Can we recite Psalms responsively?

Status
Not open for further replies.
brendanchatt

brendanchatt

Puritan Board Freshman
I think this could go in church order or worship, lmk. This thread was spawned from this post https://puritanboard.com/threads/who-may-read-the-scriptures-in-public-worship.95036/#post-1160127
and discussion following between myself, Edward, and Chris (The Old Course).

-----

I don't participate in responsive readings at church. I don't think I should be reading the scriptures, especially not in unison.

I sing the Psalms in church. You can abstract the components of singing and make little of the tune. I disagree with this.

Your thoughts...
 
"...speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord..."
 
brendanchatt said:
I think this could go in church order or worship, lmk. This thread was spawned from this post https://puritanboard.com/threads/who-may-read-the-scriptures-in-public-worship.95036/#post-1160127
and discussion following between myself, Edward, and Chris (The Old Course).

-----

I don't participate in responsive readings at church. I don't think I should be reading the scriptures, especially not in unison.

I sing the Psalms in church. You can abstract the components of singing and make little of the tune. I disagree with this.

Your thoughts...
Click to expand...


“Q. 156. Is the Word of God to be read by all?
A. Although all are not to be permitted to read the Word publicly to the congregation, yet all sorts of people are bound to read it apart by themselves, and with their families: to which end, the holy Scriptures are to be translated out of the original into vulgar languages.

Deut. 31:9, 11-13; Neh. 8:2-3; Neh. 9:3-5; Deut. 17:19; Rev. 1:3; John 5:39; Isa. 34:16; Deut. 6:6-9; Gen. 18:17, 19; Ps. 78:5-7; 1 Cor. 14:6, 9, 11-12, 15-16, 24, 27-28.” (Westminster Larger Catechism)

Regardless of ones private understanding, I think the argument from the Catechism is clear enough. “Read....to the congregation” would also imply passages read in unison.
 
Responsive readings were intentionally omitted from the Westminster Directory for public worship (I think MW somewhere confirmed this in an old thread) and only is in some Presbyterian churches now because of the liturgical movement of the 19th century where a few worked hard from personal bias to change the old worship forms of Presbyterianism. Readings in unison were not addressed as far as I know directly by the WA other than the clear indication the Word was only to be read by the minister or one intending the ministry. The drift away from that has happened over a century and a half. But if we would stick to that it would at least negate the opening some PCA churches have to have women do the readings and a lectionary in public worship, until the PCA embraces women officers I guess.
 
So and I hope I'm reflecting Brendan's OP, but the question is, may we read the Psalms responsively? After all, we are to sing them. Brendan made a difference between singing them and reading them aloud as a congregation. Thoughts on this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
timfost said:
"...speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord..."
Click to expand...

As attested by virtually all Reformed commentaries that I've read, that word "speaking" merely refers to giving utterance to words with the voice rather than the particular manner of doing so. The content of that speaking so described, the second clause about making melody, and the parallel passage in Colossians all make it clear that singing is in mind and so the vast majority of Reformed commentators take it. Here's an example from James Fergusson:

upload_2018-2-25_14-35-56.png

Non Reformed authors will sometimes take it as a description of antiphonal singing and some authors will take it as describing godly conference but translate the passage such that "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" describe the content of the "singing and making melody" clause rather than the "speaking" one. I've yet to come across one who claims that it describes the congregational reading of Psalms or other passages.
 
TheOldCourse said:
As attested by virtually all Reformed commentaries that I've read, that word "speaking" merely refers to giving utterance to words with the voice rather than the particular manner of doing so. The content of that speaking so described, the second clause about making melody, and the parallel passage in Colossians all make it clear that singing is in mind and so the vast majority of Reformed commentators take it. Here's an example from James Fergusson:

View attachment 5482

Non Reformed authors will sometimes take it as a description of antiphonal singing and some authors will take it as describing godly conference but translate the passage such that "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" describe the content of the "singing and making melody" clause rather than the "speaking" one. I've yet to come across one who claims that it describes the congregational reading of Psalms or other passages.
Click to expand...

We cannot corporately praise God with Psalms without a man-made melody?
 
timfost said:
We cannot corporately praise God with Psalms without a man-made melody?
Click to expand...

Correct, we may not praise God in any manner which is not commanded by him in his Word. From the very passage you quote our singing ought to be melodious. The congregation ought not to participate in the reading of the Word (a ministerial act), nor should the congregation be prevented from participating in the singing of melodious praise, as with a choir or musical interlude. They are two different elements and regulated differently.

Do you deny the confessional distinction between the reading of the Scriptures with godly fear and the singing of Psalms with grace in the heart as elements of worship?
 
Just as an aside for further consideration .... our pastor preaching on Ephesians, mentioned in passing that Ephesians 5:19, in reference to psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, uses not only αδοντες (singing) but the verse begins in English translation with (ESV) Addressing (KJV) Speaking (λαλουντες). The root of which, λαλεω, translates to 'make sounds, talk or speak.'
 
Last edited:
"Then Moses and the children of Israel sang this song to the Lord, and spoke..." (Ex. 15:1a)

Is spoken praise anything new?
 
timfost said:
"Then Moses and the children of Israel sang this song to the Lord, and spoke..." (Ex. 15:1a)

Is spoken praise anything new?
Click to expand...

You've now listed two verses where the same act is described as both speaking and singing. What is your argument? Is it that there's no distinction between reading aloud and singing? That when Jesus read the Torah in the synagogue He may have been singing? Or when the Levitical singers sang the Psalms alongside various instruments they may have been merely reading?

To support what I can surmise of your position, the passage must be describing two separate and distinct acts of praise, both of which are commended, otherwise you would have to argue that the reading of the Word is also singing which, as far as I can tell, you are not doing. Instead you seem to be arguing that we can either sing or read aloud our praise congregationally which admits of a distinction. If there is a distinction, then we cannot reason directly from the use of one to the other. Instead we must seek out what is appropriate to each act severally.

Speech is a broad category of uttering articulate sounds. Singing is a subset of speech wherein those sounds are melodious. Accordingly, both verses are easy to understand and pose no challenge for my position, and which I believe to be the position of the confessional standards of my church and this board. I would be happy to be challenged on that basis if that's your contention.
 
Andrew P.C. said:
I’m not sure what you are trying to convey with this post.

But maybe I can clarify in saying that the WLCs argument to NOT read responsive readings, is including in the phrase I quoted from the Catechism.
Click to expand...

I thought you meant the opposite. I think I understand and agree with you. Thank you for clarifying.
 
Last edited:
TheOldCourse said:
What is your argument?
Click to expand...

Chris,

My only point is that praise takes different corporate forms. Sometimes Psalms, sometimes hymns, sometimes spiritual songs, sometimes sung or spoken (I know that many in this thread would disagree with these distinctions). The Psalms (our subject matter in this thread), as we all agree, are appropriate for corporate praise.

I'm going to bail on this conversation since I don't want to derail into something beyond the OP. I think the differences that we may have over EP contribute to our disagreement here.

Blessings, brother!
 
timfost said:
Chris,

My only point is that praise takes different corporate forms. Sometimes Psalms, sometimes hymns, sometimes spiritual songs, sometimes sung or spoken (I know that many in this thread would disagree with these distinctions). The Psalms (our subject matter in this thread), as we all agree, are appropriate for corporate praise.

I'm going to bail on this conversation since I don't want to derail into something beyond the OP. I think the differences that we may have over EP contribute to our disagreement here.

Blessings, brother!
Click to expand...

I thank you for your engagement and always enjoy it even though we don't see eye-to-eye on these matters. I was attempting to leave EP out of it , but I agree, it may color the discussion somewhat regardless. Blessings to you as well!
 
I agree with Chris's posts about "speaking." In Eph. 5, it looks like emphasis to me. Of course, singing includes saying words, or speaking.

In my mind, having satisfied that objection, it seems like responsive reading is not scriptural.
 
Jeri Tanner said:
I would like to hear a thoughtful discussion on this.
Click to expand...

Singing is comprised of words and music. Both are important. In Ephesians, "speaking" reminds us that we are communicating distinctly. "Singing and making melody" reminds us to engage our fervor. Whether or not this was a problem with the Ephesians, Paul's words help us to avoid singing with a ridiculous amount of melody per word or void of all emotion.

Your thoughts...
 
NaphtaliPress said:
Responsive readings were intentionally omitted from the Westminster Directory for public worship (I think MW somewhere confirmed this in an old thread) and only is in some Presbyterian churches now because of the liturgical movement of the 19th century where a few worked hard from personal bias to change the old worship forms of Presbyterianism. Readings in unison were not addressed as far as I know directly by the WA other than the clear indication the Word was only to be read by the minister or one intending the ministry. The drift away from that has happened over a century and a half. But if we would stick to that it would at least negate the opening some PCA churches have to have women do the readings and a lectionary in public worship, until the PCA embraces women officers I guess.
Click to expand...

Very informative, thanks.

If women can read scripture with everyone, why can't they do it alone? Baby steps...
 
brendanchatt said:
Singing is comprised of words and music. Both are important. In Ephesians, "speaking" reminds us that we are communicating distinctly. "Singing and making melody" reminds us to engage our fervor. Whether or not this was a problem with the Ephesians, Paul's words help us to avoid singing with a ridiculous amount of melody per word or void of all emotion.

Your thoughts...
Click to expand...
Yes, I was hoping for discussion on what you said in the OP, "You can abstract the components of singing and make little of the tune," by which I think you meant that the difference between speaking and singing, as concerns the RPW, is often overlooked. My point was that we're all to sing the Psalms together but we're not all to read them aloud in together. It's just interesting how important the singing aspect is.
 
brendanchatt said:
I agree with Chris's posts about "speaking." In Eph. 5, it looks like emphasis to me. Of course, singing includes saying words, or speaking.

In my mind, having satisfied that objection, it seems like responsive reading is not scriptural.
Click to expand...
I don't see why the Apostle would have made the distinction, speaking/singing, if there is no distinction meant.
 
timfost said:
As an aside, the phrase that describes your statement above is melismatic music. This was one of the things the RCC addressed in the Council of Trent since music had become so complex.

:)
Click to expand...

Thank you for noting both musical and historical points. I was unaware or had forgotten of the latter. I was a music composition major in college, though I'm a software developer now.
 
I had never heard Eph. 5:19 used as a defense of responsive readings by making such a distinct activity between "speaking" and "singing." It seems pretty clear from the way the Bible describes singing throughout its pages that "speaking" in coordination with "singing" is the ordinary way it expresses that something is sung or to be sung. Apparently though, it is a common argument: https://reformedbooksonline.com/topics/topics-by-subject/worship/responsive-readings/

Even if "speaking" was as those who are using it say it should be, at best, it would not defend responsive readings anymore than it would defend responsive singing: the psalms (and the hymns of mere human compsure; if one takes that interpretation, it is commanded that we include hymns of mere human composure in our unison or responsive readings) would need to be recited in unison.
 
Last edited:
With all due respect brother, this reminds me of Bill Clinton's saying 'it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.'
So Paul is speaking in synonyms when he refers to Speaking/singing, and 'Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs' ? Seems redundant for a man who was so precise in his speech.
 
JimmyH said:
With all due respect brother, this reminds me of Bill Clinton's saying 'it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.'
So Paul is speaking in synonyms when he refers to Speaking/singing, and 'Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs' ? Seems redundant for a man who was so precise in his speech.
Click to expand...

Can this logic be used to say we are commanded to both sing and speak Psalms in worship? If so are we to speak and sing Psalms every service? I ask because our confession says specifically

V..... singing of psalms with grace in the heart.....
 
earl40 said:
Can this logic be used to say we are commanded to both sing and speak Psalms in worship? If so are we to speak and sing Psalms every service? I ask because our confession says specifically

V..... singing of psalms with grace in the heart.....
Click to expand...
I don't pretend to know the answer to that question. My post is not to defend the practice of responsive reading, merely to hear/read a plausible explanation as to the Apostle's writing speaking/singing and psalms, hymns and spiritual songs if he didn't intend to characterize each as standing alone by definition.
The congregation I attend does do a responsive reading of a psalm in the evening service, as well as reciting the Apostle's or Nicene Creed. As far as I know all but a very few North American OPC congregations sing both hymns and psalms.
I don't defend that as opposed to EP, but I do wonder if all of those that use the Trinity Hymnal are in error ?
I intend to bring the issue of responsive reading of the psalm before our session so they can examine the issue. Whatever they decide I will abide by. I personally don't feel comfortable remaining in a congregation if I cannot participate in their worship service out of principle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top