Office Bearers

GS 2025 Article 115 – Overtures RSE 2024 and RSW 2024 re CO art. 55 (Songs)

1.   Material

  • 1.1    Overture re: CO art. 55 from RSE 2024, forwarded by Classis Central Ontario and originating from the Burlington (Fellowship) CanRC (8.4.2.2).
  • 1.2    Overture re: CO art. 55 from RSW 2024 (Classis Pacific West), submitted by the Langley CanRC (8.4.3.2).
  • 1.3    Overture re: CO art. 55 from RSW 2024 (Classis Pacific East), submitted by the Aldergrove CanRC (8.4.3.3).
  • 1.4    Letters from the following churches: Abbotsford (Pathway) (8.5.5.1) Ancaster (8.5.5.2, 8.5.5.3, 8.5.5.4, 8.5.5.5, 8.5.5.6, 8.5.5.7, 8.5.5.8), Arthur (8.5.5.9), Attercliffe (8.5.5.10), Barrhead (8.5.5.11), Brampton (Grace) (8.5.5.12), Burlington (Fellowship) (8.5.5.13), Burlington Waterdown (Rehoboth) (8.5.5.14), Caledonia (8.5.5.15, 8.5.5.16, 8.5.5.17), Calgary (8.5.5.18, 8.5.5.19, 8.5.5.20), Carman East (8.5.5.21, 8.5.5.22, 8.5.5.23), Carman West (8.5.5.24, 8.5.5.25), Chilliwack (8.5.5.26), Coaldale (8.5.5.27, 8.5.5.28, 8.5.5.29), Dunnville East (8.5.5.30), Dunnville West (8.5.5.31), Edmonton (Immanuel) (8.5.5.32), Edmonton (Providence) (8.5.5.33), Elm Creek (8.5.5.34, 8.5.5.35), Fergus (Maranatha) (8.5.5.36), Fergus North (8.5.5.37, 8.5.5.38, 8.5.5.39), Flamborough (Redemption) (8.5.5.40), Grand Rapids (8.5.5.41), Grand Valley (8.5.5.42), Grassie (Covenant) (8.5.5.43, 8.5.5.44, 8.5.5.45), Guelph (Emmanuel) (8.5.5.46), Guelph (Living Word) (8.5.5.47), Hamilton (Cornerstone) (8.5.5.48, 8.5.5.49, 8.5.5.50), Hamilton (Providence) (8.5.5.51), Houston (8.5.5.52, 8.5.5.53, 8.5.5.54), Lincoln (Vineyard) (8.5.5.55), Kerwood (Grace) (8.5.5.56), London (Pilgrim) (8.5.5.57), Lynden (8.5.5.58, 8.5.5.59, 8.5.5.60), Neerlandia (8.5.5.61), Niagara South (8.5.5.62, 8.5.5.63), Nooksack Valley (8.5.5.64), Orangeville (8.5.5.65), Ottawa (Jubilee) (8.5.5.66), Owen Sound (8.5.5.67), Sardis (8.5.5.68), Smithers [and Prince George (Messiah)] (8.5.5.69), Smithville (8.5.5.70), St. Albert (8.5.5.71, 8.5.5.72, 8.5.5.73), Toronto (Bethel) (8.5.5.74), Vernon (8.5.5.75), Willoughby Heights (8.5.5.76), Winnipeg (Grace) (8.5.5.77), Yarrow (8.5.5.78).

2.   Admissibility

  • 2.1    The overtures were declared admissible.
    • Grounds: They were submitted by regional synods and were received on time.
  • 2.2    The letters from the churches were declared admissible.
    • Grounds: They interact with overtures submitted to GS 2025 and were received on time.
  • 2.3    Although this matter was dealt with before at GS 2010 Reports vol 1 pp 136-144 (Proposed Joint Church Order (PJCO)); RSE 2018 art. 8; GS 2019 art. 130 as an appeal against the decision of RSE 2018, Synod notes that the PJCO and its supporting reports have only been provisionally adopted (GS 2010) and are not in effect since we have not achieved federative unity. Also, in its decision, GS 2019 art. 130 cons. 4.1, 4.2. put the onus on the appellant to make historical arguments part of any future submission. GS 2019 also considered that this matter should be dealt with by way of an overture and not an appeal. The current overture re: CO art. 55 (RSE 2024) includes extensive historical arguments and has come to Synod as an overture, not an appeal.

3.   Observations

  • 3.1    Overture to GS 2025 by RSE 2024:
    • To amend CO art. 55 as follows:
      • “In the churches, the 150 psalms and hymns approved by Synod shall be sung in public worship. Hymns and alternate psalm renditions that faithfully reflect the teaching of Scripture as expressed in the Three Forms of Unity may be sung in public worship, provided they are approved by the Consistory.”
  • RSE also included the following recommendations with their overture:
    • 3.1.1    That the proposed revision of CO Art. 55 include a provision that articulates the historic emphasis of the principal place of the Psalms in corporate worship.
    • 3.1.2    That the proposed revision of CO Art. 55 include a clause directing local churches to seek concurring advice at Classis before incorporating songs in the worship service that are not approved by General Synod.
  • 3.2    Overture to GS 2025 by RSW 2024 (CPE):
    • To amend CO Art. 55 as follows:
      • General Synod shall adopt metrical versions of the Psalms and shall approve Hymns for inclusion in a song book. These Psalms and Hymns, together with their melodies, shall have the principal place in the song of the church as it gathers for corporate worship.”
  • 3.3    Overture to GS 2025 by RSW 2024 (CPW):
    • To amend CO Art. 55 as follows:
      • The metrical Psalms adopted by general synod as well as hymns that faithfully and fully reflect the teaching of the Scripture as expressed in the Three Forms of Unity, and are approved by the consistory, shall be sung in the worship services.
  • 3.4    All three overtures propose that local consistories be given discretion to approve additional songs for public worship, while retaining the Book of Praise.
  • 3.5    The overtures differ in wording but share a common intent: to assert the authority of the consistory (local elders) over the song of the church. The RSE overture emphasizes the biblical primacy of consistory’s authority; RSW (CPE) proposes the Book of Praise retain the “principal place” while allowing local additions; and RSW (CPW) emphasizes that hymns need to be in harmony with the Word of God as confessed in the Three Forms of Unity.
  • 3.6.   From RSE 2024 Overture (8.4.2.2), the following:
    • 3.6.1    The original overture proposes that the current wording of CO art. 55 be changed to reflect the responsibility of the local consistory to safeguard the doctrine of the church, to return to the historic practice of the Reformed churches, to reflect the church polity in many of our sister churches, and to respect the particular challenges, demands and context of the local churches and church plants.
    • 3.6.2    The original overture provides the following grounds to recommend a change to CO Art. 55.
      • 3.6.2.1. To reflect the responsibility of the local consistory to safeguard the doctrine of the church:
        • 3.6.2.1.1    The objective of this overture is to demonstrate that the local consistory has the primary authority and biblical responsibility for safeguarding the doctrinal integrity of the teaching, preaching and singing in the local church, and not to discuss which body has the greater ability.
        • 3.6.2.1.2    The wording of CO Art. 55 gives Synod an authority over the local consistory that, biblically speaking, does not rightfully belong to it.
        • 3.6.2.1.3    According to Scripture, local elders are expected to safeguard the doctrine of the church as men who must give an account to God (Titus 1:9, 1 Timothy 3:2, Hebrews 13:17).
        • 3.6.2.1.4    The biblical responsibility for doctrinal faithfulness does certainly include oversight over the doctrinal integrity of the songs sung in corporate worship.
      • 3.6.2.2 To return to the historic practice of the Reformed Churches:
        • 3.6.2.2.1    The current wording of CO Art. 55 does not reflect the historic practice of the church.
        • 3.6.2.2.2    From the mid-1500s to the 1930s, Reformed synods defended and upheld the primary authority and biblical responsibility of the local elders over the congregational worship and singing.
        • 3.6.2.2.3    These assemblies favoured exclusive Psalm singing, while consistently recognizing the freedom of local consistories to determine which melodies and rhymings of the psalms were sung.
        • 3.6.2.2.4    It was not until the Synod of Middleburg 1933 that the Church Order was amended to include the language “approved by Synod.” Over time the concept of synodical approval began to take root and was applied not only to the adoption of hymns, but also to the melodies and rhyming of the psalms used in the churches.
      • 3.6.2.3. To reflect the church polity common in many of our sister churches:
        • 3.6.2.3.1. The RCUS, the URCNA, and the OPC in their church orders or directories continue to maintain the historic Reformed position that recognizes the primary authority and biblical responsibility of the local consistory with respect to songs sung in public worship.
        • 3.6.2.3.2    The practice of our sister churches has not compromised their doctrinal integrity or the faithfulness of the songs sung in public worship.
        • 3.6.2.3.3    The proposed revision to CO Art. 55 would allow the Canadian Reformed Churches to return to biblical and historical principles of Reformed church polity consistent with our sister churches.
        • 3.6.2.3.4    The proposed revision would overcome obstacles to close formal unity.
      • 3.6.2.4. The particular challenges, demands, and context presented by the overture:
        • 3.6.2.4.1    By modifying the wording of CO Art. 55, the Church Order would recognize the particular challenges faced by churches and church plants who may be ministering in a context that would benefit from the freedom to select certain songs outside of the Book of Praise.
        • 3.6.2.4.2    When the Canadian Reformed Churches were first established in Canada, they wanted their worship to be understandable and accessible within the broader North American context.
        • 3.6.2.4.3    GS 1965 specifically stated that the deputies for an English Calvinistic Psalter “not be restricted to Genevan tunes but be authorised to use other melodies which are in harmony with the purpose of congregational singing in the church service.”
        • 3.6.2.4.4    In their report to GS 1968, the deputies responded by stating that they had chosen not to avail themselves of the freedom given by GS 1965 to consider non-Genevan melodies.
        • 3.6.2.4.5    Despite the repeated concerns raised by subsequent synods, the deputies were determined to press forward with an exclusive Genevan Psalter.
        • 3.6.2.4.6    The concerns brought forward by the first synods remain as valid today as when they were first raised, particularly in the setting of church plants and mission settings.
        • 3.6.2.4.7    These concerns are increasingly felt by Canadian Reformed Churches who are striving to share the gospel in major urban city centres.
        • 3.6.2.4.8    The current process of seeking synodical approval is tedious and overly complicated.
        • 3.6.2.4.9    These concerns have led the Burlington-Fellowship consistory to supplement their worship by allowing the selection of faithful, biblical psalms and hymns better known in our North American context to be used as “gathering” and “parting” songs.
    • 3.6.3    In addition, RSE 2024 made the following observations and considerations about the original overture:
      • 3.6.3.1   RSE 2024 notes that each consistory has previously voluntarily exercised this authority by deciding to cooperate with other churches in this matter by way of the Church Order, including CO Art. 55.
      • 3.6.3.2   RSE 2024 believes that although the local elders are expected to have the ability and are given the primary authority and biblical responsibility over matters of corporate worship, this authority is best exercised by seeking the wisdom of many counsellors (Prov 11:14, 15:22) by directing local churches to seek concurring advice at Classis before incorporating songs into the worship service.
      • 3.6.3.3   RSE 2024 agrees with the original overture that prior to 1933, local churches had some freedom to choose between collections of psalms. Historically, Synods have regulated the source texts (the 150 Psalms, various parts of Scripture, the creeds) but not the versifications or melodies.
      • 3.6.3.4   RSE 2024 would like GS 2025 to include a provision that emphasizes the principal place of the Psalms in corporate worship.
      • 3.6.3.5   RSE 2024 recognizes that uniformity is not the same as the spiritual unity that we enjoy in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (Revelation 7:9).
      • 3.6.3.6   RSE 2024 acknowledges the particular challenges faced by various churches in their local context (church plants, diverse ethnic backgrounds, different languages).
      • 3.6.3.7   RSE 2024 acknowledges that while the biblical faithfulness of the Anglo-Genevan Psalter is respected, the tunes are not universally appreciated.
  • 3.7    From the RSW 2024 (Classis Pacific East) Overture (8.4.3.2), the following:
    • 3.7.1    RSW notes that from the beginning of their history, the Reformed churches of The Netherlands and the Canadian Reformed churches have both considered the song of the church a matter to be dealt with by the churches in common.
    • 3.7.2    RSW argues that the assumption that the song of the churches should be regulated by the broader assemblies has not been critically examined.
    • 3.7.3    RSW presented the following arguments for a common song book:
      • 3.7.3.1   Having a Book of Praise approved by the general synod may act as a unifying force among the Canadian Reformed churches.
      • 3.7.3.2   Restricting the song of the churches to a fixed collection may contribute to familiarity and excellence in singing.
      • 3.7.3.3   Having a synodically approved Book of Praise may provide a layer of protection against hymns or other songs which may degrade the churches because of deficiencies in their teaching/content or in their musical style.
      • 3.7.3.4   Restricting the number of hymns and other songs will likely lead to greater familiarity with the Psalms.
    • 3.7.4    RSW noted the following difficulties related to CO art. 55
      • 3.7.4.1   Limiting the singing of the Psalms to settings with Genevan melodies seems needlessly restrictive, especially in this time of increasing multiculturalism and ecclesiastical connectivity.
      • 3.7.4.2   The current application of CO Art. 55 limits connectivity with North American sister churches in congregational singing, creating a degree of isolation.
      • 3.7.4.3   CO Art. 55 (and the corresponding PJCO article) might be a stumbling block to federative unity with the URCNA.
      • 3.7.4.4   CO Art. 55 prevents the singing in corporate worship of many excellent, biblically grounded, and well-known hymns and Christian songs.
      • 3.7.4.5   Restricting the song of the church to the Genevan Psalms and a relatively small list of hymns approved by general synod could make it more difficult for people coming to the Canadian Reformed churches from other Christian backgrounds.
      • 3.7.4.6   Restricting the churches to singing psalms only with Genevan melodies may be hindering the broader use of the Psalms in corporate worship. There are psalms which are rarely sung because of difficulty with the Genevan melody.
      • 3.7.4.7   Local elders should be seen as capable of establishing guidelines for the approval of songs for corporate worship. Leaving such matters largely to a general synod may discourage a strong sense of local responsibility for the worship of the church.
      • 3.7.4.8   Because of the diverse membership and missional goals of some of our churches, there should be greater local freedom in the choice of songs.
      • 3.7.4.9   The Book of Praise should not be a stumbling block for receiving other churches into our federation (for example: Sudanese, Chinese, or Korean churches).
      • 3.7.4.10 Our current process of seeking to have new songs included in a synodically approved songbook is tedious and cost-prohibitive.
    • 3.7.5    RSW listed the practices of some of our North American sister churches
      • 3.7.5.1   Churches such as the RCUS, OPC, and URCNA do not mandate synodically-limited collections of metrical Psalms and Hymns.
        • 3.7.5.1.1    The Constitution of the RCUS does not contain any mandates for the song of the church. The RCUS Directory for Public Worship states: “Since the metrical versions of the Psalms are based upon the Word of God, they ought to be used frequently in public worship. Great care must be taken to ensure that all the materials of song are in complete accord with the teaching of Holy Scripture. The tunes as well as the words should be dignified and Public Worship elevated. The stately rhythm of the chorales is especially appropriate for public worship.”
        • 3.7.5.1.2    Article 39 of the Church Order of the United Reformed Churches of North America stipulates the following: “Psalms and Hymns. The 150 Psalms shall have the principal place in the singing of the churches. Hymns which faithfully and fully reflect the teaching of the Scripture as expressed in the Three Forms of Unity may be sung, provided they are approved by the Consistory.”
        • 3.7.5.1.3    In its Directory for the Public Worship of God, the OPC specifies the following for the guidance of the churches: (1) Congregations do well to sing the metrical versions or other musical settings of the Psalms frequently in public worship. Congregations also do well to sing hymns of praise that respond to the full scope of divine revelation. (2) In the choice of song for public worship, great care must be taken that all the materials of song are fully in accord with the Scriptures. The words are to be suitable for the worship of God and the tunes are to be appropriate to the meaning of the words and to the occasion of public worship. Care should be taken to the end that the songs chosen will express those specific truths and sentiments which are appropriate at the time of their use in the worship service.
      • 3.7.5.2   RSW noted that among our sister churches in North America, there is no evidence to suggest that the freedom the local churches enjoy in choosing songs for worship has led to a decline in Reformed doctrine or life.
    • 3.7.6    RSW believes that giving the Psalms and Hymns adopted by general synod the “principal place” in the song of the church will serve to maintain unity in public worship throughout our federation, while allowing churches which want to include some new songs to do so.
    • 3.7.7    RSW asserts that their proposal recognizes that the song of the church is a matter for the churches in common while leaving room for diversity among the churches.
    • 3.7.8    RSW noted that this overture does not address the matter of the Psalms having a predominant place in worship.
  • 3.8    From RSW 2024 Overture (Classis Pacific West) (8.4.3.3), the following:
    • 3.8.1    The overture notes that for fifty years, the metrical psalms adopted by our general synods of 1971 and 2013 have been synonymous with the 150 Psalms in the Anglo-Genevan Psalter.
    • 3.8.2    The overture argues that, given the love that remains for the Anglo-Genevan Psalter and the unifying effect it has had, we should take care to ensure our present psalter is preserved for the foreseeable future.
    • 3.8.3    The overture states that since 1965, the Canadian Reformed churches shifted from the original polity of Dort which limited hymns to a small handful of songs of Scripture as found in the New Testament to also include hymns that are in harmony with the Word of God. They believe this shift was warranted in light of the apostolic command that the churches “address one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart” (Ephesians 5:19).
    • 3.8.4    The overture provides the following grounds for having consistory approve these hymns and spiritual songs instead of general synod:
      • 3.8.4.1   Local elders have oversight over all matters relating to worship, including the song of the church.
      • 3.8.4.2   Requiring general synod to approve all hymns for worship places an undue burden on some local churches and is causing tension within the federation. Some churches are seeking more flexibility in song selection due to factors like diverse membership, or specific mission goals, leading some to reinterpret the “worship service” to only what happens between the greeting and the benediction (allowing for ‘gathering’ and ‘sending’ songs). Similarly, events on special days like Good Friday and Christmas are no longer classified as worship services, simply to escape the strictures of CO Art. 55.
    • 3.8.5    The overture noted that just because some churches will be able to sing other hymns if this proposal is adopted, they are by no means required to do so.
    • 3.8.6    The overture noted that maintaining the current CO Art. 55 prevents the singing in corporate worship of many excellent, biblically grounded and well-known hymns and Christian songs.
    • 3.8.7    The overture suggests that the addition and subtraction of hymns by general synod from our common songbook (Book of Praise) is not sustainable or fiscally responsible.
    • 3.8.8    The overture notes that other churches in North America with whom we have ecclesiastical fellowship and who have jointly published a psalter-hymnal (the Trinity Psalter Hymnal) nevertheless leave the decision of what is sung in the churches within the province of the local consistory or session.
    • 3.8.9    RSW notes that this overture also does not address the matter of the Psalms having a predominant place in worship.
  • 3.9    From the letters of the churches concerning all three overtures, the following:
    • 3.9.1    On our current practice:
      • 3.9.1.1   The local consistory has the biblical responsibility and primary authority for safeguarding the worship of the local church (Orangeville, Ottawa (Jubilee), and others).
      • 3.9.1.2   CO art. 55 has been a wise way of organizing and collectively overseeing the content of the songs used in the federation (Ancaster, Fergus North, Grand Rapids, Hamilton (Cornerstone), Houston, London (Pilgrim), Orangeville, St. Albert and more). The Ancaster CanRC maintains that the overtures must argue against the wisdom of the article and demonstrate how a change would be a better and wiser way to proceed.
      • 3.9.1.3   Some churches assert that adopting one of these overtures will render the hymn cap established by GS 2004 moot (Kerwood (Grace), Ancaster). The Burlington (Fellowship) CanRC believes that the tension and debate around the hymn cap would be alleviated and greater unity experienced by adopting one of these overtures.
      • 3.9.1.4   Some churches note there is no pressure or desire for change or for adding more songs (Carman East, Grassie (Covenant)).
      • 3.9.1.5   Many churches believe that selection by general synod is a safeguard (Arthur, Attercliffe, Barrhead, Calgary, Coaldale, Elm Creek, Fergus (Maranatha), Grand Valley, Guelph (Living Word), Lincoln (Vineyard), Lynden, Neerlandia, Nooksack Valley).
      • 3.9.1.6   Historically, hymn singing has always been governed by general synods (Orangeville).
      • 3.9.1.7   The Dunville East CanRC states that what the church prays (or sings) is what the church believes.
      • 3.9.1.8   Ancaster argues that the current church order does not have to be changed to allow the singing of the psalms to other melodies.
      • 3.9.1.9   The Carman West CanRC believes there is no scriptural reason to change CO art. 55.
      • 3.9.1.10 The Caledonia CanRC states that this is a “matter for the churches in common to seek agreement on”.
      • 3.9.1.11 Changing CO art. 55 would be a blessing to various churches in multi-cultural or multi-lingual settings (Hamilton (Providence), Owen Sound, Toronto (Bethel)). Our current CO art. 55 has hampered mission work (Winnipeg (Grace)).
      • 3.9.1.12 Other churches are not convinced that there is a cultural barrier (Lynden, Orangeville, Willoughby Heights).
      • 3.9.1.13 Songs used in worship ought to “faithfully and fully reflect the teaching of the Scriptures as expressed in the Three Forms of Unity” (Willoughby Heights).
    • 3.9.2    On a common song book:
      • 3.9.2.1   The Book of Praise is a unifying force (Arthur, Calgary, Carman West, Chilliwack). The churches are mutually edified by having a collective book (Caledonia, Hamilton (Cornerstone), Lynden) built on common principles and guidelines (Carman East).
      • 3.9.2.2   Some churches believe that changing CO art. 55 will cause disunity (Chilliwack, St. Albert) or fracture the federation (Grand Rapids, Guelph (Living Word), Niagara South, Nooksack Valley, Orangeville, Smithville, Yarrow).
      • 3.9.2.3   Some churches assert that creating a collection of songs is too big a task for a local church (Arthur, Grand Valley).
      • 3.9.2.4   Various churches suggest that the Standing Committee for the Publication of the Book of Praise (SCBP) has more specific expertise (Carman East, Chilliwack, Coaldale, Elm Creek, Lynden, Niagara South, Smithville, Yarrow and more).
      • 3.9.2.5   Some churches (Caledonia, Carman East) agree with RSE regarding the merit of working together with common principles and guidelines in the selection of songs for worship. The Edmonton (Immanuel) CanRC suggests General Synod provide parameters and principles to help guide local consistories in the selection of songs for worship.
      • 3.9.2.6   The Ancaster CanRC notes that some limit on the number of songs will always be placed on the churches, whether in principle or in practice. Also, the overtures do not deal with the decision of 2004 re: hymn cap (Ancaster, Attercliffe).
      • 3.9.2.7   Several churches note that restricting the songs used in worship leads to familiarity and enrichment of worship (Arthur, Attercliffe, Lynden, Neerlandia).
      • 3.9.2.8   The Edmonton (Providence) CanRC agrees with the overtures that changing the Book of Praise is tedious, while the Carman East CanRC believes that having the local church supervise the song of the church would be tedious. Some believe change is happening at a slow, deliberate pace (Fergus (Maranatha), Lincoln (Vineyard)), while others believe change is happening too slowly (Edmonton (Providence)).
      • 3.9.2.9   Some churches assert that uniformity of song promotes unity of faith (Fergus (Maranatha), Fergus North, Lincoln (Vineyard)). Other churches note that unity of faith does not demand uniformity of song (Brampton (Grace), Sardis, Smithers, Toronto (Bethel), Winnipeg (Grace)). We are Canadian Reformed out of our desire to be faithful, not out of our desire to be distinct (Smithers). Our unity is a unity of faith and faithfulness (Winnipeg (Grace)).
      • 3.9.2.10 Various churches speak of the desire to allow freedom of the local church (with some sort of oversight) (Hamilton (Providence), Edmonton (Providence)) while the Book of Praise remains the songbook of the Federation (Owen Sound).
    • 3.9.3    On the authority and ability of the local church:
      • 3.9.3.1   Regulating the song of the church via our broadest assembly does not negate the primary authority of the local church (Fergus North, Kerwood (Grace), Neerlandia). Some churches believe the overtures set up a false dilemma between the authority of the local church and the broadest assembly (Lynden, Niagara South). Various churches mention that the overture of RSE does not recognize that CO art. 76 is not a matter of synod lording it over others but of common consent (Attercliffe).
      • 3.9.3.2   Churches suggest that elders who supervise the preaching of the Word should be capable of ensuring the orthodoxy of the songs of the church (Ottawa (Jubilee), Sardis, Guelph (Living Word)).
      • 3.9.3.3   The Burlington Waterdown (Rehoboth) CanRC argues that the requirement added by RSE 2024 to add approval by classis simply replaces the role of general synod with classis and thus negates the principle of the authority of the local church, integral to the original overture.
      • 3.9.3.4   The Guelph (Emmanuel) CanRC believes that requiring approval of classis for hymns sung in worship could bog down classis and suggests a lack of trust. Other churches agree with mandating classical approval (e.g. Hamilton (Providence)).
      • 3.9.3.5   The Vernon CanRC says the consistory of the local congregation is best suited to choose the hymns sung in the local church.
      • 3.9.3.6   Some churches note that the overtures appropriately recognize the authority of the local consistory (Sardis, Smithers).
    • 3.9.4    On the singing of the psalms:
      • 3.9.4.1   Some churches note that the overtures show no consideration for the principle of the predominance of psalm singing (Ancaster, Attercliffe, Caledonia, Chilliwack, Coaldale and more).
      • 3.9.4.2   Many churches insist that the psalms are to have the principal place (Elm Creek, Grand Valley, London (Pilgrim), Owen Sound, and more). Historically, the Reformed church has been a predominantly psalm-singing church (St. Albert, Willoughby Heights).
      • 3.9.4.3   The Burlington Waterdown (Rehoboth) CanRC argues that RSE 2024’s recommendation to add that “the psalms are to have the principal place in the worship of the church” is not germane to the original overture.
      • 3.9.4.4   Some churches note that the language of “principal place,” either for the psalms or a song book, is imprecise and open to interpretation (Burlington Waterdown (Rehoboth), Edmonton (Immanuel)).
      • 3.9.4.5   Some churches suggest that singing the psalms would be encouraged if there were a variety of melodies available to the churches (Brampton (Grace), Fergus North).
      • 3.9.4.6   Reformed churches have had the freedom to select alternate renditions of the psalms (Burlington (Fellowship)).
      • 3.9.4.7   The Dunnville East CanRC wonders if it is appropriate to regulate that the majority of the church’s praises should be from the Old Covenant.
      • 3.9.4.8   The Guelph (Living Word) CanRC believes that singing more hymns may result in less psalm singing.
      • 3.9.4.9   The Edmonton (Providence) CanRC asserts there is a shortage of hymns to respond fully to the work of our Triune God.
    • 3.9.5    On the Anglo-Genevan Psalter:
      • 3.9.5.1   Some churches state that the Genevan tunes are high quality and well-suited for singing the psalms (Carman East, Fergus (Maranatha), Neerlandia).
      • 3.9.5.2   The Niagara South CanRC says the Anglo-Genevan psalter has historic and traditional significance and changing this practice could erode the shared heritage and identity of the federation. Other churches note that while the Book of Praise is valuable and unique, we ought not to hold it out as a cultural distinctive that separates us from other true churches in North America (Winnipeg (Grace), Smithers, and more).
      • 3.9.5.3   GS 1962 and GS 1965 mandated the deputies for an English Psalter not to restrict themselves to the Genevan melodies (Burlington (Fellowship)).
      • 3.9.5.4   Some churches share that newcomers find the Genevan tunes a challenge (Abbotsford (Pathway), Smithers) while others did not have this experience (Willoughby Heights). The difficulty of the Genevan tunes is a subjective matter (Grand Rapids).
    • 3.9.6    On other federations with whom we have ecclesiastical fellowship:
      • 3.9.6.1   Some churches assert that changing CO art. 55 is not necessary for federative unity (Fergus (Maranatha), Grand Rapids, Lincoln (Vineyard), Lynden), while others assert that CO art. 55 in its current form is a barrier (Sardis).
      • 3.9.6.2   The Winnipeg (Grace) CanRC notes that our sister churches, the Reformed Church in the United States (RCUS), Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), United Reformed Church in North America (URCNA), all recommend the use of a synodically sanctioned song book, but none mandate its exclusiveness.
      • 3.9.6.3   The Kerwood (Grace) CanRC notes that, according to representatives of the OPC and URCNA, there are benefits in having a common songbook.

4.   Considerations

  • 4.1    The song of the church ought to be glorifying to God and in harmony with the Word of God as confessed in the Three Forms of Unity. Scripture, however, does not prescribe whether the choosing of songs is to be done by the local consistory or by the churches together. There is no scriptural mandate to maintain CO art. 55 as is, nor is there a scriptural mandate to change it.
  • 4.2    RSE 2024 and RSW 2024 correctly note that consistory has the primary authority, biblical responsibility, and oversight over all matters relating to corporate worship (Titus 1:9; 1 Timothy 3:2). Churches rightly recognize that elders who supervise the preaching of the Word should be capable of ensuring the orthodoxy of the songs of the church.
  • 4.3    Historically, each consistory has “voluntarily exercised its authority in deciding to cooperate with its sister churches by way of the Church Order” (Acts of GS 2022, art. 110 cons. 4.1.2). In the context of CO art. 55, however, a growing number of churches have expressed persistent dissatisfaction with both the pace and scope of the song approval process, as well as with the structure of CO art. 55 itself. The volume and consistency of recent overtures and letters suggest that a change to CO art. 55 may be beneficial (cf. GS 2022, RSW 2021, RSE 2021, GS 2019, RSE 2018, RSW 2018, and more). CO art. 76 states that if the interest of the churches demands such, the articles of the Church Order may and ought to be changed, augmented, or diminished.
  • 4.4    While consistories are given the primary authority and biblical responsibility over matters of corporate worship, they can be helped by seeking the wisdom of many counsellors (Proverbs 11:14, 15:22). If individual churches feel that they would benefit from the advice of neighboring churches or other individuals, they are free to seek it. Consistories can also refer to the “Principles and Guidelines for the selection of music in the church” found in the Acts of GS 2004 (Appendix 2B). RSE 2024 and many churches (Ancaster, Attercliffe, and more) suggest that consistories seek concurring advice at Classis before incorporating additional songs in the worship service. However, for many matters governed by the Church Order, the process of mutual oversight involves church visitation and appeals to classis. CO art. 46 mandates that church visitors are “to inquire whether … the adopted order is being observed and maintained in every respect.” That would apply to CO art. 55 as well.
  • 4.5    RSW 2024 notes that from the beginning of their history, the Reformed churches in The Netherlands and the Canadian Reformed Churches have both considered the song of the church to be a matter to be dealt with by the churches in common. RSW 2024 argues that the assumption that the song of the church should be regulated by the churches in common has not been critically examined. RSE 2024 correctly observes that, prior to 1933, consistories had the freedom to choose which psalter to use (melodies, rhymings), but they gloss over the fact that general synods significantly restricted which hymns could be sung.
  • 4.6    It is important for the federation of the Canadian Reformed Churches to have a common song book (Book of Praise) that includes all 150 Psalms as well as hymns approved for use in the churches because it serves as a unifying force, it contributes to familiarity and excellence in singing, and promotes the foundational role of psalms in the singing of the church. The Book of Praise should not be changed frequently because doing so is not sustainable or fiscally responsible.
  • 4.7    These overtures correctly avoid mentioning the hymn cap, since the hymn cap applied only to the work of the Standing Committee for the Publication of the Book of Praise (SCBP) in the context of the Book of Praise.
  • 4.8    RSW correctly notes that for fifty years, the psalms adopted by our general synods have been synonymous with the 150 Psalms of the Anglo-Genevan Psalter. Given the love that remains for the Anglo-Genevan Psalter and the unifying effect it has had, we should take care to ensure our present Psalter is preserved.
  • 4.9    Since 1965, the Canadian Reformed Churches shifted from the original church polity of Dort, which limited hymns to a small handful of scriptural songs, to include many hymns that are in harmony with the Word of God (Ephesians 5:19). There are many excellent, biblically grounded, and well-known hymns and Christian songs which could be sung in corporate worship that are not part of the Book of Praise. The Dunville East CanRC correctly states that what the church prays (or sings) is what the church believes. Deformation often goes hand-in-hand with a proliferation of unscriptural songs.
  • 4.10  The local consistories/sessions of the Reformed Church in the United States (RCUS), the United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA), and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) have the freedom to choose songs for worship outside those approved by their synods/general assemblies. Many of our sister churches recognize the use of a synodically-sanctioned songbook, but most do not mandate its exclusiveness. There is no evidence to suggest that the freedom enjoyed by these churches has compromised their doctrinal integrity or faithfulness, nor has it led to disunity.
  • 4.11  Changing CO art. 55 as proposed might remove a perceived impediment to unity with the United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA). It would also allow for joint worship services between federations in special circumstances or for special events. It would maintain the freedom currently enjoyed by local churches in the URCNA. Synod URCNA 2007 (art. 65 rec. 8) expressed its “strong preference” for the version of the PJCO article titled “Psalms and Hymns” which reads: “The 150 Psalms shall have the principal place in the singing of the churches. In the worship services, the congregation shall sing faithful musical renderings of the Psalms, and hymns which faithfully and fully reflect the teaching of Scripture in harmony with the Three Forms of Unity, provided they are approved by the consistory in accord with a synodically adopted standard.”
  • 4.12 Giving a common song book the principal place in the worship of the church serves the unity of the federation.
  • 4.13  The church of our Lord is made up of people from all tribes and peoples and languages (Revelation 7:9). The increasing presence of church plants, ethnic diversity, and even different languages used in worship among the Canadian Reformed Churches demonstrates the need for local freedom in choosing songs for worship. For example, the Toronto (Bethel) CanRC translates sermon summaries into 8 different languages each worship service; the Brampton (Grace) CanRC has some members and many visitors from an East Indian background; most mission plants have membership from diverse cultural backgrounds; and some of our churches support outreach in Sudanese, Korean, Chinese, Urdu, Karen (Myanmar), and other languages within Canada. Some established churches have increasing numbers of members who come from non-churched or non-Reformed backgrounds. The suggestion that the Book of Praise should have the principal place in worship may not work in contexts such as these. Singing scripturally faithful psalms and hymns should produce praise to God. That happens best when the words and melodies are accessible and familiar, and the selections which work best will vary by congregation. For those reasons, CO art. 55 should include a phrase like “as a rule” to make it clear that the Book of Praise will usually, but not always, have the principal place.
  • 4.14  While for a large part of its history, the Canadian Reformed Churches experienced significant uniformity, we are now experiencing greater diversity while remaining united. There is a difference between uniformity of practice and unity of faith. We have always recognized that our unity is found in our Lord Jesus Christ and is based on the Word of God as summarized in the Reformed confessions.
  • 4.15  The Reformed church, from its inception, has been a psalm-singing church and has recognized the gift the Triune God has given us in the psalms to richly and deeply praise him. Various churches, assemblies, and overtures therefore speak of the primacy or principal place of the psalms in corporate worship.
  • 4.16  Some churches, however, question the primacy or principal place of the psalms. The Dunville East CanRC notes that RSE 2021 and RSW 2021 denied overtures to amend CO art. 55 to include this principle and wonders if it is appropriate that the majority of the church’s songs come from the old covenant.
  • 4.17  Dunnville East also asserts that this principle of the primacy of the psalms was stated by past assemblies but never substantiated. Various churches argue that the words “principal place” in reference to psalm singing sets an arbitrary metric that is essentially unenforceable (Hamilton Providence, Guelph Living Word).
  • 4.18  The Willougby Heights CanRC insists there ought not to be a distinction between the psalms and rhymed portions of other Scripture passages, and both should be given priority.
  • 4.19  The SCBP, in their “Principles and Guidelines for the selection of music in the church” GS 2004 (Appendix 2B Guideline 2), describes the psalms as “foundational.” Dunnville East proposes that this word “foundational” best describes the place of the psalms in the corporate worship of the church.
  • 4.20  The Lord has given the psalms to his church to praise his name. The psalms themselves command their use, e.g. “Sing praises with a psalm (maskil)” (Psalm 47:7). The Psalms reveal the Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 24:44). For this reason, the New Testament church is commanded to sing the Psalms (Ephesians 5:19) and church members are commanded to teach and admonish one another in part by singing the Psalms (Colossians 3:16).

5.   Recommendations

That Synod decide:

  • 5.1    To amend CO art. 55 to read:
    • The 150 Psalms of the Bible are foundational to the church’s worship and are to be sung frequently in the worship services. General synod shall adopt metrical versions of the Psalms and shall approve hymns for inclusion in a song book which shall, as a rule, have the principal place in the worship of the church. The consistory may also approve the singing of alternate settings of the Psalms and additional hymns, provided they are in harmony with the Word of God as confessed in the Three Forms of Unity.

ADOPTED