
    • 2.5.21  The Neerlandia-(North) CanRC bring their concerns regarding the possible adoption of the TPH. They note that GS 2004 limited the number of Hymns for use in our worship services to 100 – this decision still stands. It becomes apparent that the URC and OPC were working together to come up with a psalm book that would foster unity among the congregations of their federations. They were moving away from using the CRC psalter hymnal – we as CanRC have already accomplished that in the Genevan Psalter – so why move towards losing something that can identify us and set us apart. To gain a broader form of unity the URC and OPC didn’t adopt our BoP – therefore why do we think adopting the TPH will increase unity?  A number of hymns that didn’t make it from our latest Augment into the BoP are included in the TPH. What is gained when as a federation we take steps to make ourselves more attractive to others but alienate and neglect those within our own midst who still struggle with the last addition to our BoP and struggle with the idea of another hymn book? Remember the words of Romans 14:15 ‘….do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.’
    • 2.5.22  The Fergus-Maranatha CanRC requests that GS 2019 seriously consider not approving the overtures to adopt the TPH for use in our churches and asks that the following be considered: The argument that this is a topic that lives in our churches is very subjective. How can that be verified? They ask that GS 2019 not make decisions regarding such an important overture based on subjective arguments. GS 2016 mandated the SCBP to monitor development of the joint URCNA and OPC songbook – the RSW overture clearly ignores and seeks to avoid this mandate. GS 2004 (Art.115 Rec. 6.1.1). capped the number of hymns to be included in the BoP at 100. The RSW 2018 overture is attempting to circumvent the spirit of the mandate given by GS 2004. We must assume that the decision of GS 2004 capped the number of Hymns at 100. Adopting the TPH would mean introducing more than 400 hymns putting aside our adopted practice of carefully choosing hymns via the diligent scrutiny of the SCBP. To suddenly rush forward with adopting a new collection of hymns without doing our own due diligence is both unwarranted and perhaps even irresponsible. They do not agree with approving the TPH for use in our churches.
    • 2.5.23  The St. Albert CanRC agrees that there is great value in maintaining the principles of a federative approach to corporate worship – it is good to have consistency throughout the federation – and that the SCBP may not be an appropriate forum to evaluate the TPH. It seems that to adopt a new Psalter-Hymnal without the same rigour – as has been put forward by the SCBP – which has been exemplary – would be a mis-step for the federation. GS could strike a committee to evaluate the TPH. It would be best for GS not to adopt the recommendation of RSW but instead strike a review committee to evaluate and bring a recommendation to a future GS.
    • 2.5.24  The Edmonton-Immanuel CanRC has not examined the content of the TPH but addresses the question of adoption of the TPH asking GS 2019 to consider the following points: TPH is a publication of the URCNA and OPC not including the CanRC, TPH has only recently been published in 2018 and is not well known among members of the CanRC, TPH has not been formally reviewed by the SCBP, Adoption of the TPH would at this time be premature – there has been no period of testing. RSE and RSW have come to different conclusions regarding the adoption of the TPH therefore there is a lack of consensus in the federation. GS should also consider what impact the adoption of the TPH may have when used in conjunction with the BoP in public worship. They recommend GS 2019 not to adopt the TPH for use in the Can/Am Ref Churches. And to task the SCBP or a new committee to undertake a thorough review of the TPH and report back to the next GS.
  • 2.6    The Standing Committee of the Book of Praise (SCBP) received the following mandate from GS 2016 (Art. 127 Rec. 5.6.6): ‘to monitor the development of an joint OPC/URCNA songbook and when possible to provide the churches with a sense of this new song book’s composition, quality, and theological accuracy’. In the report to GS 2019 the SCBP gives a review of the TPH:
    • While the Committee received letters from a number of churches requesting that we comment on the suitability of the Trinity Psalter Hymnal for adoption by the churches, we feel that this exceeds our mandate. We have been asked by Synod to provide a general sense of the book’s composition, quality and theological accuracy.
    • With this in mind, we conducted a cursory study of the songs in the Trinity Psalter Hymnal, in the first place because our mandate did not ask for an in-depth study, and also in part because we were not able to obtain copies until August of 2018, and so were restricted in our ability to perform an in-depth analysis and still be ready to report to Synod 2019. We reviewed all of the Psalms, and took a sampling of about 80 Hymns in order to complete our mandate in regards to the Trinity Psalter Hymnal.
    • As a result of our review, we provide the following observations:
      • [7.2.1]         General
        • [7.2.1.1]      The preface to the Psalter is very good. It clearly acknowledges
          that there is much new musical material in the book and provides helpful musicological instruction for congregations and musicians alike.
        • [7.2.1.2]      The book contains a wide variety of useful indexes
      • [7.2.2]         Psalms
        • [7.2.2.1]      Every Psalm has at least one complete rendering of the Psalm
          (either in one melody or split over multiple melodies).
        • [7.2.2.2]      On the whole, each rhymed Psalm is a faithful rendering of its
          corresponding biblical text.
        • [7.2.2.3]      We express special appreciation for the text renditions of the
          Psalms that were created by the OPC-URCNA Committee. Poetically they appear to be quite well done, and it is evident that much work has gone into ensuring faithfulness to the text of Scripture.
        • [7.2.2.4]      The text of the rhymed psalms includes the corresponding verse numbers from the Bible, a helpful addition.
        • [7.2.2.5]      We did note that some melody choices for the Psalms are jarring because:
          • [7.2.2.5.1]   they have strong associations with well-known hymns, or are melodies found in classical music (e.g. #30, #63A, #67B, #90A, #102A, #104A, #116A, #145C); or 
          • [7.2.2.5.2]   they are Genevan melodies that were repurposed for other Psalms (e.g. #52 uses Genevan 77, #119S uses Genevan 110).
        • [7.2.2.6]      We observe that a number of the Psalms contain archaisms (e.g. #84C, #102B, #117C, #118B) and others retain the name Jehovah (e.g. #96, #98C, #117A, #117C).
      •  [7.2.3]        Hymns
        • [7.2.3.1]      We found at least 30 hymns from the Book of Praise that have
          been used in the Hymn section of the TPH. Some of these have different melodies, or textual variations, while others are identical to the hymns in the Book of Praise.
        • [7.2.3.2]      We appreciate that there is a strong Christological emphasis in the hymn section.
        • [7.2.3.3]      A benefit of the large number of hymns is that a broad range of topics is covered well.
        • [7.2.3.4]      Where the OPC-URCNA Committee contributed original texts to the hymns, these are generally well done (e.g. #296, #302, #401, #490).
        • [7.2.3.5]      The text of the hymns is taken from a broad range of time from the early Christian Church to modern times. The melody range appears to be largely from the 16th century to present day, with a preponderance of melodies from the 19th century.
        • [7.2.3.6]      While there are many worthy hymns, some of the Principles and Guidelines appear to be inconsistently applied:
          • [7.2.3.6.1]   Guideline 1: some hymns could be argued to have questionable theology (e.g. #163, #452). Further, in some hymns direct lines are drawn from events described in the Bible, and applied to believers as if Christians today are participants in the event (e.g. #365, #505, #515).
          • [7.2.3.6.2]   Guideline 7: some hymns are not free from individualism (e.g. #272), sentimentality (e.g. #309, #471) and artificiality (e.g. #450, #477).
          • [7.2.3.6.3]   Guideline 10: melodies for some of the hymns appear to be borrowed from music that suggests places and occasions other than the Church and the worship of God. For example, #422, #427, #532 are based on the symphonic melody ‘Finlandia’ by Jean Sibelius, #253 is based on the symphonic melody ‘Ode to Joy’ from Ludwig von Beethoven’s 9th Symphony, #67B, #226, and #241 are based on the melody ‘Thaxted’ found in the ‘Jupiter’ movement of Gustav Holsts’s ‘The Planets’, and #403 is based on Joseph Haydn’s ‘Austrian Hymn’ (also used for ‘Deutschland, Deutschland über Alles’)
        • [7.2.3.7]      The size of the Hymn section will make it challenging for the churches to maintain their principle that the Psalms should have the principal place in the worship service (c.f. Art. 39 of the URCNA Church Order, and Principles and Guidelines #2).
        • [7.2.3.8]      Some hymns struck us as being better suited to individual worship than for use in corporate worship (e.g. #431, #500).
        • [7.2.3.9]      At least one hymn that was rejected by General Synod Burlington 2010 (Acts, Art. 138) is found in the TPH (#406 = Augment #16).
    • 2.6.4   The SCBP comes with the following conclusions:
      • [7.4.2.1]      With this report completed, the Committee requests Synod to declare that we have fulfilled our mandate as it regards the Trinity Psalter Hymnal.
      • [7.2.4.2]      Further we request that if Synod would like a more in-depth evaluation of the Trinity Psalter Hymnal with a view to use in the Canadian Reformed Churches, such a review not be done by the Committee because of tension between such a mandate and our existing mandate to maintain and promote the Book of Praise.

3. Considerations

  • 3.1    The RSW 2018 overture, along with many individual churches, express the desire to have more Psalm renditions and additional Hymns available to the churches for use in public worship services. It is apparent that this is a topic that lives in the churches and that the churches want to act in harmony with one another (cf. Romans 15:5-6; Ephesians 4:1-6; CO Art. 55).
  • 3.2    The principles governing the decisions of the earliest synods of the churches (Synod 1958, 1962, 1965, 1968), which envisioned the possibility of including Psalms with non-Genevan melodies in the songbook, can guide us today as we address the needs of an increasing number of members and visitors who are not familiar with the existing BoP and Genevan tunes. There are many Psalm renditions and Hymns in the broader reformed ecclesiastical context of North America that suit the diverse desires/needs of the different churches within our federation, and their use can give expression to the unity that exists between the CanRC and her sister churches.
  • 3.3   Simple adoption of the TPH as the original overtures of CPE and CM request, would seem to be a quick way to satisfy the desire for more Psalm renditions and a greater variety of hymns. However, the decision of GS 2004 to cap the number of hymns to 100 on the ground that Psalms should have the predominant place in the liturgy of the Reformed churches, at this time limits the churches from adding the abundance of hymns that the TPH includes.
  • 3.4    Further, in the mandates, guidelines and principles given to the SCBP over the years and letters to GS 2019, the churches have shown the desire for careful study of the songs adopted for the worship services. The good work of the URCNA/OPC in the TPH is not questioned when we take time to investigate the value of the TPH content for the particular needs of the CanRC at this time.
  • 3.5    Since the TPH has only recently been published and the contents and melodies are largely unknown among the churches, it is necessary to give the churches an opportunity to interact meaningfully with its content in order to appreciate the quality of the TPH. (as per RSW 2018 Art. 19 Cons. 2.1.7) The results of the cursory review of the TPH (cf. report of the SCBP to GS 2019) indicate that the TPH should be given further scrutiny before a final decision is made regarding its suitability for use in the churches.
  • 3.6    A number of churches are concerned about subjective influences in the matter of musical preferences. It is good to remember that even when there are clear principles and guidelines in place to pick the best songs, it is inevitable that subjective argument, opinion, and preference enter the decision-making process. 
  • 3.7    Some churches are of the opinion that the overture bypasses an existing process, namely, that GS 2016 already mandated the SCBP to look at the TPH and report its findings to GS 2019. It is clear that the mandate for the SCBP was not intended to be a thorough review. Further, it is not necessary to conclude that since the SCBP received a TPH mandate, that the churches could not at the same time express their opinion by way of an overture to GS. The one path does not necessarily exclude the other.
  • 3.8    In light of the above, GS 2019 should not grant the specific request to approve the Psalms and hymns of the TPH for immediate use in the churches. However, GS 2019 does acknowledge the intent of the overture to add more Psalm renditions and a greater variety of Hymns for use in the worship services. To get to the goal of an enhanced and expanded selection of songs for the churches, GS 2019 recognizes the desire of many of the churches (cf. letters) who wish the process of selection to include diligent review by way of committee.
  • 3.9    The SCBP requests GS 2019 that it not be mandated to further review the TPH. However, the SCBP is the authorized body for the enhancement and expansion of the BoP. Having heard the request of the SCBP and the sentiments of the churches, GS 2019 should appoint the SCBP with a clear mandate and an increased number of members for this project.

4. Recommendations

That Synod decide to 

  • 4.1    Receive the overture submitted by RSW 2018;
  • 4.2    Mandate the Standing Committee for the Book of Praise (SCBP):
    • 4.2.1 Concerning the Psalms:  
      • 4.2.1.1   to seek input from the churches as to which non-Genevan renditions of the Psalms could be added to enhance the Psalm section of the BoP; 
      • 4.2.1.2   to compile a list of suitable additional Psalm renditions for possible inclusion in the Book of Praise, using the TPH as a primary resource;
    • 4.2.2    Concerning the Hymns: 
      • 4.2.2.1   to seek input from the churches concerning replaceable and additional hymns for the 2014 Book of Praise, using the TPH as a primary resource;
      • 4.2.2.2   to compile a list of such hymns keeping in mind that at this time the final 
    • number of hymns in the Book of Praise should not exceed 100 (as per GS 2004), and being flexible with the structural template (Apostle’s Creed) of the hymn-section of the 2014 Book of Praise;
    • 4.2.3    To send, at least 18 months before the next general synod, an explanatory report to the churches together with a provisional list of songs for immediate testing, in the worship services if so desired, so there can be well-considered feedback to the next general synod; 
    • 4.2.4    To receive feedback from the churches on the Committee’s interim report and include its evaluation of that feedback along with actionable recommendations in its report 6 months before the next general synod. 

ADOPTED