Office Bearers

GS 2025 Article 158 – Appeals against GS 2022 art. 105: Hymn Cap

1.   Material

  • 1.1    Appeal from Brampton (Grace) re GS2022 art. 105 (8.6.1.1).
  • 1.2    Appeal from Burlington Waterdown (Rehoboth) re GS 2022 art. 105 (8.6.1.2).
  • 1.3    Appeal from Flamborough (Redemption) re GS 2022 art. 105 (8.6.1.3).
  • 1.4    Appeal from Glanbrook (Trinity) re GS 2022 art. 105 (8.6.1.4).
  • 1.5    Appeal from Sardis re GS 2022 art. 105 (8.6.1.5).
  • 1.6    Appeal from Toronto (Bethel) re GS 2022 art. 105 (8.6.1.6, 8.6.1.7, 8.6.1.8).
  • 1.7    Appeal from Vernon re GS2022 art. 105 (8.6.1.9).

2.   Admissibility

  • 2.1    The appeals were declared admissible.
    • Grounds: The appeals were received on time and they address a decision of a previous general synod

3.   Observations

  • 3.1    Brampton (Grace), Burlington Waterdown (Rehoboth), Flamborough (Redemption), Glanbrook (Trinity), Sardis, Toronto (Bethel), and Vernon appeal the decision of GS 2022 (art. 105) not to adopt the overture from RSE 2020 to remove the current hymn cap and the overture from RSW 2021 to rescind the decision of GS 2004 art. 115.
  • 3.2    GS 2022 art. 105 decided:
    • [3.2]    To deny the recommendation of both overtures to remove the cap of 100 hymns regarding the Book of Praise.
  • 3.3    GS 2022 art. 105 included the following grounds for its decision:
    • 3.3.1    GS 2004 (Art. 115 Obs. 6.1.1, Cons. 6.2.1, Rec. 6.3) expressed the principle that the Psalms have a predominant place in the liturgy of the Reformed churches, and on that basis, set a limit. Any decision to rescind the conclusion of GS 2004 should demonstrate that the basis of that decision is erroneous. [4.2.1]
    • 3.3.2    Although RSE 2020 acknowledged the unique, privileged, and predominant role of the singing of the Psalms in the liturgy of the churches, and that they should be retained as such, it then concluded that limiting the number of hymns in the Book of Praise is not an effective way of achieving this goal. Many of the churches, however, appreciated how the hymn cap flows from the principle of the predominance of the Psalms in Reformed liturgy. [4.2.2]
    • 3.3.3    Additionally, RSW 2021 argued that “it is clear from the Preface of the Book of Praise that the hymns are not less desirable” (Cons. 2.5). This argument is a round-about way of stating that, when it comes to the selection of songs to sing in the worship services, there is to be no distinction between hymns and the Psalms. This is not the Reformed principle held since the Reformation, and stated time and again by our general synods (e.g., GS 2004 Art. 44 Cons. 4.3; GS 2007 Art. 133 Cons. 4.2; GS 2013 Art. 173 Cons. 3.6). RSW 2021 did not treat the Preface from the Book of Praise forthrightly, specifically where it states, “Although in Reformed liturgy the Psalms have a predominant place, our churches have not excluded the use of scriptural hymns.” [4.2.3]
    • 3.3.4    Although RSW 2021 argued that a limit of 100 hymns makes it likely that there would be less room for hymns that are traditionally sung during specific seasons of the Christian calendar, such a claim is unsubstantiated. In fact, as one church argued, for hymns to be useful to the churches, they would largely centre around the days of commemoration and would leave out many other hymns of praise, adoration, supplication, petition, etc. since there are psalms which do the same. [4.2.4]
    • 3.3.5    Although RSE 2020 and RSW 2021 suggested that the hymn cap needlessly limits the churches in their choice of other Christian songs, limiting the churches’ selection is exactly the purpose of CO Art. 55, and therefore, does not serve as an argument for additional hymns. [4.2.5]
    • 3.3.6    Although RSE 2020 and RSW 2021 argued that a hymn cap does not guarantee the primacy of Psalm singing, numerous churches, both in favour and against removing the hymn cap, have argued for a change to CO Art. 55 that includes a statement re the primacy of Psalm singing as a way to maintain the practice of this principle. [4.2.6]
    • 3.3.7    It is true that RSE 2020 and RSW 2021 argued that the specified limit of 100 hymns is arbitrary and has no other function than to force the churches to choose from among the best hymns for inclusion in the Book of Praise rather than allow for the consideration of all best hymns, also as they continue to be written. [4.2.7]. This implies, however, that the Book of Praise will never be a completed book, and that it needs to include an unlimited number of hymns. [4.2.7.1]
    • 3.3.8    Although RSW 2021 argued that a limit on the hymns means that the churches will have to struggle with the process of removing good hymns to make room for better hymns, this process has benefits since it continuously forces us to evaluate the strength of new hymns by comparing them to existing ones. Without the limit on hymns, the churches may well resort to a default practice of simply adding new hymns without deciding if they are an improvement on existing hymns. A hymn cap helps the churches to be careful when adding hymns. [4.2.8]
  • 3.4    Glanbrook (Trinity) and Sardis note that GS 2022 (art. 105 gr. 4.2.2) uses a statement from one church that a greater number of psalms than hymns is a visible testimony that psalms are predominant. Glanbrook (Trinity) argues that this ‘visible’ predominance could be achieved by other means. Sardis asserts that the basis for a hymn cap does not flow from the principle of predominance of the Psalms in Reformed liturgical practice.
  • 3.5    Brampton (Grace), Glanbrook (Trinity), Toronto (Bethel), and Vernon argue that GS 2022 (art. 105) gr. 4.2.1 incorrectly required churches to demonstrate that the decision to adopt a hymn cap was erroneous. Glanbrook (Trinity) notes that in GS 2022 art. 62 (gr. 4.2), GS 2022 stated that a previous decision can be revisited as proposals substantiated by new grounds. As the matter before GS 2022 were proposals with new grounds they did not have to demonstrate the decision of GS 2004 was erroneous.
  • 3.6    Brampton (Grace) and Sardis argue that GS 2022 inconsistently denied the overtures to remove the hymn cap of 100 but then approved provisional hymns for testing and use in the worship service that exceeded the cap it had just endorsed.
  • 3.7.   Burlington Waterdown (Rehoboth) and Flamborough (Redemption) argue that:
    • 3.7.1    GS 2022 did not interact substantively with the point that removing the hymn cap is to increase the selection of hymns that may be sung, not to increase the amount of hymns sung [emphasis in the original] and that it is a fallacy to reason that the number of available hymns need to be limited to maintain the predominance of psalms in the liturgy [see GS 2022 art. 105 gr. 4.2.1, 4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.2, 4.2.2].
    • 3.7.2    It is a fallacy to state that limiting the churches’ selection is exactly the purpose of CO art. 55. Burlington Waterdown (Rehoboth) and Flamborough (Redemption) argue that the point of CO art. 55 is to limit the churches to what has been approved by general synods, but it does not limit general synods from expanding the approved hymns [see GS 2022 rt. 105 gr. 4.2.5].
  • 3.8    Burlington Waterdown (Rehoboth), Flamborough (Redemption), and Glanbrook (Trinity) argue that GS 2022 incorrectly conflated the overtures from RSE 2020 and RSW 2021 regarding the hymn cap with statements from churches who wanted a statement in CO art. 55 regarding the primacy of psalms [see GS. 2022 art. 105 gr. 4.2.6].
  • 3.9    Burlington Waterdown (Rehoboth) and Vernon argue that GS 2022 improperly concluded that the removal of the hymn cap means the Book of Praise will never be completed.
  • 3.10  Flamborough (Redemption) and Sardis note that the overture from RSW 2021 addresses how the hymn cap was established in 2004. They believe it did not originate from a matter brought forward by the churches and, therefore, it should not have been put in place in 2004.
  • 3.11  GS 2001 (art. 97) provided the following mandate to the Standing Committee for the Publication of the Book of Praise (SCBP): “That this Committee receive submissions and proposals for additional hymns from the churches with the reasons for their suitability, evaluate them in accordance with the requirements set out by General Synod Edmonton, 1965, and submit a selection to the churches prior to subsequent General Synods”. As the SCBP sought to fulfil its mandates to expand and review the song book, it adopted additional principles and guidelines. These were shared with the churches and the general synods throughout the years and functioned within the committee’s work.
  • 3.12  Sardis and Vernon believe it is questionable that one of the goals of a church songbook is to make the congregation know it well, memorize it, and make it part of everyday life.

4.   Considerations

  • 4.1    GS 2022 correctly noted (1) that an appeal to rescind the decision of GS 2004 would need to demonstrate that the basis of that decision was erroneous and, (2) that a decision could be revisited as proposals substantiated by new grounds (GS 2022 art. 62). The two overtures before GS 2022 (art. 105 gr. 4.2) were proposals substantiated by new grounds, not appeals of a GS 2004 decision. Therefore, GS 2022 erred in art. 105 gr. 4.2.1 by requiring the overtures to demonstrate that the basis for a previous decision was erroneous. There is no burden of proof for proposals like these.
  • 4.2    Brampton (Grace) and Sardis are wrong in criticizing GS 2022 for approving hymns for testing that exceeded the hymn cap. Provisional approval and testing does not equate to inclusion in the Book of Praise.
  • 4.3    Burlington Waterdown (Rehoboth) and Flamborough (Redemption) correctly argue that GS 2022 did not interact substantively with the point that removing the hymn cap is to increase the selection of hymns that may be sung, not to increase how often hymns are sung. For example, adding many Christmas hymns would not result in them being sung frequently.
  • 4.4    It is a fallacy to reason that the number of available hymns necessarily needs to be limited to maintain the predominance of psalms in the liturgy. The principle of the foundational role of the Psalms ought not to be confused with the practice of applying a hymn cap.
  • 4.5    GS 2022 (art. 105 gr. 4.2.5) erred in stating that the “exact purpose of CO Art 55” was to limit the churches’ selection. CO art. 55 (as it was at that time) only ensured the songbook was common to all churches. A general synod could significantly increase the number of hymns with no change to CO art. 55 if it chose to do so.
  • 4.6    Although there would be “a limit,” that does not mean that the purpose of CO art. 55 (as it was at that time) was “to limit” the selection of hymns. Its purpose was to ensure that the churches were singing only psalms and hymns approved by general synod, regardless of the number of approved hymns.
  • 4.7    GS 2022 (art. 105 gr. 4.2) incorrectly conflated the overtures from RSE 2020 and RSW 2021 regarding the hymn cap with statements from churches that wanted a statement in CO art. 55 regarding the primacy of psalms. Neither removing nor maintaining a hymn cap conflicts with the principle of the primacy of the Psalms.
  • 4.8    GS 2022 (art. 105, gr. 4.2.7.1) believed that removing the hymn cap will necessarily mean that the Book of Praise will never be a completed book. This may or may not be true, depending on decisions of subsequent general synods, but this should not be considered a basis for maintaining a hymn cap. Not only that, but elsewhere GS 2022 (art. 105 gr. 4.2.8) stated that “the process of removing good hymns to make room for better hymns” will happen “continuously”.
  • 4.9    To have the congregation know the common song book well, to memorize it, and to make it part of everyday life is a laudable goal. Adding additional hymns beyond the hymn cap does not necessarily prevent this goal from being achieved.
  • 4.10  Flamborough (Redemption) and Sardis correctly note that the hymn cap established in 2004 did not originate from a matter brought forward by the churches. It was suggested by the Standing Committee for the Publication of the Book of Praise (SCBP) as part of their proposed guidelines in the process of increasing the number of hymns from 65 to what became 85 (2014) and was applied throughout the process. When initially brought forward in the SCBP Report to GS 2004, there was no concern expressed by any of the churches, and those few that did interact with it were supportive of the hymn cap of 100.
  • 4.11  When churches began considering the expansion of hymns beyond the 85 approved by GS 2013, a limit of 100 quickly became the subject of concern and criticism. RSE 2017 and RSW 2018 dealt with proposals to adopt the Trinity Psalter-Hymnal, which would have been a “quick way to satisfy the desire for … a greater variety of hymns”. (GS 2019 art. 142 cons. 3.3). Appeals (GS 2022 art. 62) and overtures (GS 2022 art. 105) arose from the churches, the latter via RSE 2020 and RSW 2021, to eliminate the hymn cap. The matter of increasing or eliminating the hymn cap has been alive in the churches ever since GS 2013 authorized the revised and expanded Book of Praise (2014).
  • 4.12  Synod judged it reasonable to deal with the appeals from Brampton (Grace), Burlington Waterdown (Rehoboth), Flamborough (Redemption), Glanbrook (Trinity), Sardis, Toronto (Bethel), and Vernon together because all seven of them appealed the same decision of GS 2022 (art. 105), all did so by questioning the grounds for the decision, all identified the issue cited above in cons. 4.1 as supporting evidence, and nearly all specifically requested that GS 2025 remove the hymn cap.

5.   Recommendations

That Synod decide:

  • 5.1    To sustain the appeals of the Brampton (Grace) CanRC, theBurlington Waterdown (Rehoboth) CanRC, the Flamborough (Redemption) CanRC, the Glanbrook (Trinity) CanRC, the Sardis CanRC, the Toronto (Bethel) CanRC, and the Vernon CanRC.
  • 5.2    To affirm that the hymn cap is null and void.

ADOPTED

G. Boot and A. Jairam abstained as per CO art. 32.