God’s people are a singing people. Both in the Old and New Testaments, the Lord tells us that His people sang of their joys and sorrows, of their struggles and victories. We, God’s people in the Reformed tradition, sing from the time we are tiny tots until we stoop with old age. Together we sing at home, all through our school lives, at meetings, programs, celebrations, and singspirations. I have even attended funerals where we sang a solemn song or two.

What do we sing? The psalms, of course. God’s people have always done that. We know that the psalms will never be outdated, because they are the voice of the Lord speaking to us, and they vividly express our every experience. We can, I am sure, express, through psalm singing, any thought that is in our hearts, from sadness, penitence, and grief to wonder, thanks, and joy. We have but to read the psalms to know that they are just as truly ours as they were David’s and Asaph’s.

But our Psalter is only a versification of these psalms, with melodies and harmonies added based on the psalms for liturgical use in our worship service, is non-inspired, bound by language and culture. Some logical questions might be: can the Psalter be revised; should it be improved; may it be enlarged; or would it be better to replace it? In the light of the liturgical world, we may want to give our own Psalter a critical look to find out whether we should be doing something about it. We do not want change for the sake of change, or for that nebulous quality called “relevance;” rather, we want to do our best as a covenant, psalm singing people. This, I think, the staff had in mind when they asked me to write this article.

First, then, we will take a look at the melodies in our Psalter. The Reformed singer of average ability and musical background either “likes” or “dislikes” a tune. Often he is vague as to why a certain song is his favorite. It just is. Similarly, he cannot tell you why he wishes his pastor would not choose number 42 so often. Something about that tune… However, his neighbour really enjoys that melody, and sings it lustily. So we see that if our criterion were merely subjective likes or dislikes of melodies and harmonies, we would need as many revisions and improvements as there are people who sing them.

In order to have songs that the congregation of Jesus Christ, made up of people of average musical ability will enjoy singing, and through which they can express their collective prayer or praise to God, there must be objective standards. At the risk of coining a new word, I would call the first one “singability.” The melodies and harmonies should be rather simple, flow in a musically smooth fashion, without strange intervals or difficult timing. Another standard may be call fitness; the words and the melody must fit and complement one another. A third standard could be called “worshipfulness,” the quality that characterizes a song, be it ever so joyful, as fit for the worship of our Almighty God – solemn without being staid, happy without being frivolous.

That is quite an order for our Psalter. Does it meet these standards? And, again, if we would go with this question to our Psalter singing people, we would probably get mostly no for an answer; and there would be as many ideas for improvement as there are people. Obviously, this would not be the proper way to come to the answer.

Instead, we should take a brief look at the history of psalm singing since the Reformation. Shortly after the Reformation in Geneva, John Calvin and his congregation were already singing versifications of psalms, set to some familiar melodies of the day. In 1542, Calvin looked for the best talents he could get; the poet Marot worked on the versifications of many psalms; the composers Bourgoeis nad Goudimel worked on melodies and harmonies. The result was the Genevan Psalter, used for two hundred fifty years (with some changes in each country) in the Reformation churches of Europe. Many of these songs measured up to the standards we mentioned earlier in this article.

Then came the great tide of immigration to America. Our forefathers – mostly from the Netherlands – were face, as they adapted to a new language, with the problems of singing psalms in a new language. They found It hard to translate the words into English and yet fit the tunes of their Dutch musical heritage, many of them Genevan Psalter tunes. It was easier to use the English tunes and lyrics of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries from composers such as Isaac Watts. And they took the easy way. The result is that our English-speaking fathers dropped most of the old music and adopted music mainly from one era of time, the Victorian period.

We may want to criticize them for this. We may accuse them of not being far-sighted. We may object that the early music of the church is not sung by us in our services. We may find some of the music of the church is not sung by us in our services. We may find some of the music in our Psalter (much of it written in threes) to be light and almost “waltzy.” There may be reason for some of our criticism, too. I, for one, dislike the light, waltzing melody for the solemn words, “Dust to dust the mortal dies,” of Psalter #136.

We may want to compare the music of other reformed psalm singing churches. This past summer my husband and I had the delightful experience of worshipping with people of mostly Scotch and English backgrounds. We sang, with them, from the Scottish Psalter, whole tunes date back to an earlier period of church history, and which includes several Genevan Psalter songs; and we found the songs appealing, singable, and worshipful. We found poor melodies, too, rather hard to sing and not very appropriate for the words.

Other Psalters, too, have been published lately, none above some kind of criticism. But our problem remains. Is our Psalter outdated? Should we try for something else?

Before we start looking for a committee, let us look at our local congregations. Three or four generations rise to sing together the familiar melodies that have been taught from father to son; the quavering voice of great-grandfather blends with the proud voice of the three-year-old who has just learned “In Sweet Communion,” Psalter tune 203. We are used to our Psalter. It is a part of us an of our singing heritage, something that grows with us, melodies and versifications which we carry in our hearts day and night. Is it wise to tamper with this? Or would you young people be quick to answer; if our Psalter could be improved let us get on with it and take the best of all Reformed church music and put together one beautiful, improved Psalter.

Let us consider the implications and alternatives.

First, we Protestant Reformed people, also Protestant Reformed young people, are denomination-conscious and denomination-loyal. We must also keep our priorities straight. Are there not far more pressing matters in our churches right now which need our attention and the work of capable, dedicated men and women: covenant education, the work of the ministry, the work of writing down and distributing our distinctive views, mission endeavours and church extension work to which the Lord has opened the doors so wide, and work in our various congregational and denominational organizations?

Second, although we are not opposed to change and progress – in fact, we must progress – we must be very sure that change will be progress, and progress in the right direction. We should consider well the danger of tampering with the musical heritage of the church as we represent it in the Protestant Reformed denomination. Much of the distinctive appeal of our denomination is our strict adherence to our heritage, also our psalm singing heritage. For ourselves, it would be wrong to upset our congregations with unwelcome musical change.

Third, if we would decide to remain conservative and add only solid, Reformed church music as a replacement for some of the unsuitable music of our Psalter, who determines how slight or how broad the revision shall be? How do we determine what is the most suitable music for a given lyric – most suitable to worshippers in the Protestant Reformed denomination, worshippers with an American culture and a rather stiff, conservative, Dutch background?

Fourth, this would have to be done synodically. Synod would have to appoint a capable committee who would be willing to work hard for a long time. Without demeaning the qualifications of the members of our churches (for we have many able people) do we have people that measure up to the following qualifications: a good background in music theory and history; a thorough understanding of the tone of our denominational worship in song; an ear tuned to the desires of our congregations; a good measure of practical common sense; a stamina for a long, hard task; and, practically, the geographical nearness in our large country to work together?

In conclusion, one thing more. Changes and revisions must be made when the time is right. When is that? When the people, the psalm singers, see the need, and start to ask the leaders to help them. A change imposed from the top down is seldom well-received. Is there need for a change? Have we heard a clamor for it? Is the Psalter outdated? Not yet, I think.