(Reprinted from NTJ, April 1997)
From: Glenn Morangie
To: T. Glen Livet
Date: 9/23/96 5:03pm
Subject: Re: Psalmody -Reply -Reply -Reply -Reply
Glen,
I have been so long in responding because they actually want me to do work here. Go figure.
I also couldn’t help but revel in your remark that I was “right on target.” Letting that go on the superhighway for two or so weeks was about as much delight as I have had in a long time. Yes, I do lead a sheltered life.
Finally, you didn’t write anything with which I disagree. I believe we have come to about as good a resolution as possible — which is, I think, 1) that the case for exclusive psalmody is not tight, 2) that the direction of redemptive history indicates that other songs reflecting later acts of God are worthwhile, if not necessary, 3) but that the theological insights which informed the case for psalms are pretty good, and 4) that our tradition was appropriately suspicious of hymns.
If you can live with that I’ll still be your friend. Though that friendship part may be hard to swallow. I hope Rikki goes easy on you. But if not, you can always pull out your gun.
Hugs and kisses,
Glenn
_________
From: T. Glen Livet
To: Glenn Morangie
Date: 9/24/96 8:12am
Subject: Re: Psalmody -Reply -Reply -Reply -Reply
Glenn,
We could even add a fifth principle. Parts of our tradition were suspicious, not only of hymns, but of music per se. Obviously Zwingli was, and Calvin was also (to a lesser degree), fearing that the merely sensual delight in music would detract from the duty of praise. If he was right, then, even some psalms, if set to unusually fine melodies, would be problematic, as Calvin himself said. Boy, life sure is difficult in the fallen world.
Yours,
Glen
_________
From: Glenn Morangie
To: T. Glen Livet
Date: 9/25/96 1:18pm
Subject: Re: Psalmody -Reply -Reply -Reply -Reply -Reply
Glen,
You shall have the last word. Now that is especially difficult in a fallen world.
Glenn
Old Life 
A genuine last word to this discussion including the previous installments would have to acknowledge that:
1. If the psalms indicate or reflect the direction of redemptive history and arguably they do, they also happen to be inspired and consequently any hymns that would continue the pattern would also have to be inspired. But God did not see fit to give us an inspired hymnal in the NT. Hmmm.
Where are we going to go with this? In the direction of Poythress who mistakenly affirmed that Christ sung hymns other than the psalms or something like that and therefore the believer in Christ can sing as well as write uninspired hymns? We think not. The connections are awful sketchy.
2. That the believer is in Christ though, does answer the combox objection in the previous installment as to how one can sing about the leaping over walls of Ps. 18.
3. An appeal to the Book of Revelation proves too much. Rome and Canterbury would consequently consider any P&R objections to their worship to be categorically conceded. Again we think not.
4. Augustine himself cautioned the church regarding music. But abuse is not per se an argument against use.
5. Neither was the Assembly or its Standards erastian. The Parliament was, as were some of the divines, but not the whole. As what that had to do with the argument, I don’t know, but it seems to indicate some real confusion, although it was finally admitted that the Assembly affirmed psalmody. Yes, the Scots had a clarifying statement re. the intrinsic power of the church to call synods in the Confession, but the Form of Presbyterial Church Govt. makes it clear who is the head of the church explicitly from the start without any implicit compromises later.
Thanks for running the entire exchange on the subject.
LikeLike
At this point, I’d be more than happy with a resolution that does not involve jettisoning the psalter altogether in favor of the Trinity Hymnal.
LikeLike