In all our debates about what to sing (hymns or songs? old or new? book, screen or service sheet? who decides anyway?), a different niggle surfaces from time to time. For some, it is no niggle at all; it measures our Scriptural obedience, on a par with baptism, evangelism and wearing jeans.
It is this: should our worship of God include psalm-singing, and if so, should we sing anything else? Whole blocks of churches have split on the issue; it was a hot potato before, during and after the Reformation. Luther and Calvin took opposite sides. The trickle of booklets on the subject may be thinning out but rarely dries up altogether. This is not the place to weigh all the arguments. But three points are worth repeating. First, the psalms are great to sing!
Re-establishing psalmody
The past half-century has seen many brave attempts to re-establish psalmody, not so much where its dominance was threatened as where it had lost its place completely. Evangelicals provided collections such as Psalm Praise, The Book of Praises and Songs from the Psalms. As this last title shows, some versions had a looser connection with their source than others. More churchy circles have experimented with Gelineau's arrangements, or the repetition of antiphons and other responses.
But few churches are going to splash out on a volume of Psalms alone. They remain valuable resources, but are rarely handed out as we come in. Unlike the Book of Common Prayer (1662), they don't include all 150 psalms, let alone every part of each one.
And talking of Prayer Books; those who argue that psalms alone may be sung in the worship of God never concluded that we must therefore practise some Anglican chanting! This is hardly impossible - though it may need some care for a small congregation to do well. The avoidance of Coverdale's version is a cultural question, not a doctrinal one.
Not the psalms
No; what the psalms-only advocates invariably point to is the 1650 Scottish Psalter. Which brings me to my second point: these are not the psalms! Many of their stanzas are noble, rugged, dearly loved of those brought up on them. Or should I say, those who on them up have been brought? In the interests of rhyme and metre, their tortured and inverted language has become so fossilised, even idolised, that it may obscure the point of the original and actually hinder us from hearing the word of God. To use a favourite word of its defenders, it is essentially an 'uninspired' piece of literature. All credit to the Free Church for loyalty to its historic treasures, but even more to those brave members who venture on some revisions.
If the Bible allowed only psalms, it certainly would not limit us to a 17th-century Scottish book! These Hebrew songs demand a far greater range of language and metre than was open to our worthy forebears. No tune or chant can do the work for us; where are they in Scripture anyway? And what are non Scots-speakers to do-learn Hebrew? To say we should not sing uninspired hymns is like saying we must not pray uninspired prayers, publish uninspired books, or contribute to EN!
But if we believe that hymns and spiritual songs are not limited to Bible texts, two clear duties remain; point three, double. We must regain our heritage of psalmody, and we must stop singing so much rubbish that we simply hand the case over to those who would limit us to psalms only. Whichever hymnal or file of acetates our church uses, let's make it as weed-free as possible, and make sure it includes a substantial, faithful, intelligible, accessible and varied section of Biblical psalms.
