ARTICLE 55: Psalms and Hymns
The metrical Psalms adopted by general synod as well as the hymns approved by general synod shall be sung in the worship services.
Texts of Implementation
Book of Praise - legal
GS 2016 – Article 127
5. Recommendation
5.5 To authorize the Committee to negotiate the continuation of a contract with Premier Printing Ltd for an additional five years, with an expiry date of February 28, 2022, and, within the bounds of copyright laws, make as much of the Book of Praise as possible available on the CanRC website.
5.6 To give the SCBP the following mandate:
5.6.3 To maintain its corporate status in order to protect the interest of the Canadian Reformed Churches in matters concerning the Book of Praise;
5.6.4 To communicate with the churches regarding copyright issues concerning the Book of Praise;
ADOPTED
GS 2013 – Article 104
2. Observation:
The SCBP has maintained its status as a corporation. All the necessary documents for this purpose have been kept up to date, including filing the Annual Income Tax forms with Revenue Canada. This is a legal requirement even though the committee does not operate under an annual budget and the Corporation does not generate an income or profit.
3. Consideration:
The SCBP correctly requests Synod Carman 2013 to continue the mandate to maintain its corporate status for the purpose of protecting the interests of the Canadian Reformed Churches in all matters concerning the Book of Praise.
4. Recommendation:
That Synod decide to mandate the SCBP to maintain its corporate status.
ADOPTED
GS 2013 – Article 112
3. Consideration
Premier Printing presently pays the required royalties for copyrighted hymns used in the Book of Praise according to their contract with the SCBP (Report section 2.1).
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide to acknowledge this information.
ADOPTED
GS 2010 – Article 113
2. Observations
2.1 The SCBP informs Synod that it presently operates under contractual relationship with Premier Printing Ltd., Winnipeg MB. This contract expires on 28 February 28, 2012.
2.2 The Committee seeks approval from Synod to negotiate the continuation of this contract for an additional five years with an expiry date of February 28, 2017.
3. Consideration
Since the next Synod will D.V. take place in 2013, the SCBP needs approval in order to negotiate this contract before that date.
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide to grant this approval and that the SCBP report concerning this in their Report to Synod 2013.
ADOPTED
GS 2010 – Article 141
3. Considerations
3.1 These royalties need to be paid for each printing the copyrighted hymns used in the Book of Praise.
3.2 The funds should be paid out of the General Fund as this is a matter for the churches in common.
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide to authorize the SCBP to pay the amounts for copyright as required for the printing of the provisional Book of Praise.
ADOPTED
New Hymns (guidelines)
GS 2013 – Article 173
3.3. While the SCBP would like to pursue the mandate received in 2010 and two churches support that, nine churches have requested some form of temporary moratorium on adding new hymns. The arguments raised by some of those churches do have merit. Hymn evaluation, testing and learning does take much time from the SCBP, church councils and congregations themselves, has at times created upset in the churches and does come with a certain financial cost. These factors need to be borne in mind as a new mandate is formulated.
3.4. The church at Coaldale is correct that the adding or not adding of additional hymns is not a matter of principle but a matter of wisdom. It is not desirable to have a constantly-changing hymn section nor is it desirable to close the door entirely to additional suitable hymns at some point in the future. A mechanism must be found where the churches can give expression to their desire for more hymns and where the churches can also assess together the wisdom of adding more hymns at a certain time.
3.5. The mechanism of following the ecclesiastical route of bringing overtures for new hymns to the minor assemblies (consistory to classis to regional synod to general synod) is well-suited for this. If the churches, through their delegates at the minor assemblies, agree that the time is right to consider adding more hymns and general synod agrees too, then a general consensus will have been reached as to the wisdom of adding new hymns. At that point, general synod can pass along to the SCBP any hymns it has received in this manner from the churches for its own internal evaluation and recommendation. This mechanism can also be used by the churches at Carman-West and Willoughby-Heights (and others) if they have a proposal for the deletion of certain existing hymns.
3.6. In considering new hymns, both individual churches as well as the minor assemblies must bear in mind the Principles and Guidelines for the Selection of Music in the Church adopted by General Synod Chatham 2004. The decision to limit the hymns to a maximum of 100 remains in place since no arguments have been brought against it. However, even more important to keep in mind is the reason for this restriction, “…since Psalms have a predominant place in the liturgy of the Reformed churches” (Acts of Synod Chatham 2004, Article 115, Section 6).
4. Recommendations:
That Synod decide:
4.1. To thank the SCBP for its efforts over the years in reviewing, evaluating and suggesting to the churches new hymns;
4.2. Not to renew the mandate of the SCBP given in Article 142 of Synod Burlington 2010 but to direct the churches which desire the addition of new hymns to take their proposals through the ecclesiastical route (see Consideration 3.3-3.6);
ADOPTED
GS 2010 – Article 137
3. Considerations
3.1 These hymns are intended specifically for use in the context of a wedding ceremony. The Book of Praise was created as the songbook for the worship services of the churches. Since marriages are virtually never solemnized in the worship services, they need not be included in the Book of Praise.
3.2 There is freedom for those who are getting married to choose songs for the wedding ceremony from a variety of sources.
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide to approve the recommendation of the SCBP that Augment Hymn # 14 O Gracious Lord and Augment Hymn # 15 Lord, Today Bless This New Marriage not be included in the Book of Praise.
ADOPTED
New Hymns (actual)
GS 2010 – Article 124
3. Considerations
3.1 Some of the churches objected that this hymn was not Trinitarian. The SCBP has placed this hymn of praise to Christ in the appropriate section of the revised Hymnary
3.2 In light of the words of the Lord Jesus in Matthew 11:28 and John 6:37, the hymn properly speaks about “coming to Christ.” In light of the words of Colossians 1:16-17, as well as John 14:6, the hymn properly speaks of Christ as Creator, and the one in whom we find our life. The hymn likewise appropriately directs praise to Christ, as do, for example, the “songs” of Rev. 5:9-10, 12.
3.3 While this is indeed unusual to refer to Christ as “the one eternal True,” it is understood as a poetic way of expressing what Christ claimed about himself when he said, “I am the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6), and as such, is appropriate. The meaning is clear enough. Furthermore, as noted in Observation 2.5, the hymn is under copyright, and we cannot make changes to the text.
3.4 The tune is not itself difficult or complicated, but, unfamiliar. With use, the tune will become more familiar, and more “singable.”
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide to approve the inclusion of the Hymn We Come O Christ to You in the expanded hymn section of the Book of Praise as recommended by the SCBP.
ADOPTED
GS 2010 – Article 125
3. Considerations
3.1 The meaning of the incomplete sentences is clear.
3.2 In referring to Paul’s words in I Corinthians 15:55, the hymn clearly points to the resurrection of the body.
3.3 We sing these words in anticipation of Christ’s return. Further, we note that we sing these words in the resurrection hymn, currently #26, Christ has risen, Hallelujah!, in stanza 1, line 6.
3.4 The melody seems entirely appropriate for the expression of the church’s joy in the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.
3.5 No evidence was offered to support the claim that the hymn does not meet Guideline 7.
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide to approve the inclusion of the Hymn Christ the Lord is Risen Today in the expanded hymn section of the Book of Praise as recommended by the SCBP.
ADOPTED
GS 2010 – Article 126
3. Considerations
3.1 The tune is unfamiliar, but as it becomes more familiar it will also become more “singable.”
3.2 No evidence was offered to support the charge that there were weak and incorrect statements.
3.3 In view of the central place of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ in his work of salvation, it is appropriate to include several songs on that subject.
3.4 It seems clear that the reference in the opening line is to the Sunday, which is also a weekly celebration of Christ’s resurrection and our new life in him.
3.5 It is not appropriate for synod to enter into discussions involving proposed changes to words.
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide:
4.1 To approve Hymn # 33 God Gave to us This Day of Days for inclusion in the expanded hymn section of the Book of Praise as recommended by the SCBP.
4.2 That the proposed wording changes be passed on to the SCBP for consideration and possible implementation.
ADOPTED
GS 2010 – Article 127
3. Considerations
3.1 In Acts 7:55, Stephen testifies that he saw Christ standing at the right hand of God. Therefore there is nothing unscriptural in this expression.
3.2 In Numbers 24:27, Malachi 1:7, II Peter 1:19, and Revelation 22:16, the Lord Jesus is identified as the Sun, or the Morning Star; in II Peter 1:19 the apostle speaks about the Sun of Righteousness rising in our hearts. Therefore, there is nothing objectionable about speaking about Christ and his work in this way. Furthermore, in current Hymn 26 in the second stanza, we sing to Christ as “Sun of Righteousness and Glory, Dawning with Thy healing light.”
3.3 As pointed out by the SCBP in its rationale, what is said in the first line is biblical and clearly conveys what we confess in LD 16, that Christ’s burial testifies that he really died. There is nothing unscriptural about what is expressed in these words.
3.4 Stanza 2 is clearly about the victory of Christ over death, and that is also the kind of language that Paul uses in I Corinthians 15, when he speaks about the resurrection of Christ. It is an appropriate way to speak about what Christ did when he died and rose again.
3.5 While it is true that many concerns have been raised in connection with this hymn, the real issue is: What is the true weight of the concerns? And: Do the objections expose unscriptural or other wrong expressions in the hymn? The objections which have been raised have been adequately answered in the light of Scripture and our Confessions.
3.6 God’s commands are at the same time invitations, and vice versa. To set them over against each other is to create a false dilemma. The word “invite” reflects something of the gracious character and intention of God’s demand. Thus, the use of the word “invite” in speaking about God’s command to keep the holy day is appropriate.
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide to approve the Hymn Christ Jesus Lay in Death’s Strong Bands for inclusion in the expanded hymn section of the Book of Praise as recommended by the SCBP.
GS 2010 – Article 128
3. Considerations
3.1 The ascension of Christ is so central and significant for his work of salvation that it is good to have several songs on the subject.
3.2 This hymn is clearly based on Hebrews 1:3-4, 4:14-16, 12:2.
3.3 The Lord Jesus speaks of his disciples as his friends (John 15:15). See also James 2:23. It seems logical that we may also speak of him as our “Friend.”
3.4 The “obscure expressions” referred to by one of the churches are expressions that are scripturally sound, as indicated by the ad hoc committee’s considerations on this concern.
3.5 The ad hoc committee addressed the issue of the musical range, and indicates that though the 10 note range of the melody may make it difficult for some to sing, it is quite learnable.
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide to approve the Hymn Since Our Great High Priest, Christ Jesus for inclusion in the expanded hymn section of the Book of Praise as recommended by the SCBP.
ADOPTED
GS 2010 – Article 129
3. Considerations
3.1 In view of the frequency with which we celebrate the Lord’s Supper, it is good to have several songs about the meaning of the sacrament in our hymn section.
3.2 Neither the SCBP nor the ad hoc committee identified any concern with respect to the words which one church proposes to change.
3.3 While the content of the song may be characterized as simple, that is not the same as saying that it is shallow or simplistic. Nor is its simplicity to be considered a fault. The hymn is clearly in the form of a prayer, and is clear and understandable in what it says.
3.4 It is not appropriate for the synod to enter into discussions involving proposed changes to words.
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide:
4.1 To approve the Hymn For the Bread Which You Have Broken for inclusion in the expanded hymn section of the Book of Praise as recommended by the SCBP.
4.2 That the proposed wording changes be passed on to the SCBP for consideration and possible implementation.
ADOPTED
GS 2010 – Article 130
3. Considerations
3.1 The focus of this hymn on the expectation of the Lord’s return adds an important element to our Lord’s Supper songs.
3.2 The ad hoc committee particularly remarks that this hymn does not “so much speak about what we do but rather what Christ has done for us with his death on the cross.”
3.3 It has not been proven that a wording change is needed to make the meaning of the hymn clear.
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide to approve the Hymn Until He Comes for inclusion in the expanded hymn section of the Book of Praise as recommended by the SCBP.
ADOPTED
GS 2010 – Article 131
3. Considerations
3.1 While it is true that as we confess in LD 1 Christ does already own us, as the ad hoc committee notes in its remarks, it is not wrong or incorrect to pray for what we already have. Certainly it is biblical for a believer to confess that God is “my God.” Cf. Thomas’ confession in John 20:28, and Paul’s words in Philippians 4:19.
3.2 Luke 21:25 speaks about nations being in perplexity at the return of Christ. Therefore it is not incorrect to say that sinners’ hearts will be confounded on that day.
3.3 In Article 37 BC we confess that the wicked will “become immortal.” In that respect it is not incorrect to say that all the dead rise to life.
3.4 Revelation 6:15 speaks about the human race hiding “in caves and among the rocks of the mountains” on the great day of the wrath of the Lamb. Therefore it is not incorrect to say that evildoers will prepare to flee on that day. We also note that the hymn does not say that they will flee; only that they prepare to flee.
3.5 I Corinthians 15:54 and II Corinthians 5:2-4 speak about us “being clothed” with an imperishable and immortal nature, and with our heavenly dwelling. Clearly the meaning is not merely that we will in some temporary or superficial way “wear immortality or imperishability,” but that our nature will in fact be changed. Therefore, it is acceptable to speak about Christ having taken on our nature as “wearing our nature.”
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide to approve the inclusion of the Hymn Day of Judgement Day of Wonders in the expanded hymn section of the Book of Praise, as recommended by the SCBP.
ADOPTED
GS 2010 – Article 132
3. Considerations
3.1 It is not in principle incorrect or unfaithful to Scripture to paraphrase the words of Scripture, or to sing parts of the Psalms. We often sing selected stanzas of the Psalms in the worship service.
3.2 The text of this hymn is particularly appropriate as a doxology.
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide to approve the Hymn Now Blessed be the Lord our God for inclusion in the expanded hymn section of the Book of Praise, as recommended by the SCBP.
ADOPTED
GS 2010 – Article 133
3. Considerations
3.1 Since this hymn is a doxology, simplicity is a virtue. At the same time, the hymn reflects the orthodox and universal confession about the Triune God, so that the hymn is also profound and doctrinally faithful.
3.2 The text was composed in the 2nd century. It is therefore anachronistic to speak of it as being taken from the Roman Catholic mass. In fact, the inclusion of this hymn, particularly in view of its ancient origin underlines the catholicity of Christ’s church throughout all ages.
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide to approve the Hymn Glory be to the Father for inclusion in the expanded hymn section of the Book of Praise, as recommended by the SCBP.
ADOPTED
GS 2010 – Article 134
3. Considerations
3.1 While it is true that there are Psalms and Hymns that may be used in connection with baptism, it is also true, as Langley and Owen Sound observe, that the same may be said with respect to the Lord’s Supper. Yet in the current hymn section, we do have hymns intended for use with the Lord’s Supper, but no hymns intended specifically for use with baptism. It does indeed seem inconsistent to have hymns for use with the Lord’s Supper, but not hymns for use with baptism.
3.2 The Lord Jesus speaks of branches that are “in him” in John 15:2, and it is clear that these branches may subsequently, because of disobedience, be “cut off” by the Father. Understood in light of these words of the Lord Jesus, it is not incorrect to thank the Father that our covenant children are “grafted to the vine.”
3.3 While the hymn does not speak explicitly about baptism, when sung in the worship service in connection with baptism, its relevance will be clear enough.
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide to approve the Hymn We Praise You, Lord for inclusion in the expanded hymn section of the Book of Praise, contrary to the recommendation of the SCBP.
ADOPTED
GS 2010 – Article 135
3. Considerations
3.1 In view of the expression in Luke 2:22, we judge that it is not incorrect to speak about parents presenting their children to the Lord.
3.2 We do have hymns intended for use with the Lord’s Supper, while there are currently no hymns intended specifically for use with baptism. It seems inconsistent to have hymns for use with the Lord’s Supper, but not hymns for use with baptism.
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide to approve the Hymn Our Children, Lord, in Faith and Prayer for inclusion in the expanded hymn section of the Book of Praise, contrary to the recommendation of the SCBP.
ADOPTED
GS 2010 – Article 136
3. Considerations
3.1 While it may well be true that it would be good to include more baptism hymns in the Book of Praise, that does not provide grounds for including this particular baptism hymn in the Book of Praise.
3.2 Langley has not interacted with the grounds given by the SCBP for the exclusion of this hymn.
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide to approve the recommendation of the SCBP that Augment Hymn # 13 O God Great Father Lord and King not be included in the Book of Praise.
ADOPTED
GS 2010 – Article 137
3. Considerations
3.1 These hymns are intended specifically for use in the context of a wedding ceremony. The Book of Praise was created as the songbook for the worship services of the churches. Since marriages are virtually never solemnized in the worship services, they need not be included in the Book of Praise.
3.2 There is freedom for those who are getting married to choose songs for the wedding ceremony from a variety of sources.
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide to approve the recommendation of the SCBP that Augment Hymn # 14 O Gracious Lord and Augment Hymn # 15 Lord, Today Bless This New Marriage not be included in the Book of Praise.
ADOPTED
GS 2010 – Article 138
3. Consideration
The specific request that the Lord Jesus pardon the church “for fields unwon,” especially when it follows the request that he forgive the church “for work undone,” is open to misunderstanding, as if the church may indeed be considered responsible when those who hear her preaching are not in fact converted.
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide to approve the recommendation of the SCBP that Augment # 16 Jesus With Your Church Abide not be included in the Book of Praise.
ADOPTED
GS 2010 – Article 139
3. Considerations
3.1 The arguments presented by the SCBC against the inclusion of this hymn are not strong. Stating that a hymn adds little new material is not an argument against including that hymn. Pointing out that some words used in a hymn are not “found anywhere in Scripture” does not make those words unscriptural. The words in question reflect, in a poetic way, the swift and decisive character of Christ’s victory over death.
3.2 The melody of this hymn is completely in keeping with the joyful subject of Christ’s resurrection. It would be an excellent addition to the hymn section of the Book of Praise.
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide to approve Augment # 22 The Strife is O’er, the Battle Done for inclusion in the expanded hymn section of the Book of Praise, contrary to the recommendation of the SCBP.
ADOPTED
GS 2010 – Article 140
3. Considerations
3.1 The arguments presented by the SCBP against the inclusion of this hymn are not strong. The main remark seems to focus on the triads, but the churches requesting the inclusion of this hymn report that their congregations found the melody singable and beautiful. Thus the main ground adduced by the SCBP seems weak.
3.2 The hymn includes a reference and working out of the expression of I Corinthians 15:21-22, about Christ as “the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.”
3.3 The melody of this hymn is joyful and triumphant, and well-suited to the subject of the second coming of Christ.
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide to approve Augment # 24 Alleluia! Alleluia! for inclusion in the expanded hymn section of the Book of Praise, contrary to the recommendation of the SCBP.
ADOPTED
GS 2010 – Article 163
3. Considerations
3.1 It is not incorrect to paraphrase scriptural words as the basis for a hymn. The real question is whether the hymn is faithful to Scripture in what it says.
3.2 “Jesus Shall Reign” is based on parts of Psalm 72, and is faithful to Scripture in what it says. As Langley correctly indicates, it is “a fitting reflection on and response to Christ’s exaltation.”
3.3 The melody of “Jesus Shall Reign” is triumphant and beautiful, and appropriate for a hymn celebrating the ascension and kingship of the Lord Jesus Christ.
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide to approve Hymn # 6 Jesus Shall Reign for inclusion in the expanded hymn section of the Book of Praise, contrary to the recommendation of the SCBP.
ADOPTED
Melodies
GS 2013 – Article 197
3. Considerations:
3.1. Dunnville is correct to point out that new melodies and changes in musical notation were introduced to the churches for the first time via the APV Book of Praise approved by Synod Burlington 2010 and this meant that the churches could not test them prior to publication. This was an unexpected course of events for the churches which had seen a different course of action with the introduction of revised psalms and new hymns.
3.2. It should be pointed out that the APV Book of Praise was itself a vehicle for testing in the churches, much like the Augment before it and therefore the testing of new melodies and musical notations could still take place between 2010 and 2013. The publication of the APV was not a final decision, but a decision to begin another round of testing. Dunnville was not obligated to test the published changes in the worship services.
3.3. It would have been better, in hindsight, due to the extent of the changes and the disturbance they caused, for the SCBP to have included these matters in their Report to Synod Burlington 2010, so that the churches could have interacted with them before synod. Wherever there are changes which affect the singability of the Psalms or hymns, there should be transparency in reporting the proposed changes.
4. Recommendations:
That Synod decide:
4.1. Regarding the request to restore the changed melodies to their previous state because of procedural matters: to deny the appeal of Dunnville.
4.2. Regarding the procedural matters: to agree with the church at Dunnville that a better course should have been followed.
ADOPTED
Texts of Application
Accountability of SCBP
GS 2013 – Article 183
3. Considerations:
3.1. The church at Grand Valley is not correct in its expectation that the SCBP account to individual churches for every change and revision to the Book of Praise. The SCBP is appointed and given a mandate by general synod and reports to general synod. This is due to the fact that the churches have together decided on a common songbook (Article 55 CO). The churches have given the task to their broadest assembly, which mandates a committee (the SCBP) to do much of the work for synod (between synods), which in turn benefits the churches together. This does not exclude the involvement of the local churches in the work of the SCBP, but it does determine the direction of accountability. The opportunity for churches to give input to the SCBP’s work on the way to a revision of the churches’ Book of Praise does not mean the SCBP is obligated to enter into discussion directly with a local church to explain and defend its work.
3.2. From the specific points which the church at Grand Valley raises, it is evident that Grand Valley sees that the SCBP has either gone too far with revisions to the Book of Praise (2.2.1 and 2.2.2) or has not worked consistently with particular principles in the revision process (2.2.3 and 2.2.4). It should be remembered that the SCBP receives its mandate from general synod and its work is subject to the scrutiny of general synod. Synod Smithers 2007 gave the SCBP its mandate and Synod Burlington 2010 approved the first phase of the revision work or the initial execution of the SCBP’s mandate. Synod Burlington 2010 endorsed the work of the SCBP and did not raise concerns about the direction, the extent, or the character of the revision work of the SCBP. It should also be remembered that by the time of Synod Burlington 2010 the churches had already had the opportunity to be engaged in the revision process via online access to the revision work of the SCBP as it was being produced. Further, at Synod Burlington 2010 the churches also had the opportunity to alert Synod to legitimate concerns in the work of the SCBP. Synod Burlington 2010 was not alarmed either by what it saw in the work of the SCBP or by the letters of concern from the churches on Synod’s table. Rather, Synod Burlington 2010 – having examined the work and the letters and making necessary changes and adjustments – saw good reason to make the bulk of the work of the SCBP its own and passed it on to the churches in the APV of the Book of Praise, recommending it for testing by the churches. When it comes to revision of the churches’ songbook, it is understandable that disappointments will be felt and adjustments may be difficult in and among the churches. This cannot be avoided entirely. Nevertheless, in general and in most specifics, the work of the SCBP did gain and receive the confidence of the churches gathered in their broadest assembly in 2010. Synod Carman 2013 has received the second phase of the revision work of the SCBP and can for the most part also endorse the further review and revision undertaken by the SCBP after the period of testing in the churches between 2010 and 2013.
3.3. Regarding the concerns of the church at Barrhead:
3.3.1. The church at Barrhead, after having submitted its concerns about revisions to the SCBP, does not find these concerns addressed in the SCBP Report to Synod Carman 2013. The SCBP Report itself does address this apparent omission. The SCBP reports that “In order to do justice to each submission,… we reviewed each letter (and additional documentation when included) carefully.” This should assure the church at Barrhead that its submission of concerns to the SCBP was duly considered. However, says the SCBP, “it is not possible nor is it our mandate to list all the comments and suggestions received from the churches.” And again: “we cannot possibly begin to include all the details of this review and revision process.” In light of the process (carefully reviewing all letters with necessary limitations in reporting) described by the SCBP, Synod Carman 2013 can consider the report of the SCBP to accurately portray the interests of the churches.
3.3.2. Barrhead is understandably concerned about the process by which the revision of the Book of Praise was initiated as well as the extent of the revisions. Barrhead argues that 1) the “push” for change did not come from the churches but from the SCBP and 2) the churches were misled by Synod Smithers 2007 as to the extent of the revision of the Book of Praise.
3.3.2.1. It is true that the request for the revision of the Book of Praise came from the SCBP and this after two Synods (Fergus 1998 and Chatham 2004) had decided not to make changes to the Psalms and Hymns. However, the context of the SCBP request to Synod Smithers 2007 made it reasonable as a request coming from the SCBP – that context being: the work of the SCBP on the combined committee working towards a Common Songbook with the URCNA – a project already underway. The SCBP, as part of that combined committee, wanted to contribute the “best possible metrical version” of the Psalms to that project. Although the initial context and grounds for the revision of the Book of Praise (for a Common Songbook with the URCNA) has since fallen by the wayside as the primary context for the revision of the Book of Praise, the churches, gathered at their broadest assembly in Synod Burlington 2010, did not see fit to abandon the project. This in spite of what Synod Fergus 1998 and Synod Chatham 2004 had decided previously. As Synod Burlington 2010 considered “The inclusion in a common songbook was not the sole reason for the revision of the Psalms. As well, the work on a common songbook basically came to a standstill after Synod Schererville 2007 of the URCNA. The SCBP did not see this as a valid reason to abandon its mandate to continue revising the Psalms as instructed by Synod Smithers” (Article 146, Consideration 3.2). Due consideration must be given to the fact that by Synod Burlington 2010 much good work had been done towards a revised Book of Praise.
3.3.2.2. Barrhead is correct that Synod Smithers 2007 gave the churches the expectation for a more modest revision to the Book of Praise than we have now. The words of the SCBP to Synod Smithers 2007, taken over by Synod Smithers 2007, “that this undertaking will not be such a major undertaking as was assumed by Synod Chatham 2004,” can legitimately be taken as an assurance for a modest revision. And although Synod Smithers 2007 did also mandate the SCBP to “initiate a thorough review,” a “thorough review” does not necessitate that the end product be a thorough revision. Looking at something closely does not need to lead to changing something extensively. Synod Smithers 2007 also cautioned the SCBP to “be careful in changing language that is perceived to be archaic.” Be this as it may, Synod Smithers 2007 did not mislead, but had a limited perspective of what a review process would all entail and what the product of such review would actually look like. Synod Burlington 2010 has since had a better view of things and, rather than express concern, indeed endorsed the revision work of the SCBP.
3.4. It is evident from the Report of the SCBP to Synod Carman 2013 that the SCBP did duly consider the input of the churches, even where such input did not result in what a local church asked for and even where such input was not reported on specifically. The SCBP correctly understood its mandate in this matter and sufficiently accounts to Synod Carman 2013 for its work of reviewing and interacting with the churches’ input. Synod Carman 2013, in adopting a finalized 2013 Book of Praise, also indicates that the SCBP is no longer mandated to receive input from the churches towards a revision of the Book of Praise, since that particular project is now completed.
4. Recommendations:
That Synod decide:
4.1. Not to accede to the requests of Grand Valley and Barrhead;
4.2. To approve how the SCBP interacted with and reported on the feedback from the churches during the revision process;
4.3. That where churches wish to pursue concerns re: the Book of Praise to direct these churches to Article 125, Recommendation 4.5 of the Acts of this Synod.
ADOPTED
Common Songbook (with URCNA)
GS 2016 – Article 127
5.6 To give the SCBP the following mandate:
5.6.6 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;
ADOPTED
GS 2013 – Article 182
3. Considerations:
3.1. It is regrettable that the PHC turned its attention to its own song book and subsequently initiated a joint project with the OPC, after so much had been accomplished with the SCBP in working toward a common song book.
3.2. It would still be advantageous for the SCBP to find ways to renew this initiative with the PHC in view of Synod London’s decision to mandate the URCNA Committee “to be in dialogue with the Canadian Reformed Churches in a manner consistent with Phase 2 relations.”
3.3. Since the decision to develop a common songbook has not been revised or rescinded, this should remain a stated objective since the goal is federative unity.
3.4. Seeing as the previous synods appointed the members of the SCBP as the Committee for a Common Songbook, Synod Carman 2013 should do the same.
3.5. The churches at Fergus-Maranatha and Barrhead are incorrect in asserting that since the PHC is no longer working with the SCBP toward a common songbook, the SCBP no longer has a mandate to revise the Psalms. Synod Burlington 2010 considered “The inclusion in a common songbook was not the sole reason for the revision of the Psalms. As well, the work on a common songbook basically came to a standstill after Synod Schererville 2007 of the URCNA. The SCBP did not see this as a valid reason to abandon its mandate to continue revising the Psalms as instructed by Synod Smithers” (Article 146, Consideration 3.2).
3.6. Given the history, church order and confessions that we share with the URCNA, as well as the goal of federative unity that is being pursued with them, there are good reasons to monitor developments in both the URC as well as OPC songbook committees.
4. Recommendations:
That Synod decide:
4.1. To state that the Canadian Reformed Churches remain committed to having a common songbook in a united federation;
4.2. To thank the SCBP for its work and to reappoint it with the mandate to work out Consideration 3.2;
4.3. To send Consideration 3.5 as an answer to the churches of Fergus-Maranatha and Barrhead;
4.4. To send Consideration 3.6 as an answer to the church at Langley.
ADOPTED
GS 2007 – Article 104
3. Considerations
3.5 Although synod continues to express a strong preference for a complete Anglo-Genevan Psalter in the Common Songbook, it agrees that this may not be a defining obstacle to federative unity. Synod also expresses appreciation for a suggestion by some of the churches including Grand Rapids (see Obs. 2.8), namely the possibility that “for every one of the 150 Psalms in the Book of Praise, one selection be made from the most loved and well-known psalms in the URC repertoire.” Other possibilities which include the 150 Psalms in the Book of Praise can also be considered.
3.6 Synod agrees that the Common Songbook should be the exclusively used songbook of the united federation. Synod acknowledges, however, that such a rule does not exclude exceptions, which would be regulated by a proposed church order.
4. Recommendation
4.5 To reappoint the Committee for a Common Songbook with the mandate to prepare the Psalms and Hymns section for the Common Songbook, in accordance with
4.5.1 the agreements of the Joint Committee.
4.5.2 the mandate received from Synod Chatham, taking into account
4.5.2.1 synod’s strong preference for a complete Anglo-Genevan Psalter within the Common Songbook, while acknowledging that this may not be a defining obstacle to federative unity.
4.5.2.2 to work as much as possible towards a completed Common Songbook before federative unity is achieved.
ADOPTED
Common Songbook (with FRCA)
GS 2016 – Article 127
5. Recommendations
5.6 To give the SCBP the following mandate:
5.6.2 To maintain contact with our Australian sister-churches to assist them in the possible publication of their own Book of Praise;
ADOPTED
GS 2013 – Article 196
3. Considerations:
3.1. The SCBP did receive and review one significant document from the FRCA in connection with the revision of the Book of Praise. Thus, it appears that consultation with the FRCA on this matter has been limited. Both Fergus-Maranatha and Calgary are correct in noting that the degree of involvement has been inadequate.
3.2 It is regrettable that there is apparent inconsistency between Articles 115 and 121 of Synod Burlington 2010. This resulted in some frustration on the part of the FRCA and disappointment on the part of the SCBP that the consultation was not as full as it could have been. Since Article 115 of Synod Burlington 2010 pertained specifically to cooperation with the FRCA, it might have been better for the SCBP to have applied Article 115 to the FRCA, rather than Article 121.
3.3. Australian fraternal delegates to Synod Carman 2013 noted, “Our deputies have been requested to do more work to determine the desirability of our churches for having an Australian version of the Book of Praise – essentially it means adapting your Book of Praise to make it our Book of Praise.”
3.4. Whereas it is true that the contact with the Australian Deputies was minimal, the reality is that this project is near completion and ready for publication. Further, the process of receiving input from Canadian churches is complete and it would not be prudent to delay the publication.
4. Recommendations:
That Synod decide:
4.1. To express its regret to the FRCA that due to the circumstances listed above, the degree of cooperation and consultation re: the work on the Book of Praise was limited.
4.2. To instruct the SCBP to continue contact with the Australian Deputies for the Book of Praise to assist in the FRCA’s pursuit of a possible Australian version of the Book of Praise.
4.3. To inform the FRCA that Synod Carman 2013 has instructed the SCBP to publish the final edition of the Book of Praise as the authorized version for use in the churches.
4.4. To instruct the SCBP to report on its contacts with the FRCA to General Synod 2016.
ADOPTED
Book of Praise (SCBP)
GS 2016 – Article 127
4. Considerations
4.1 Synod approves of the changes made by the SCBP to the psalm, hymn and prose sections of the Book of Praise subsequent to GS 2013.
4.2 There has been a good relationship between our churches and Premier Printing for many years. There is no reason not to renew the contract with this company.
4.3 The committee is to be commended for updating their website.
4.4 The rationale for the corrections made as a result of proofreading was convincing.
4.5 Abbotsford is directed to the SCBP to obtain answers to their questions re: copyright and whether or not a pocket-sized version is feasible.
4.6 Toronto-Bethel’s suggestion is a good one, since use of a joint OPC-URCNA songbook is a significant development that could have implications for our unity talks with the URCNA.
4.7 Synod’s desire is to make the Book of Praise available in an unrestricted way. However, Synod also recognizes that copyright laws restrict us in this regard.
5. Recommendations
That Synod decide:
5.1 To thank the Standing Committee for the Publication of the Book of Praise (SCBP) for the tremendous amount of work in preparing the 2014 Book of Praise for publication.
5.5 To authorize the Committee to negotiate the continuation of a contract with Premier Printing Ltd for an additional five years, with an expiry date of February 28, 2022, and, within the bounds of copyright laws, make as much of the Book of Praise as possible available on the CanRC website.
5.6 To give the SCBP the following mandate:
5.6.1 To foster an increased awareness of the Book of Praise among others in the English-speaking world;
5.6.2 To maintain contact with our Australian sister-churches to assist them in the possible publication of their own Book of Praise;
5.6.3 To maintain its corporate status in order to protect the interest of the Canadian Reformed Churches in matters concerning the Book of Praise;
5.6.4 To communicate with the churches regarding copyright issues concerning the Book of Praise;
5.6.5 To maintain its archives and website;
5.6.6 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;
5.6.7 To receive, scrutinize and evaluate the contents of correspondence from the churches and to report to the next General Synod as to the validity of the suggestions made (as per GS 2016 Art. 122);
5.6.8 To seek, receive, evaluate and recommend proposals for changes to the hymn section to be compiled for possible submission to a future Synod (as per GS 2016 Art. 122).
ADOPTED
GS 2016 – Article 122
3. Considerations
3.1 The SCBP requested that the mandate to deal with correspondence from the churches be renewed and that they report to the next general synod as to the validity of suggestions made. Synod considers this to be a valid request.
3.2 Burlington-Fellowship and Hamilton-Blessings correctly point out that the mandate given to the SCBP by GS 2010 was the same as the mandate given by GS 2001 and subsequent synods. Toronto-Bethel is correct in pointing out that the SCBP in 2013 asked to have this mandate renewed, and indicated its desire to take up this as yet unfulfilled part of their mandate from 2010. GS 2010 considered that the completion of the new edition of the Book of Praise doesn’t necessarily exclude continuing to search for additional hymns.
3.3 The contents of the Book of Praise are indeed a matter of the churches in common (CO 30, 55). Because of this, the SCBP has been appointed to deal with matters relating to the Book of Praise. Therefore, any proposals to change the hymn section of the Book of Praise should be considered by the SCBP. Before any such proposals are adopted, they would need to be approved by a general synod. This assembly would decide what will be changed, and when any changes will be implemented.
3.4 Historically, the SCBP has been mandated to involve the churches in submitting, testing and evaluating any proposed changes to the hymn section. Churches will have ample opportunity to express their desires and opinions regarding any modifications, additions or deletions, as well as when they would be printed in the Book of Praise.
3.5 Members of the SCBP are selected on the basis of some expertise in music, liturgy, theology and language and thus are best suited to review and recommend proposed additional hymns.
3.6 The churches that submitted appeals are correct in pointing out that time and energy will be spent receiving and reviewing hymns regardless of which route is followed. Synod considers that it is a more efficient use of time to have the SCBP deal with these matters.
3.7 Burlington-Fellowship’s request to mandate the SCBP to work towards a new augment goes beyond the appeal as it introduces a new element into the mandate.
4. Recommendations
That Synod decide:
4.1 To uphold the appeals and revert to the long-standing practice of having churches directly address the Standing Committee for the Publication of the Book of Praise (SCBP).
4.2 To include in the mandate of the SCBP (see GS 2016 Art. 127):
4.2.1 To receive, scrutinize and evaluate the contents of correspondence from the churches and report to the next General Synod as to the validity of the suggestions made.
4.2.2 To instruct the SCBP to seek, receive, evaluate and recommend proposals for changes to the hymn section to be compiled for possible submission to a future Synod.
ADOPTED
GS 2013 – Article 103
2. Observation:
The SCBP informs Synod Carman 2013 that it has compiled a Scripture index for the hymns as instructed by Synod Burlington 2010 (Article 164) and requests that it be included in the proposed Book of Praise for presentation to this Synod.
3. Consideration:
This index is helpful in that it enables one to see at a glance the Scripture passages upon which various hymns are based.
4. Recommendation:
That Synod decide to approve this index for publication in the definitive edition of the Book of Praise.
ADOPTED
GS 2013 – Article 184
4. Recommendations:
That Synod decide:
4.1. To thank the Standing Committee for the Book of Praise (SCBP) for its efforts in pursuit of a final edition of the Book of Praise;
4.2. To send the preceding Considerations as a response to these churches;
4.3. To direct the churches seeking changes other than minor corrections to follow the ecclesiastical way (Acts 2013, Article 125, Recommendation 4.5).
GS 2013 – Article 185
4. Recommendation:
Synod decide to mandate the SCBP to change the NIV quotations in the confessions and prose section of the Book of Praise to the ESV before publishing the final version.
ADOPTED
GS 2013 – Article 186
3. Considerations:
3.1. The SCBP has done much work resulting in the publication of an Authorized Provisional Version of the Book of Praise. Synod 2013 agrees with the SCBP recommendation to publish the finalized version of the Book of Praise incorporating all changes approved by this Synod.
3.2. The SCBP provides good reasons for not publishing four-part harmonisations of the psalms and hymns: it would be costly (since it would increase the size of the Book of Praise); it would necessitate dropping the musical overleaf-notation; it would be time consuming and highly subjective. Besides, the SCBP is convinced that there is no strong desire for this among the churches.
3.3. The development and promotion of materials for musical accompaniment in the worship services is helpful for organists, teachers and others.
3.4. The suggestion from Carman-West that available versions of accompaniment be placed on the website in PDF format for musicians and congregation members to use has merit.
3.5. The suggestion of the church at Cloverdale of making especially the harmonization of the hymns available electronically is worthy of consideration.
3.6. The suggestion from the church at Flamborough about having a version of the Book of Praise in four-part harmonization has been considered by the committee. The implications of such an undertaking are too daunting to be practical.
3.7. Burlington-Ebenezer raises a valid argument against publishing the Book of Praise in four-part harmonization.
3.8. London’s recommendation that the definitive edition of the Book of Praise be published in a hardcover has merit once a definitive edition is ready for publication.
3.9. Abbotsford’s suggestion of publishing the Book of Praise in two sections (songs and prose) is worthy of consideration by the SCPB.
4. Recommendations:
4.1. That Synod decide:
4.1.1. To thank the SCBP for its dedication and effort in publishing the APV in book form and on the website.
4.1.2. To authorize the SCBP to publish the final edition of the Book of Praise as the Authorized Version for use by the churches and to make it available on the website in hyperlinked, indexed format.
4.2. That Synod decide to instruct the SCBP:
4.2.1. To continue the present format of publishing the psalms and hymns in a melody-only format.
4.2.2. To consider placing available versions of accompaniment and harmonization of the hymns on the website.
4.2.3. To look into the feasibility of printing hardcover copies of the Book of Praise.
4.2.4. To investigate whether or not the Book of Praise should also be published in two sections (songs and prose).
ADOPTED
Melodies
GS 2013 – Article 172 (Hymns)
4. Recommendations:
That Synod decide:
4.1. To thank the SCBP for its work and to thank advisors Dr. Karen Dieleman, Dr. Benne Faber, Dr. Deanna Smid, Dr. Jannes Smith, Dr. Cornelis Van Dam, Dr. William Helder, Frank Ezinga, James Teitsma and Martin Jongsma;
4.2. To direct the SCBP to implement the recommendations listed in its report, incorporating the following specific instructions:
4.2.1. Hymn 1: adopt the SCBP recommendations;
4.2.2. Hymn 2: adopt the SCBP recommendations;
4.2.3. Hymn 4: adopt the SCBP recommendations;
4.2.4. Hymn 7: adopt the SCBP recommendations;
4.2.5. Hymn 12: adopt the SCBP recommendations;
4.2.6. Hymn 18: revert to the 1984 version of this melody;
4.2.7. Hymn 20: retain the APV version and not reinstate the breath mark after the second line;
4.2.8. Hymn 27: retain the APV version of this melody;
4.2.9. Hymn 29: retain the APV version of this melody;
4.2.10. Hymn 30: adopt the SCBP recommendations;
4.2.11. Hymn 31: adopt the B version only of this melody;
4.2.12. Hymn 33: retain the APV version of this melody;
4.2.13. Hymn 37: revert to the 1984 version of this melody;
4.2.14. Hymn 40: adopt the SCBP recommendations;
4.2.15. Hymn 41: adopt the SCBP recommendations;
4.2.16. Hymn 42: adopt the SCBP recommendations;
4.2.17. Hymn 47: adopt the SCBP recommendations;
4.2.18. Hymn 48: revert to the 1984 version of this melody;
4.2.19. Hymn 49: retain the APV version, but insert a rest or breath mark after the second line;
4.2.20. Hymn 51: adopt the SCBP recommendations;
4.2.21. Hymn 53: adopt the SCBP recommendations;
4.2.22. Hymn 57: retain the APV version of this melody;
4.2.23. Hymn 63: adopt the SCBP recommendations;
4.2.24. Hymn 65: revert to the 1984 version of this melody;
4.2.25. Hymn 67: retain the APV version of this melody;
4.2.26. Hymn 69: retain the APV version of this melody;
4.2.27. Hymn 73: retain the APV version, but fermatas should be inserted after lines 2,4 and 6;
4.2.28. Hymn 74: retain the APV version, but fermatas should be inserted after lines 2 and 4;
4.2.29. Hymn 76: retain the APV version of this melody;
4.2.30. Hymn 77: adopt the SCBP recommendations;
4.2.31. Hymn 78: adopt the SCBP recommendations;
4.2.32. Hymn 80: retain the APV version of this melody;
4.2.33. Hymn 82: retain the APV version of this melody;
4.2.34. Hymn 83: adopt the SCBP recommendations;
4.3. To adopt the melodies of the hymns as presented, along with the incorporated changes under 4.2, as definitive in the final edition of the Book of Praise.
4.4. That any further changes should be made in accordance with the Acts of Synod Carman 2013, Article 125, Recommendation 4.5.
ADOPTED
Texts of Psalms
GS 2013 – Article 151
4. Recommendations:
That Synod decide:
4.1. That the SCBP did fulfill its mandate in considering suggestions from the churches;
4.2. To send Consideration 3.2 as a response to Grand Valley;
4.3. To instruct the SCBP to seek advice from their musical advisors whether Ps. 3, line 2, second last note needs to be corrected;
4.4. To instruct the SCBP to retain the APV 2010 version of Ps. 8:4, line 1, 2;
4.5. To approve the SCBP’s proposed change to Ps. 17:5;
4.6. To approve the SCBP’s proposed change to Ps. 18:8, line 5;
4.7. To retain the APV 2010 version of Ps. 19:1, line 1;
4.8. To request the SCBP to consider a change in Ps. 20:2, line 3 to “May songs of celebration shouted;”
4.9. To endorse the SCBP’s decision to retain “Lord’s” in Ps. 23;
4.10. To approve the SCBP’s proposed change to Ps. 25:6;
4.11. To approve the SCBP’s proposed revision for Psalm 30:1, lines 1-4, with the exception of “depth” in line 2 which should read “depths;”
4.12. To retain the APV 2010 version of Ps. 36:1, lines 1-2;
4.13. To approve the SCBP’s proposed punctuation change in Ps. 44:1, lines 4-6;
4.14. To approve the SCBP’s revision of Ps. 57:3, lines 3-4;
4.15. Not to accept the suggestion of Willoughby Heights; instead to retain the APV 2010 version of Pss. 68, 98 and 118;
4.16. To approve the SCBP’s revision of Ps. 71:2, lines 5-6;
4.17. To approve the SCBP’s revision of Ps. 81:6;
4.18. To approve the SCBP’s revision of Ps. 81:11, line 6;
4.19. To approve the SCBP’s revision of Ps. 89:10, line 2;
4.20. To judge that the churches of Burlington-Rehoboth and Spring Creek are correct in their recommendations to leave Ps. 89:10, line 6 and Ps. 89:12, line 5 as they were in the APV 2010;
4.21. To judge that too many words have been added to Ps. 90:1, 2 and to return to the 1984 version without archaisms;
4.22. To instruct the SCBP to consider Observation 2.22 and Consideration 3.22;
4.23. To approve the SCBP’s revision of Ps. 93:3 line 2;
4.24. To approve the SCBP’s revision of Ps. 101:3 line 2;
4.25. To send Consideration 3.25 as Synod’s answer to Grand Valley;
4.26. To instruct the SCBP to consider the suggestion regarding Ps. 103:1;
4.27. To send Consideration 3.27 as Synod’s answer to Grand Valley;
4.28. To ask the SCBP to revert to the 1984 version of Ps. 118:6 line 5;
4.29. To approve the SCBP’s revision of Ps. 119:34 line 1;
4.30. To approve the SCBP’s revision of Ps. 119:38 line 2;
4.31. To approve the SCBP’s revision of Ps. 120:1 line 2;
4.32. To approve the SCBP’s revision of Ps. 123:1 line 7;
4.33. To approve the SCBP’s revision of Ps. 136:10 line 1;
4.34. To direct the SCBP to implement the suggestion of Burlington-Rehoboth re Ps. 148:4 lines 4-6 (Consideration 3.34);
4.35. To instruct the SCBP to seek advice regarding the musical notation of the last note of each Psalm;
4.36. General recommendations re: completion of the work:
4.36.1. Synod Carman 2013 instructs the SCBP to implement the relevant recommendations under 4 regarding the revision of the text of the Psalms;
4.36.2. Synod Carman 2013 adopts the text of the psalms as presented in the APV 2010, along with the incorporated changes under 4.36.1 as the definitive text of the Anglo-Genevan Psalter in the 2013 edition of the Book of Praise;
4.36.3. Any further changes should be made in accordance with the Acts of Synod Carman 2013, Article 125, Recommendation 4.5.
ADOPTED
Texts of Hymns
GS 2013 – Article 159
3. Considerations:
3.1. Regarding Hymn 79 and the phrase, “By whom all things consist,” it may be pointed out that Scripture speaks of Jesus as the agent of God’s creation (John 1:2) and the one in whom “all things hold together” (Col 1:16-17). The phrase “Your love has met your law’s demand” emphasizes how the Triune God made provisions to satisfy his own justice, through the active and passive obedience of the Son. When this hymn speaks of Jesus as being “the source of every skill,” this is not a downplaying of the work of the Holy Spirit, but a recognition that Christ equips his people through his Spirit (John 14:16). In all of these points Kerwood can be pointed to the SCBP Report to Synod Burlington 2010 (p. 34), where it stated, “The Committee considers that this hymn very well, correctly and beautifully ascribes attributes of the LORD God to the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. John 8:58 and the other I AM sayings of Christ; the Prologue of the Gospel according to John; Acts 3:15; Col. 1:16 and 2:9; Rev. 1:8; 21:5-7; 22:13). Finally, it is not clear how the phrase “the one eternal True” conflicts with the teaching that the Holy Spirit is also true and eternal God; Kerwood also does not interact with Synod Burlington 2010’s explanation of this line (Article 124).
3.2. With respect to Hymn 30, where Kerwood alleges the presence of the Lutheran theology of Christ’s descent, there is no interaction with what the SCBP wrote in its report to Synod Burlington 2010 on this point. There it cautioned against reading the hymn through the lens of Lutheran theology and pointed out that the hymn instead “sings about the intense life and death struggle on the cross and about how Christ won the victory through His death and resurrection” (SCBP Report to Synod 2010, pp. 35-36).
3.3. Concerning Hymn 45, the notion of “prisoners leaping to lose their chains” should be understood in the wider context of the hymn, which speaks of the exalted Christ’s redeeming and governing work. We know that it is He who has set the captives and prisoners free (Luke 4:18). It is this context which also prohibits reading stanza 2 in a universalistic way. As for the notion of angels descending (and ascending) in worship of the Christ, John 1:51 is a suggestive text.
4. Recommendation:
That Synod decide to deny the appeal of the church of Kerwood and maintain Hymns 30, 45 and 79 in the final edition of the Book of Praise.
ADOPTED
GS 2013 – Article 171
4. Recommendations:
That Synod decide:
4.1. That the SCBP fulfilled its mandate in considering suggestions from the churches;
4.2. To revert to the 1984 version of line 2 in Hymn 1, “heav’n and earth”;
4.3. To instruct the SCBP to change “thence” to “there” in Hymn 1;
4.4. To retain the APV 2010 version of Hymn 3;
4.5. To approve the SCBP’s proposed change to Hymn 8;
4.6. To revert to the 1984 rendition of Hymn 17:1;
4.7. To maintain the APV 2010’s rendition of the last line of Hymn 18:1;
4.8. To retain Hymn 30 in the 2013 edition of the Book of Praise;
4.9. To maintain the text of Hymn 45 as it is presently in the 2010 APV;
4.10. To retain Hymn 46 in the 2013 edition of the Book of Praise;
4.11. To approve the SCBP’s proposed change to Hymn 56:3;
4.12. To approve the SCBP’s proposed changes to Hymn 58;
4.13. To retain Hymn 66 in the 2013 edition of the Book of Praise;
4.14. To approve the SCBP’s proposed changes to Hymn 77;
4.15. To approve the SCBP’s proposed change to Hymn 78;
4.16. To mandate the SCBP to implement the relevant recommendations under point 4 regarding the revision of the text of the hymns;
4.17. To adopt the text of hymns as presented in the APV 2010, along with any incorporated changes under point 4, as the definitive text of the Anglo-Genevan Psalter in the 2013 edition of the Book of Praise;
4.18. To decide that any further changes to the text of the Hymns be made in accordance with the Acts of Synod Carman 2013, Article 125, Recommendation 4.5.
ADOPTED
GS 2010 – Article 122
3. Considerations
3.2 Since the rewording of the first line of Hymn 57 (formerly 46) is grammatically correct, we should adopt it.
3.3 When concerns are expressed regarding more substantial changes, it is appropriate for synod to give direction to the SCBP.
3.4 The proposed changes to Hymns 27 and 60 are more substantial, and therefore, it would be appropriate for synod to consider what has been proposed, and the churches’ concerns about these changes, in order to provide the SCBP with clarity.
4. Recommendations
4.2 To adopt the proposed rewording of Hymn 57 (formerly Hymn 46).
4.3 To instruct the SCBP to retain the deleted stanzas (2,3) of current Hymn 27, taking into consideration the suggestions of the churches.
4.4 To instruct the SCBP to reconsider the deletion of stanza 4 of current Hymn 60, keeping in mind the suggestions of the churches.
ADOPTED
Texts of Commentary
Accountability for Revisions and New Hymns
GS 2013 – Article 151
3. Considerations:
3.2. Grand Valley has not presented sufficient evidence that the work of the SCBP should be devoid of “personal preference.” Nor has Grand Valley proven that the SCBP has the mandate to be accountable for every change to individual churches.
GS 2010 – Article 122
3. Considerations
3.3 When concerns are expressed regarding more substantial changes, it is appropriate for synod to give direction to the SCBP.
GS 2004 – Article 115
6.2 Considerations
6.2.5 Synod considers that the committee went beyond its mandate in requiring scriptural grounds for the hymns submitted by the church at Abbotsford. Synod Neerlandia instructed the SCBP “to 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….” This should be taken to mean that the individual churches should provide reasons for their suitability, but the committee should evaluate them according to the requirements.
Melodies
GS 2013 – Article 105
3. Considerations:
3.1. Article 55 of the Church Order does not distinguish between the text of the Psalms and Hymns and their melodies. When it speaks of the “metrical Psalms” and “the hymns approved by general synod,” it is referring to the songs in their totality: lyrics and melodies.
3.2. Synod Winnipeg 1989 considered that, “It is not within the province of General Synod to decide on technical matters concerning musical notations…” (Article 146, Consideration C.2).
4. Recommendation:
That Synod decide to send the above considerations to Abbotsford as its reply.
ADOPTED
GS 2013 – Article 151
3. Considerations
3.3. The change in Ps. 3 musical notation, namely to add a sharp to the second last note of line 2, needs to be reviewed by the musical advisors to the SCBP. The musical notation of the Psalms is intended to match the Dutch Liedboek der Kerken (Acts of Synod Winnipeg 1989, Article 146). It is not clear whether the church at Attercliffe is proposing a change to this notation or whether it has noticed that our notation differs from that of the Dutch churches. It should be noted that many churches in our federation do not adhere strictly to the musical notation of the Psalms and they are free do so as decided by Synod Winnipeg 1989 (Article 146).
GS 2013 – Article 172
3. Considerations:
3.2. Synod Winnipeg 1989 decided that matters of musical notation should be left up to the SCBP and therefore the musical notation changes recommended by the SCBP should be accepted unless compelling evidence to the contrary is presented.
3.3. Because the introduction of new hymn melodies was met with significant resistance, caution must be exercised prior to adopting new hymns.
GS 2013 – Article 184
3. Considerations:
3.4. The matter of rests and breath stops is challenging. Many churches felt very strongly that the lack of rests/breath stops added to the frustration. The SCBP was correct in going away from breath marks, due to the varying interpretations of rests. Moreover, it is unnecessary to insist that every accompanist in the federation interpret rests in the same way. Rather, it is more important that each congregation develops its own consistency and thereby enable the congregation to focus more on the words of praise to God.
GS 2010 – Article 123
3. Consideration
When it comes to such technical aspects as musical notation, synod should accept the judgment of the SCBP. However, when it comes to the question of alternate or new melodies, the churches should have opportunity to test them and provide the SCBP with input regarding the suitability of the new or alternate melodies.
Trialling New Songs
GS 2013 – Article 48
3. Considerations:
3.2. Synod Smithers 2007 did not provide an explicit directive to the churches to test the psalms in the worship services when it gave the mandate to the SCBP to “solicit input from the churches at all stages of the process.” However, such testing was suggested by the SCBP in its report received by Synod Smithers 2007 in which it stated, “It may be left in the freedom of the churches to make use of the revised Psalms in different ways. For example, either by having the congregation sing them before or during the worship services.” Synod Smithers 2007 did not reject this suggestion of the SCBP, which led to the assumption of a local church that it was approved by general synod to test these revised psalms in the worship services. Synod Smithers 2007 should have provided an explicit directive to the churches as to how the revised psalms should be tested by the churches.
3.3. It is not the SCBP’s responsibility to mandate the churches’ testing procedures when introducing new or significantly revised psalms and hymns.
Wording
GS 2010 – Article 126
3. Considerations
3.5 It is not appropriate for synod to enter into discussions involving proposed changes to words.
GS 2007 – Article 148
3. Considerations
3.3 It is important to make a distinction between archaic language on the one hand and poetic language or biblical language on the other. Therefore the committee should be careful in changing language that is perceived to be archaic.
GS 2004 – Article 115
5.2 Considerations
5.2.6 Synod realizes that a new rhyming would mean a loss with a view to the memorization of the present rhyming, but does not consider it a determining factor.
Wording of Metrical Psalms
GS 2013 – Article 151
3. Considerations:
3.16. Psalm 71 verse 5 in the ESV and NIV is in the form of a statement so an emendation of lines 5-6 of Ps. 71:2 to reflect that is desirable.
3.17. It is desirable for the text of Ps. 81:6 to reflect the Hebrew original as closely as possible.
3.21. Lines 3-5 have been added to Ps. 90:1 and in stanza two 23 words comprising the Biblical text have been rhymed to form stanza 2 using 42 words. There is no apparent justification for making 2 stanzas out of the first stanza of the 1984 version. The 1984 version should be retained without the archaisms.
Wording of Hymns
GS 2013 – Article 171
3. Considerations:
3.3. It would be advisable for Hymn 1 to correspond more closely with the Apostles’ Creed (also as found in the Heidelberg Catechism).
3.14. It is advisable to have consistent language as much as possible in the Book of Praise and the changes to Hymn 77 serve to that end.
GS 2010 – Article 139
3. Considerations
3.1 The arguments presented by the SCBC against the inclusion of this hymn are not strong. Stating that a hymn adds little new material is not an argument against including that hymn. Pointing out that some words used in a hymn are not “found anywhere in Scripture” does not make those words unscriptural. The words in question reflect, in a poetic way, the swift and decisive character of Christ’s victory over death.
GS 2010 – Article 163
3. Considerations
3.1 It is not incorrect to paraphrase scriptural words as the basis for a hymn. The real question is whether the hymn is faithful to Scripture in what it says.
Song Choice - local
GS 2010 – Article 144
3. Considerations
3.3 There may be differences of opinion as to the use of hymns in the churches, but churches (and members) have all agreed to abide by Article 55 of the Church Order and are bound by that regulation with the proviso of Article 31. The actual selection of hymns to be sung in worship is left up to the local churches.
New Hymns (guidelines)
GS 2007 – Article 149
3. Considerations
3.3 re 2.5 – the committee is correct in stating that “these are matters left to the freedom of the churches.” Such votums and amens are in a different category than our psalms and hymns, and therefore ought not be included in the Book of Praise.
3.7 re 2.7 – it should be noted that a marriage can be performed in a worship service (CO 63), that the Form for Marriage is found in the Book of Praise, and that the final selection of hymns will be made at the next synod.
Note: there is no recommendation relating to consideration 3.3 while there probably should have been.