Huge amounts of effort have gone into establishing indigenous churches among the Kurds in the last quarter-century, but there has been relatively little effort made to help these fledgling believers sing the Psalms.
Remember, friends, that the first book ever published on American soil was the Bay Psalm Book (1640; Cambridge, Massachusetts). What does this tell us about the high value those first settlers placed on the actual singing of the Scriptures?
In an earlier period of church history, churches sang mainly Psalms, together with some Canticles (other Scripture set to music). Hymns not directly taken from the Bible were viewed with suspicion.*
Skip on to the 21st Century and the pendulum has swung to the other extreme; we sing mainly hymns and choruses, and churches that do sing the Psalms are few and far between.
My purpose here is not to be divisive and neither am I promoting exclusive Psalmody, which I simply don't find persuasive. I just want us to, firstly, start with that historical perspective to shake up our thinking a little, and then to consider why it is worth singing the Psalms together.
1. The Psalms are songs. Whilst they are Scripture and the public reading of Scripture is commanded, we should be prepared to reevaluate the tradition of reading the Psalms but neglecting to sing them. I have often heard worship-leaders read out a Psalm (praise God) and then respond by leading into the more emotional engagement of a song. I wonder why the Psalms themselves aren't used as songs with which to engage the emotions with their huge range of feelings.
2. Reformed churches are often accused of being afraid of emotion. We are scorned as being the 'frozen chosen'; or 'sound, but sound asleep'. Perhaps there is more than a little truth in those criticisms. To dedicate five minutes of our service to sending our emotions through the divine furnace of Psalm-singing would be a good thing. Our joys would be less worldly (Ps 4), our doubts would be allowed to find expression (see Ps 73) and our anger made more righteous and less self-pitying (Ps 94:1-7).
3. When we sing the songs of the Bible, everyone preaches. Thus we experience liturgically more of the truth we usually assent to, that of 'every-member ministry'. This is in line with 1 Thess 5:11- "encourage one another and build eachother up"
4. Churches that sing the Psalms fulfil better the calling to ‘teach one another’ in song. Of course, many of the better hymns do this: ‘How firm a foundation, you saints of the Lord’- that’s not addressed to God but to one another. But hymn/song-only churches do not, in my experience, teach in their singing the varied diet of history, ethics, science, agriculture (and international relations- Psalm 2:1-2!) that Psalm-singing churches do. I can personally testify to how Psalm 65 has helped me appreciate and encourage in small ways (eg composting) good stewardship of the land, even while– and wait for this if you want to see how profound and well-proportioned the Psalter is – keeping me to an eschatological perspective and an overarching emphasis on the forgiveness of sins as my central message in life.
5. Singing lodges truth in our minds in a way that reading does not. See Deut 31:21: this song of Moses "will live unforgotten in the mouths of their offspring"
When I originally wrote this article, the context was one in which there was widespread agreement that the Psalms should have a central place in our worship – more than their proportional share of the biblical canon. But there were some brothers I noticed that would opt for congregational readings, and here I will try to gently argue for a policy of 'sing them if you can; get an individual to read if you don't have the capability to sing them':
Some Observations About Congregational Reading of the Psalms
This, I will admit, is not such a vital point as the one just elucidated above, but in a context where we want to reflect on what will be helpful when Kurdish gatherings copy our traditions, a brief evaluation could be helpful.
Interestingly, there is no Scriptural precedent for congregational reading of Scripture. Not to say it is wrong, but the fact that it is never commended or modeled makes me cautious about its practice. This is, I think, because Scripture-reading needs preparation if it is to be done well. Congregational reading of a passage or a Psalm is, by the nature of things, done without prior preparation. There is a lowest common denominator feel; we all trudge along at the pace of the slowest and least emotionally engaged reader. (In a Kurdish setting, congregational reading would often be awkward; many simply cannot keep up with a corporate reading and we should be careful not to assume that women from the villages or Arabic-educated people will be even vaguely competent readers in Kurdish)
1. Therefore, songs of joy become mere recitations. Verses with outbursts of anger (Oh that you would slay the wicked, O God! Ps 139:19) cannot be given the sudden change of speed and tone that they deserve. (This here is not an argument for singing only; note that a well-prepared reading of Psalm 139 by one voice would allow those changes of pitch and pace)
2. There is, I concede, evidence of congregational engagement in Scripture.
"Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting!” Then all the people said, “Amen!” and praised the Lord." 1 Chronicles 16:36 (emphasis mine)
But notice that the people are responding in brief, with some enthusiasm it seems, to a Psalm introduced by trained people [a company that we could perhaps market today as Asaph & Bros ;-)]
3. To nuance my suggestion above a bit, I am in favour of participatory reading, especially with passages from the epistles. Or any passage which states something and then naturally invites the congregation to 'count themselves in' by reading a section of it, for example in bold on the service sheet. Here there is good Scriptural precedent:
Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” Exodus 24:7
But we could highlight the end goal in this way by quoting Paul: let’s pray that the word of Christ would dwell richly in us as we sing Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs to one another.
*Isaac Watts faced strong opposition for 'tampering with the Psalms' for that reason. It's extraordinary to think that his hymns, which are on the whole such good Christian readings of the Psalms, were opposed back then. Someone who wants to reply with a nuanced appraisal of my introduction is welcome to do so. I don't have time to google around and find out to what extent the early church 'sang only Scripture'.
** I sense that the argument above is being more widely received these days. Note, the excellent Sing Psalms book (and free app), which I have endeavoured to make more useful to mainstream contemporary churches: www.tinyURL.com/easypsalmtunes
Praise! included all 150 Psalms in the first section of their hymnbook.
Jamie Soles has now finished writing modern tunes to a metrical Psalter used I think by the Reformed Church in Canada. See the firstfruits of that in his Highways to Zion album. Update: see his YouTube & Substack.
Matt Searles has put out albums using familiar hymn tunes to sing metrical Psalms, as well as custom-composed tunes.
The Gettys are promoting Psalm-singing, though their output apparently will be more along the lines of songs inspired by the Psalms, or digests of certain Psalms.
No comments:
Post a Comment