Not a Step Backward

Regarding “A Step Backward” (Comment, Dec. issue), I admire the writer’s concern for the church’s purity; but the statement that the new psalter will inevitably be “only detrimental” seems a bit strong. Personally, I too like the older style of language: I think it is fluid and beautiful. However, I am trying to teach myself that it is not a question of what I like, nor should I compare how close the blue psalter is to the red one. I should instead compare each against Scripture.

In the writer’s example of Psalm 71C, I believe the blue gets it closer, at least in the comparative study I did. The red took more liberty in trying to be poetic. Though certainly not perfect, in most cases I think that the blue tries to follow the words of Scripture more carefully. That can only be a good thing.

—Logan West (Stillwater, Okla.)

§ § §

I am writing in response to “A Step Backward” (comment, Dec. issue). I studied biblical Hebrew at a graduate level for 10 years. Some years ago I went through the old psalter and marked anything I thought was an addition, omission, or change from the Hebrew text. I am now beginning to do the same with the new psalter.

My summation of my findings would be that both psalters have good and bad translations. My feeling would be that they probably have similar numbers of really well and really poorly translated psalms, with most falling somewhere in the middle. Thus far, my opinion is that about a third of the psalm selections are acceptable translations. Another third are ones that I am not crazy about as translations, but that I think will do. Of the remaining third, two-thirds are quite good and the remaining ninth are ones I personally think are poor and would prefer not to sing.

In all this, there is a lot of subjectivity. Something that I think is a significant change may not appear so to another. I am very glad that this topic is being addressed. I think it is important for us to realize that no psalter is going to be an ideal translation. I would encourage a discussion of what sorts of changes are acceptable and which ones we feel really alter the Word of God.

—Roberta Van Vlack (Mansfield, Mass.)

§ § §

In response to Ms. Williams’s letter in the December issue: I would caution against too quickly rejecting the new psalter for its faults. One can easily find difficult tunes or unfortunate phrasings in any songbook; veteran Covenanters no doubt have fond memories of “hard-earned cash,” “discomfiture complete,” and “choice and hearty meats.” Indeed, RP congregations have been dogging their way through (or ignoring) 34E, 62B, and the chants for decades now.

I would urge against any wholesale rejection of the new psalter simply for the unfamiliarity that makes all tunes hard and all words strange, or a generalization of inferiorities in a few selections to the entire effort of the Psalter Revision Committee. As with all questions, the whole matter needs to be carefully examined before making judgment.

Most worthy of attention, in my view, is the disturbing addition or deletion of scriptural text in 24B, 150C & D, and all three settings of Psalm 136. This quite regrettably causes congregations desiring to use them in worship to face a distinct moral dilemma: whether or not they are willing to sing for a few lines the words of men rather than God, or, more briefly, whether they are truly committed to exclusive psalmody.

—Timothy C. Merkel (Ellicott City, Md.)

§ § §

I am enjoying the new Book of Psalms for Worship and am happy to “make the change” (October issue). We have an improved variety of good tunes that are pitched lower for better congregational singing. More importantly, it seems that the Psalter Revision Committee has done a more accurate job of translating from Scripture, as well as using words that are more understandable overall.…

I [also] know a couple of linguists who say the new psalter is much improved in terms of translating into the vernacular of the people. Words themselves do not have higher or lower value; their meanings do. I am puzzled when the 1973 Book of Psalms for Singing appears to be treated as the standard by which others should be judged. Do we forget that it was once new? With this line of reasoning (that older is better), it seems we should be singing in the Hebrew language. (The WCF 1:8, however, instructs us to translate.)

We adapted in 1973 to a new psalter, and several times before that—new words every time. For some, I think the struggle comes down to having to learn those new words. It’s like learning a verse in a different translation, after you’ve spent years saying it in another one. Tough, but not impossible. Sometimes new words actually help me focus more on what I’m saying or singing, rather than repeating familiar words by rote. I want to thank the psalter committee for their long hours and hard work, and I encourage all of us to enjoy singing God’s praises!

—Cheryl Hemphill (Laramie, Wyo.)

The Country That Cradled Us Perhaps, like old soldiers, old preachers “never die, but only fade away.” Beverly Simpson’s listing of the many countries of origin of RPTS students and her ommission of the land which, in the words of Sir Walter Scott, is also “my own, my native land,” prompts me to emerge from my fading away and press for the inclusion of that nation most central to the origins of the Reformed Presbyterian movement. This is, of course, none other than “bonnie” Scotland, the cradle of Reformed Presbyterianism, where this 1973 grad of RPTS was born and brought up so long ago!

–Gordon J. Keddie, senior pastor (Southside Indianapolis, Ind., RPC)