MacCullough's new lecture series on the Elizabethan settlement and beyond has begun: and what a privilege!
The first lecture in the series underscored how Protestant the settlement of 1560 was: that Elizabeth was no crypto-Catholic minimalist. What was achieved was a genuinely Protestant Reformation - if not quite as radical as some wished.
But the interesting insight that DM offered towards the end was that the English experience of church under the new regime was enlivened by the vigorous singing of the Genevan metrical Psalms! He said this:
'the metrical Psalm WAS English Protestantism'.
9 comments:
Michael, thanks for mentioning this. Yes the metrical psalm was English Protestantism and it's wonderful to hear DM admitting it!
What I find a tad sad is that we're no longer devoted to singing Psalms metrical or not, when the two NT verses on churchly singing explicitly command it (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16).
Perhaps singing more Psalms would help counteract the over emphasis on immanence in modern Christianity?
hmm, dunno. MacCullough's point was that it was FUN. People were really enthusiastic about it.
Would that still be the case?
That sounds amazing, I am assuming this is Diarmid you are speaking of? If so, I absoluetly loved his book on Cranmer, brought the whole thing to life for me, couldnt put it down, majestic stuff!
MacCullough said the same thing about the metrical psalms in House Divided, but he also mentioned how they spread to the continent and really helped not only define protestanism, they also increased general biblical literacy.
Michael,
Yes, people were really enthusiastic about metrical psalmnody. However, there was a theology of Psalm singing behind it, that was propagated by Calvin. He basically introduced the practice. And for a reason: the Psalms were the pinnacle of Christian singing, and should have a special place. If we add to this the so-called Puritan notion of the "regulative principle of worship" then Psalm singing increases in theological importance. Singing the psalms metrically had the benefit of making them accessible to all (unlike the Anglican psalm chant of the 17th century). Hence, many new the whole 150 off-by-heart. What a wonderful devotional resource.
There is a transcendance in the Psalms that is painfully missing in modern choruses.
God bless.
ps: Diarmaid's surname is MacCulloch (not MacCullogh).
I know:the spelling of his name is quite a complex little thing.
I personally wouldn't add in the regulative principle! I am with Hooker on this - as I believe Anglicans should be.
But what ARE the metrical Psalms then? I was hoping it wasn't the 17th century chant thing...
There is a growing fad amongst Oak Hillites to reinstate the chant, but as you say it seems quite alienating to outsiders. ANd dull.
Sounds great. I really enjoyed MacCulloch's Reformation: Europe's House Divided.
I don't know about all that Anglican chanty stuff, but All people that on earth do dwell by William Kethe, sang to the tune Old Hundreth, from the French-Genevan Psalter is a good example of a metrical psalm.
It's a shame that hymn (and chorus!) singing seems to have squeezed out psalm singing these days. But some modern hymnbooks have a good number of metrical psalms or at least hymns "based upon" psalms. The first 150 items in Praise! are psalms. Admittedly, some of these are better than others. The new edition Christian Hymns has over 100 metrical psalms or hymns based on psalms. Timothy Dudley-Smith has reworked some of the psalms beautifully.
When leading Sunday worship, I always try to have at least one psalm sung by the congregation.
By the way, Hooker was wrong. The regulative principle rules OK!
The metrical psalms are psalms rewritten to rhyme easily. Some of the classics from the Elizabethan Psalter (Sternhold and Hopkins) have hung around like Psalm 23 ("The Lord's My Shepherd") and Psalm 100 ("All creatures of our God and king").
I wasn't advocating the RPW (whatever one interprets it to mean?!) but arguing (historically not theologically) why psalmnody took off as it did in the Elizabethan era and beyond.
Having imbibed Hooker in my MTh thesis, I'm all for his ideas on the gathering contra Cartwright. Is he regulative for Anglicans? Nah. He's just one (very important) theologian in the Anglican galaxy, not a part of our official confessions.
Yeah, the Oak Hill guys (I guess) are into Psalm chanting following James Jordan and his desire to sing the Psalms with more biblical precision.
Blessings bro.
The best modern songs are often based heavily on Psalms anyway...
Post a Comment