Dear Sirs:
Now that the subject of music has been broached in your magazine, allow me to say a word or two about it also. I don’t pretend to be any kind of an expert in music, but I do like to make a few comments regarding the latest edition of the Psalter Hymnal. In many ways it is an improvement over the old edition. Some beautiful new hymns have been added, and the “Statement of Principles” found at the beginning of the Psalter is also worthy of note.
However, there are occasions when I wonder what motivations guided the committee in charge of the new edition for including certain new hymns and excluding others. For example, two beautiful, Scriptural hymns that were added in the new edition are: “Great Is Thy Faithfulness,” and “I Know Not Why God’s Wondrous Grace.” I have often wondered why another hymn of the same caliber was not added, viz., “How Great Thou Art.” The words of this hymn are eminently Scriptural, and the tune majestic also, as far as I can see. Of course, one could say: You can’t include everything. A limit has to be set somewhere. That is true enough, but I can think of several hymns that I would rather have seen replaced by “How Great Thou Art.” One such hymn is lake Time to Be Holy.” Though a favorite of many people, this hymn certainly leaves something to be desired as to its Reformed character. Its words have much more affinity with a subjectivistic pietism than a robust Calvinism. It sounds more like Thomas a Kempis than Martin Luther. A Christian does not divide his life into certain periods of holiness and others of “unholiness” or secularity. He doesn’t take time to be holy, he is holy in all that he does, or at least ought to be. Nor ought the Christian to withdraw himself from the secular world which “rushes on” in order to “spend much time in secret” with his Lord—“a place where sin cannot molest,” according to another hymn. This smacks very much of a sickly “escapist” notion of Christianity, which surely is not biblical or Reformed. And the words as well as the music of our hymns ought to be “expressive of our Reformed tradition,” as one of the implications of the Statement of Principles has it. Moreover, we are not here only to become “fitted for service above.” We are here to serve our Master on this earth, in this present world.
Another hymn about which I have my reservations is No. 391, “Breathe On Me, Breath of God.” In my opinion, this is hardly biblical language in speaking of the Holy Spirit. We always insist in the fact that the Holy Spirit is a person, not just a power or influence. This song seems to suggest the latter. It’s true that the biblical word for spirit (ruach) means breath or wind. But I don’t believe the Bible, when speaking of the Holy Spirit, uses the designation “Breath of God.” This can very easily give the wrong impression, and in my opinion ought to be avoided.
In that same category is No. 481, “O Perfect Love.” Referring to God or Jesus, that certainly is a less than felicitous expression. It is true that God is love, but that’s something else than saying that Love is God.
To come back to the exclusions, I don’t quite understand why such songs as “Most Perfect Is The Law Of God” (No. 33 in old Psalter), and “There Is a Fountain Filled With Blood” (382 in old Psalter), were not included in the new edition. They are much better songs than those mentioned above, as I see it.
Finally, I sometimes become a bit frustrated at the replacement of a rather familiar tune with a very difficult one. A good example is the song, “Springs And Streams No Longer Bless” (No. 216 in new, 229 in old). I always had a particular liking for the old tune, and it was not too difficult to sing, while the new tune is almost “unsingable.” This may not make a lot of difference in a large congregation with an expert organist, but in a small church it makes the difference between singing a little and not singing at all. There are other examples of such songs, but this will suffice.
Sincerely,
REV. J. TUININGA
Now that the subject of music has been broached in your magazine, allow me to say a word or two about it also. I don’t pretend to be any kind of an expert in music, but I do like to make a few comments regarding the latest edition of the Psalter Hymnal. In many ways it is an improvement over the old edition. Some beautiful new hymns have been added, and the “Statement of Principles” found at the beginning of the Psalter is also worthy of note.
However, there are occasions when I wonder what motivations guided the committee in charge of the new edition for including certain new hymns and excluding others. For example, two beautiful, Scriptural hymns that were added in the new edition are: “Great Is Thy Faithfulness,” and “I Know Not Why God’s Wondrous Grace.” I have often wondered why another hymn of the same caliber was not added, viz., “How Great Thou Art.” The words of this hymn are eminently Scriptural, and the tune majestic also, as far as I can see. Of course, one could say: You can’t include everything. A limit has to be set somewhere. That is true enough, but I can think of several hymns that I would rather have seen replaced by “How Great Thou Art.” One such hymn is lake Time to Be Holy.” Though a favorite of many people, this hymn certainly leaves something to be desired as to its Reformed character. Its words have much more affinity with a subjectivistic pietism than a robust Calvinism. It sounds more like Thomas a Kempis than Martin Luther. A Christian does not divide his life into certain periods of holiness and others of “unholiness” or secularity. He doesn’t take time to be holy, he is holy in all that he does, or at least ought to be. Nor ought the Christian to withdraw himself from the secular world which “rushes on” in order to “spend much time in secret” with his Lord—“a place where sin cannot molest,” according to another hymn. This smacks very much of a sickly “escapist” notion of Christianity, which surely is not biblical or Reformed. And the words as well as the music of our hymns ought to be “expressive of our Reformed tradition,” as one of the implications of the Statement of Principles has it. Moreover, we are not here only to become “fitted for service above.” We are here to serve our Master on this earth, in this present world.
Another hymn about which I have my reservations is No. 391, “Breathe On Me, Breath of God.” In my opinion, this is hardly biblical language in speaking of the Holy Spirit. We always insist in the fact that the Holy Spirit is a person, not just a power or influence. This song seems to suggest the latter. It’s true that the biblical word for spirit (ruach) means breath or wind. But I don’t believe the Bible, when speaking of the Holy Spirit, uses the designation “Breath of God.” This can very easily give the wrong impression, and in my opinion ought to be avoided.
In that same category is No. 481, “O Perfect Love.” Referring to God or Jesus, that certainly is a less than felicitous expression. It is true that God is love, but that’s something else than saying that Love is God.
To come back to the exclusions, I don’t quite understand why such songs as “Most Perfect Is The Law Of God” (No. 33 in old Psalter), and “There Is a Fountain Filled With Blood” (382 in old Psalter), were not included in the new edition. They are much better songs than those mentioned above, as I see it.
Finally, I sometimes become a bit frustrated at the replacement of a rather familiar tune with a very difficult one. A good example is the song, “Springs And Streams No Longer Bless” (No. 216 in new, 229 in old). I always had a particular liking for the old tune, and it was not too difficult to sing, while the new tune is almost “unsingable.” This may not make a lot of difference in a large congregation with an expert organist, but in a small church it makes the difference between singing a little and not singing at all. There are other examples of such songs, but this will suffice.
Sincerely,
REV. J. TUININGA