Above:  Some of my Bibles, November 6, 2018

Photographer = Kenneth Randolph Taylor

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Reverend Timothy Matthew Slemmons, writing in Year D (2012), noted that the Revised Common Lectionary (1992), with its three-year cycle and two tracks between Pentecost and Christ the King Sunday, covers about one-quarter of the (Protestant) Bible.  He also noted that a seven-year cycle would be necessary for nearly complete coverage.

Why not have a seven-year cycle, at least?  There are, for many, theological issues with the Deuterocanon, of course.  A hypothetical lectionary committee might get around this difficulty by scheduling Hebrew canonical readings as alternatives to Deuterocanonical lections.

But why not an eight-year cycle?  Here are some details:

1. Read the entirety of all the canonical Gospels–Matthew (Years A and E), Mark (Years B and F), Luke (Years C and G), and John (Years D and H).
2. Read every word of the Acts of the Apostles and all the epistles, including those that are epistles in name only.  (I mean you, Hebrews.)
3. Read all of the Book of Psalms, including the passages that make many people cringe, such as the end of Psalm 137, with fantasies of dashing the heads of enemies’ children against stones.
4. Take the deep dive into the Hebrew prophets.
5. Read the epic stories of the Hebrew Bible.
6. Give the Wisdom literature its due.
7. Yes, read Revelation, the Apocalypse of John.
8. Provide just one track all year, every year.
9. Do not refrain from reading any of the “texts of terror.”

The Revised Common Lectionary, for all its virtues, does avoid many difficult passages.  I notice this, for I teach a lectionary class in my parish during the Sunday School time.  I have a Bible open in front of me as I teach, so I see the conveniently omitted verses.  I respect the Bible and revere God enough to read even those passages that make me uncomfortable.  Sometimes I argue with them, but I do so faithfully, as when I notice the quoted (and affirmed) slur against Cretans in Titus 1:12.

The Bible is a theologically diverse–sometimes self-contradictory–and rich theological anthology.  Even we who study it seriously and frequently can always learn more from it.  Even we who study the Bible seriously and frequently need to study it more than we do.  A longer-term lectionary can provide an invaluable Bible study tool for use in congregations of a range of denominations.

I call for a more thorough and inclusive lectionary–one more inclusive of “texts of terror,” books overlooked and insufficiently sampled in the Revised Common Lectionary, and of various types of Biblical literature.  This will require more than three years per cycle; so be it.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

NOVEMBER 6, 2018 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF CHRISTIAN GREGOR, FATHER OF MORAVIAN CHURCH MUSIC

THE FEAST OF GIOVANNI GABRIELI AND HANS LEO HASSLER, COMPOSERS AND ORGANISTS; AND CLAUDIO MONTEVERDI AND HEINRICH SCHUTZ, COMPOSERS AND MUSICIANS

THE FEAST OF THEOPHANE VENARD, ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST, MISSIONARY, AND MARTYR IN VIETNAM

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Advertisement

Above:  The Second Reading for Proper 26, Year C

Scanned from the Bulletin for St. Gregory the Great Episcopal Church, Athens, Georgia, October 30, 2016

Scan by Kenneth Randolph Taylor

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Revised Common Lectionary (RCL) (1992) is a wonderful resource for preaching and Bible study.  With its three-year cycle it covers about one-fourth of the Bible (the Protestant Bible, that is, I suppose).  Certainly the RCL covers more of scripture than does its immediate predecessor, the Common Lectionary (1983) and any of a number of one-year and two-year lectionaries the RCL has replaced in a variety of denominations.  Furthermore, as a number of clergymen and clergywomen have said, the RCL requires them to address passages of the Bible on which they might not have preached otherwise.  Another advantage of reading scripture via a lectionary, the RCL in particular, is that it helps one read passages of scripture in the context of each other.  Scripture is, after all, one context in which to read scripture properly.

Sometimes the RCL chops up passages of scripture, skipping over certain verses.  On some occasions this does not change the meaning or flavor of the pericope; the cut might serve the purpose of sparing the lector of having to read polysyllabic names that have no effect on the point of the lesson, as in Nehemiah 8:4.  Sometimes the cuts create an awkward composite reading yet do not change the meaning of the passage.  For example, the First Reading (Track One) for Proper 26, Year C, is Habakkuk 1:1-4; 2:1-4, skipping over God’s reply to the prophet and most of the prophet’s answer to God in the first chapter.  The main reason for this kind of cut seems to be time.  Besides, a good homilist can summarize the cut material, so that omission is fine.  I do, however, object to other cuts.

Consider, O reader, 1 Thessalonians 1.  The verses from it assigned for reading on Proper 26, Year C, are 1-4 and 11-12.  This fact makes me more interested in verses 5-10 than I might be otherwise.  In The Revised English Bible (1989) verses 1-4 read:

From Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy to the church of the Thessalonians who belong to God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Grace to you and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Friends, we are always bound to thank God for you, and it is right that we should, because your faith keeps on increasing and the love you all have for each other grows ever greater.  Indeed we boast about you among the churches of God, because your faith remains so steadfast under all the persecutions and troubles you endure.

Verses 5-10 read:

This points to the justice of God’s judgement; you will be proved worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering.  It is just that God should balance the account by sending affliction to those who afflict you, and relief to you who are afflicted, and to us as well, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in blazing fire.  Then he will mete out punishment to those who refuse to acknowledge God and who will not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.  They will suffer the penalty of eternal destruction, cut off from the presence of the Lord, and the splendor of his might, when on the great day he comes to reveal his glory among his own and his majesty among all believers; and therefore among you, since you believed the testimony we brought you.

Verses 11-12, the end of the chapter, read:

With this in mind we pray for you always, that our God may count you worthy of your calling, and that his power may bring to fulfilment every good purpose and every act inspired by faith, so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Omitting verses 5-10 removes the crucial link between verses 1-4 and verses 11-12.  It also changes the tone of the reading, dropping the balance of divine judgment and mercy.  I understand that the question of the balance of judgment and mercy in God can be uncomfortable for many people, but that question does recur in both the Old and New Testaments.  I do not pretend to have arrived at answer other than “only God knows.”  So be it.

Omitting uncomfortable verses is a pattern in the RCL, which does not omit all of them.  All one has to do to notice this pattern of avoiding reading certain verses is to pay attention to the RCL’s treatment of the Book of Psalms.  The RCL avoids some Psalms entirely and omits certain uncomfortable passages in others.  The emotions in the Psalms are frequently raw and not Christlike.  This fact might make one uncomfortable speaking, chanting, or singing certain lines in Christian worship.  Nevertheless, the RCL does include all of Psalm 137, even the part about dashing the heads of the children of enemies against a rock.  In contrast, I note that the Common Lectionary (1983) omits the final, vengeful verses of Psalm 137.

I have noticed these omissions more than I used to since I began to teach an adult Sunday School class just over a year ago.  For slightly more than a year I have studied the assigned readings ahead of time so I can lead a discussion of them between the morning services.  More than once I have extended readings in class and led a discussion of pericopes as I have thought they should have been, that is, not chopped up, cut, and pasted.

As much as I affirm the RCL as a useful tool, I also recognize its limitations.  There is, of course, the three-quarters of the (Protestant, I presume) Bible it does not cover.  According to my reading regarding lectionaries, a seven-year cycle would cover just about all of the (Protestant, I presume) material.  How many congregations and homilists are ready for Years A. B, C, D, E, F, and G?  And how much of Leviticus does one what to hear read aloud in church on Sunday mornings?  The main limitation of the RCL is one pastors can fix easily; they can extend readings and restore omitted verses.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

OCTOBER 31, 2016 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF SAINT WOLFGANG OF REGENSBURG, ROMAN CATHOLIC MISSIONARY BISHOP

THE FEAST OF ALL HALLOWS’ EVE

THE FEAST OF THE REFORMATION

THE VIGIL FOR THE EVE OF ALL SAINTS’ DAY

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Above:  The Title Page of the Presbyterian Hymnal (1911) with the Supplement of 1917

Scan by Kenneth Randolph Taylor

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

World War I (1914-1918) was a devastating conflict which changed the map of the world.  Many of the problems of today have much to do with that war and the events of the years immediately following it.  Europeans promised the same territory to both Jews and Palestinians, created Iraq (where the British military became bogged down in an insurgency for years), broke up empires, and created new countries, some of which (Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia) which have ceased to exist.  U.S. President Woodrow Wilson (in office 1913-1921) oversold the conflict as a war to make the world safe for democracy.  Meanwhile, back home in the United States, which entered the war in 1917, early in Wilson’s second term, which he won on the slogan “He Kept Us Out of War,” xenophobia, nativism, and irrationality reigned.  The city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, banned performances of the music of Ludwig von Beethoven, an anti-imperialist who died in 1827.  Had the great composer been alive in 1917 and 1918, he would have opposed the policies of Kaiser Wilhelm II.  But why let reason stand between one and an irrational fear?  Mobs burned books in the German language or about Germany, vandalized buildings belonging to congregations where worship was not in English, dachshunds became liberty hounds, the state of Iowa outlawed public gatherings where the spoken language was not English (although many sheriffs in the state permitted Danish Lutheran congregations to worship in Danish), et cetera.  Opposing state-sponsored violence became a crime, one for which many pacifists went to prison and conscientious objectors suffered.  Really, were the Amish, Mennonites, and Quakers threats to national security?  Were the Dutch Reformed (of the Christian Reformed Church in North America in particular) and the Lutherans (especially those in the denominations we call The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod these days) worshiping in other tongues that threatening?  In November 1918, at the organizing convention of the newly merged United Lutheran Church in America (1918-1962), derived from German immigrant stock in North America since the 1700s, delegates felt the need to demonstrate their patriotism by singing “The Star-Spangled Banner” and “America,” due to lingering suspicions related to Germany, German-Americans, and the war.

The study of the past tells me that the war did not live up to its billing, that wartime hysteria and intolerance turned into widespread disillusionment, and that the psychological scars of the “Great War” or the “World War,” as people called it before World War II, influenced national decision-making (often for the worse) leading up to World War II.  Accounts of the “Lost Generation” and the false sense of security the Maginot Line engendered testify to the aftershocks of World War I.

These and other facts influence how I read certain texts from World War I and the time immediately following it.  How can they not, given my temporal relationship to that conflict?

During that war and immediately afterward some denominations amended their recent official hymnals.  The Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. added the “Supplement of 1917” to its Hymnal of 1911.  This supplement consisted of three patriotic hymns:  “God of Our Fathers, Known of Old,” “The Star-Spangled Banner,” and the “Battle Hymn of the Republic.”  The National Council of Congregational Churches of the United States added three hymns to The Pilgrim Hymnal (1912) after the war.  Hymns #542a-c were, respectively, “O Land of Lands, My Fatherland,” “The Star-Spangled Banner,” and “America, America, The Shouts of War Shall Cease.”  “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” was already present.

Two of those texts intrigue me.  The first is “O Land of Lands, My Fatherland.”  The author was the Reverend Washington Gladden (February 11, 1836-July 2, 1918), whose feast day in The Episcopal Church is July 2.  Gladden, a proponent of the Social Gospel, opposed corruption in government, favored civil rights for African Americans, and supported the labor movement.  He wrote many poems (including hymns), the most famous of which might be “O Master, Let Me Walk with Thee.”  In 1918 he composed the following text:

O Land of lands, my Fatherland, the beautiful, the free,

All lands and shores to freedom dear and ever dear to thee;

All sons of Freedom hail thy name, and wait thy word of might,

While round the world the lists are joined for liberty and light.

+++++

Hail, sons of France, old comrades dear! Hail Britons brave and true!

Hail Belgian martyrs ringed with flame! Slavs fired with visions new!

Italian lovers mailed with light! Dark brothers from Japan!

From East to West all lands are kin who live for God and man.

+++++

Here endeth war!  Our bands are sworn! Now dawns the better hour

When lust of blood shall cease to rule, when Peace shall come with power;

We front the fiend that rends our race and fills our hearts with gloom;

We break his scepter, spurn his crown, and nail him in his tomb.

+++++

Now, hands all round, our troth we plight to rid the world of lies,

To fill all hearts with truth and trust and willing sacrifice;

To free all lands from hate and spite and fear from strand to strand;

To make all nations neighbors and the world one Fatherland!

The second text was, as the hymnal labeled it, “A National Hymn of Victory Inscribed to the Builders of the ‘League of Nations.'”  The author was the Reverend Allen Eastman Cross (December 30, 1864-April 23, 1942), a Congregationalist minister from Manchester, New Hampshire.

America, America!

The shouts of war shall cease;

The Glory dawns! the Day is come

Of Victory and Peace!

And now upon a larger plan

We’ll build the common good,

The temple of the Love of Man,

The House of Brotherhood!

+++++

What though its stones were laid in tears,

Its pillars red with wrong,

Its walls shall rise through patient years

To soaring spires of song!

For on this House shall Faith attend,

With Joy on airy wing,

And flaming loyalty ascend

To God, the only King!

+++++

America, America,

Ring out the glad refrain!

Salute the Flag–salute the dead

That have not died in vain!

O Glory! Glory to thy plan

To build the common good,

The temple of the Rights of Man,

The House of Brotherhood!

To mock the optimism and idealism of the texts is easy to do, but I propose that to do so is in error.  No, these hymns did not predict the future accurately.  Yes, the brutality of history since World War I has belied these texts’ highest sentiments, but the dream those hymns represent has never ceased to be a noble one.  The texts are of their time in two senses:  certain references to nations and the level of optimism regarding the future.  Without a goal to which to aspire, however, how are we humans supposed to improve the world?

I value precision in language, so I mark the difference between the Social Gospel and Neo-Orthodoxy.  The former is more optimistic regarding human potential for effecting goodness than is the latter.  Neo-Orthodoxy, with its sober understanding of human nature, incorporates the best of the Social Gospel and emphasizes the human obligation to reform society and its structures for the better while stating that only God can usher in the Kingdom of God.  I read these quoted hymns through my lens of Neo-Orthodoxy and recognize a combination of naiveté and realism as I mourn the fact of those dashed hopes.  May nobody permit pessimism to prevent one from doing what one can to leave the world (or one’s corner of it) better than one found it.  God can save the world, but we can improve it.  We can love our neighbors as we love ourselves and seek to reform unjust social systems and institutions.  We have a moral imperative to do so.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

JULY 26, 2015 COMMON ERA

PROPER 12:  THE NINTH SUNDAY AFTER PENTECOST

THE FEAST OF SAINTS ANNE AND JOACHIM, PARENTS OF SAINT MARY OF NAZARETH

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

SOURCES IN PRINT

I have provided hyperlinks to some sources.  My other sources were:

Bachmann, E. Theodore, with Mercia Brenne Bachmann.  The United Lutheran Church in America, 1918-1962.  Edited by Paul Rorem.  Minneapolis, MN:  Fortress Press, 1997.

Holy Women, Holy Men:  Celebrating the Saints.  New York:  Church Publishing, 2010.

Mortenen, Enok.  The Danish Lutheran Church in America:  The History and Heritage of the American Evangelical Lutheran Church.  Philadelphia, PA:  Board of Publication, Lutheran Church in America, 1967.

The Hymnal Published in 1895 and Revised in 1911 by Authority of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America; with the Supplement of 1917.  Philadelphia, PA:  The Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath-School Work.

The Pilgrim Hymnal with Responsive Readings and Other Aids to Worship.  Boston, MA:  The Pilgrim Press, 1912.  Amended and reprinted, 1919.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Above:  The Spine of Worship Supplement 2000

Scan by Kenneth Randolph Taylor

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

U.S. LUTHERAN LITURGY, PART XXII

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Beloved of God:  Let us draw near with a true heart, and confess our sins to God our Father, asking Him, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to grant us forgiveness.

—Worship Supplement 2000, page 1

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I.  PREFACE

In July 2013 I wrote twenty-one posts in the U.S. Lutheran Liturgy series here at BLOGA THEOLOGICA.  Now, almost two years later, I return to that series with this entry, in which I turn to the Church of the Lutheran Confession (CLC).  Some historical background is essential to placing this denomination within the context of U.S. Lutheranism.

I recall an expression I heard while growing up in United Methodism in southern Georgia, U.S.A.

There are Baptists then there are Baptists,

I learned.  The same principle applies to Confessional Lutherans.  The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS) is conservative, but the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), with German immigrant origins, and the Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ELS), with Norwegian immigrant roots, stand to its right.  To their right one finds the Church of the Lutheran Confession.

The LCMS has experienced occasional schisms, mostly to its right.  (Most denominational schisms have occurred to the right, not the left, for they have usually happened in the name of purity, not breadth, of doctrine.)  The Orthodox Lutheran Conference (OLC) broke away from the LCMS in 1951, citing doctrinal drift in the form of the first part of the Common Confession (1950) with The American Lutheran Church (1930-1960).  The OLC experienced subsequent division, reorganizing as the Concordia Lutheran Conference in 1956.  Some congregations became independent, others defected to the WELS in 1963, and others joined the Lutheran Churches of the Reformation, another LCMS breakaway group, in 1964.

The Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference of North America (1872-1967, although inactive from 1966 to 1967), was an umbrella organization of Confessional Lutheran denominations.  It member synods varied over time, with some denominations leaving it due to doctrinal differences, but it consisted of four synods toward the end.  Those were the LCMS, the ELS, the WELS, and the Synod of Evangelical Lutheran Churches (SELC).  The WELS and the ELS departed in 1963, after years of condemning the LCMS of consorting with heretical Lutheran denominations, such as the 1930-1960 and 1960-1987 incarnations of The American Lutheran Church.  The SELC merged into the LCMS, becoming the SELC District thereof, in 1971.

The Church of the Lutheran Confession, formed in 1960, attracted members from the LCMS, the Concordia Lutheran Conference, the ELS, and primarily from the WELS.  Its raison d’etre was to oppose unionism, or ecumenism with alleged heretics, and to stand for pure doctrine, as it understood it.  That purpose continues, as the official website of the denomination attests.

II. OFFICIAL BOOKS OF WORSHIP

Although some CLC pastors have prepared liturgies, the two official service book-hymnals of the denomination are The Lutheran Hymnal (1941) and Worship Supplement 2000.  The Lutheran Hymnal (1941), a product of the former Synodical Conference, remains one of the most influential hymnals in U.S. Lutheranism.  The denominations which authorized it have published official successors to it–the LCMS (with its SELC District) in 1982 and 2006, the WELS in 1993, and the ELS in 1996.  Nevertheless, The Lutheran Hymnal remains in use in some congregations of those bodies as well as in the CLC.

Above:  The Cover of Worship Supplement 2000

Scan by Kenneth Randolph Taylor

Language and hymnody move along, however, hence the existence of Worship Supplement 2000.  The volume contains three services, a small selection of Psalms, and 100 hymns.  The book itself is a sturdy hardback measuring 23.4 x 15.5 x 1.8 centimeters, making it taller, wider, and thinner than my copy of The Lutheran Hymnal.  The paper is thick, of high quality, and the fonts are attractive and clear.

Above:  My Copies of The Lutheran Hymnal (1941) and Worship Supplement 2000

Photograph by Kenneth Randolph Taylor

Worship Supplement 2000:  Services

The three services are Service of Word and Sacrament (Settings 1 and 2) and the Service of the Word.  The two Services of Word and Sacrament follow the same pattern:

• Preparation for Worship–Entrance Hymn, Invocation, and Confession and Absolution;
• The Service of the Word–Kyrie, Gloria in Excelsis, Prayer of the Day, First Lesson, Psalm of the Day, Second Lesson, Creed (Nicene or Apostles’), Hymn of the Day, Sermon, Offertory, Offerings, Prayer of the Church, and the Lord’s Prayer (traditional or contemporary language); and
• The Service of the Sacrament (except for the last two parts, optional most Sundays)–Sanctus, Words of Institution, Agnus Dei, Distribution, Thanksgiving, Hymn and Benediction.

Setting 1 is an updated version of the basic service from The Lutheran Hymnal.  Setting 2 is a more recent rite with different language.

A Service of the Word follows a similar pattern, minus the Holy Communion, of course:

• Hymn
• Invocation
• Confession and Absolution
• First Lesson
• Second Lesson
• Apostles’ Creed
• Hymn of the Day
• Sermon, Homily, or Bible Study
• Prayers
• Lords Prayer
• Hymn
• Benediction

As with other Confessional Lutheran worship resources, the church is “Christian,” not “catholic,” in the Creeds.

The Eucharistic rites, consistent with most Confessional Lutheran practice, lack the Canon, present in Roman Catholic and Anglican liturgies.

The theology of absolution of sin in Worship Supplement 2000 interests me.  I, as an Episcopalian of a certain stripe, accept the language “I absolve you” easily.  As with my fellow Episcopalians, there is a range of opinion regarding this matter among Lutherans.  Worship Supplement 2000 contains both the “I absolve you” form and the mere announcement of divine forgiveness.  This practice is consistent with the usage of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod in its Evangelical Lutheran Hymnary (1996) and with The Lutheran Hymnal (1941).  The two forms of absolution continues in most subsequent LCMS resources, although the Hymnal Supplement 98 (1998) provides only one absolution:

Upon this your confession, I, by virtue of my office as a called and ordained servant of the Word, announce the grace of God to all of you, and in the stead and by the command of my Lord Jesus Christ I forgive you all your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.  Amen.

–Page 6

Historic practice in most of the denominations which merged over time in phases to constitute the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) was for the presiding minister to announce God’s forgiveness of sin.  With the Lutheran Book of Worship (1978), however, the option of the minister forgiving sins entered the liturgy.  It has remained.  James Gerhardt Sucha’s unofficial supplement to the Lutheran Book of Worship (1978), The Service Hymnal:  A Lutheran Homecoming (2001) lacks the “I forgive you” language.

The practice in the WELS, however, is to use only the “I forgive you” form of the absolution.

Worship Supplement 2000:  Psalms

Portions of Psalms arranged topically fill pages 25-42 of the book.  The presentation of these texts is such that a congregation may either read, sing, or chant them.  The texts come from, in order, Psalms 24, 96, 81, 51, 118, 2, 51, 45, 91, 30, 100, 23, 66, 84, 38, 85, 146, and 121.

Worship Supplement 2000:  Hymns

Worship Supplement contains 100 hymns, #701-800.  The arrangement of these begins with the church year (#701-740) then moves to topics (frequently doctrines):

• Worship and Praise (#741-748)
• Baptism (#749-753)
• Lord’s Supper (#754-755)
• Redeemer (#756-763)
• Church (#764-768)
• Evangelism (#769-773)
• Word of God (#774-775)
• Justification (#776-779)
• Ministry (#780-781)
• Trust (#782-785)
• Consecration (#786)
• Morning (#787)
• Stewardship (#788-789)
• Marriage (#790-791)
• Thanksgiving (#792-793)
• Christ’s Return (#794-795)
• Evening (#796)
• Hymns of the Liturgy (#797-800)

Many of the hymns are absent from The Lutheran Hymnal (1941) for various reasons, including chronology.  Thus some Brian Wren texts appear in Worship Supplement 2000.  However, certain hymns which were old in 1941 and absent from The Lutheran Hymnal are present.  So are some hymns which are present in The Lutheran Hymnal.  Their versions from 2000 contain updated translations and modernized pronouns.  I commend the editor for avoiding “seven-eleven” songs, which come from the shallow end of the theological gene pool and are popular with devotees of contemporary worship.

Above:  “Praise to the Lord, the Almighty,” from The Lutheran Hymnal (1941)

Scan by Kenneth Randolph Taylor

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Above:  The First Page of “Praise to the Lord, the Almighty,” from Worship Supplement 2000

Scan by Kenneth Randolph Taylor

Notice the updated language and the altered tune.

Worship Supplement 2000:  Acknowledgments and Indices

Worship Supplement 2000 ends with copyright acknowledgments and with indices.  There are two indices–first lines and hymn tunes.

III.  CONCLUSION

Worship Supplement 2000, as a book, has much to commend it.  This statement applies to the quality of the binding, the thickness of the paper, and the readability of the fonts as much as to the contents.  I write this despite that, according the Church of the Lutheran Confession, I am probably going to Hell.  (And I think of myself as an observant Christian!)  The matters of my salvation, however, reside in the purview of God, not any denomination.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

APRIL 9, 2015 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF DIETRICH BONHOEFFER, MARTYR AND GERMAN LUTHERAN THEOLOGIAN

THE FEAST OF FREDERICK ARTHUR GORE OUSELEY, ANGLICAN PRIEST, COMPOSER, AND MUSICAL SCHOLAR

THE FEAST OF JAY THOMAS STOCKING, U.S. CONGREGATIONALIST MINISTER AND HYMN WRITER

THE FEAST OF JOHN SAMUEL BEWLEY MONSELL, ANGLICAN PRIEST AND POET; AND RICHARD MANT, ANGLICAN BISHOP OF DOWN, CONNOR, AND DROMORE

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I have provided some documentation via hyperlinks.  A list of books I have used to prepare this post follows.

American Lutheran Hymnal.  Columbus, OH:  Lutheran Book Concern, 1930.

Christian Worship:  A Lutheran Hymnal.  Milwaukee, WI:  Northwestern Publishing House, 1993.

Christian Worship:  Supplement.  Milwaukee, WI:  Northwestern Publishing House, 2008.

Common Service Book of the Lutheran Church.  Philadelphia, PA:  Board of Publication of the United Lutheran Church in America, 1918.

Evangelical Lutheran Hymnary.  St. Louis, MO:  MorningStar Music Publishers, Inc., 1996.

Evangelical Lutheran Worship.  Minneapolis, MN:  Augsburg Fortress, 2006.

Hymnal for Church and Home.  Third Edition.  Blair, NE:  Danish Lutheran Publishing House, 1938.

Hymnal Supplement 98.  St. Louis, MO:  Concordia Publishing House, 1998.

Lutheran Book of Worship.  Minneapolis, MO:  Augsburg Publishing House, 1978.  Reprint, 1990.

The Lutheran Hymnal.  St. Louis, MO:  Concordia Publishing House, 1941.

The Lutheran Hymnary.  Minneapolis, MN:  Augsburg Publishing House.  1935.

Lutheran Service Book.  St. Louis, MO:  Concordia Publishing House, 2006.

Lutheran Worship.  St. Louis, MO:  Concordia Publishing House, 1982.  Reprint, 1986.

Service Book and Hymnal.  Minneapolis, MN:  Augsburg Publishing House, 1958.  Reprint, 1961,

The Service Hymnal:  A Lutheran Homecoming.  Edited by James Gerhardt Sucha.  Boulder, CO:  Voice of the Rockies Publishing, 2001.

With One Voice:  A Lutheran Resource for Worship.  Minneapolis, MO:  Augsburg Fortress, 1995.

Worship Supplement.  St. Louis, MO:  Concordia Publishing House, 1969.

Worship Supplement 2000.  Compiled and Edited by John C. Reim.  Eau Claire, WI:  Church of the Lutheran Confession, 2000.  Reprint, 2007.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Above:  My Copies of the Moravian Book of Worship (1995) and Sing to the Lord a New Song:  A New Moravian Songbook (2013)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

LITURGY IN THE MORAVIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA, PART V

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Moravian Book of Worship does not slavishly demand one style of tune or text, but attempts to recognize the wide diversity in our congregations’ worship patterns.

—Moravian Book of Worship (1995), page iii

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I.  PREFACE AND INTRODUCTION

This post stands in lineage with the Preface and Parts I, II, III, and IV.

This post concludes the Liturgy in the Moravian Church in America series.  The process of researching and preparing the entries in this series has been an intellectually rewarding one, for I have learned much, and I have an inquiring mind.

I have not endeavored to provide thorough descriptions and analyses of the elements of the Moravian Book of Worship.  For that I refer you, O reader, to the Manual for Worship Planners and the companion volume to the service book-hymnal, which the Interprovincial Board of Communication sells.

Worship patterns in congregations of the Moravian Church in America (the Moravian Church in North America when one includes the Canadian congregations of the Northern Province of North America) have long been diverse.  This diversity has increased with the arrival of Moravian immigrants from Europe, Central America, and the Caribbean Basin, as well as with the spread of contemporary and charismatic forms of worship in the Protestant mainline since the 1970s.  My perusal of websites of North American Moravian congregations has confirmed summaries of the diversity of worship I have read in official denominational resources.  I have found evidence of the existence of styles of worship ranging from traditional, classical Moravian worship (brass choirs, et cetera) to Low Church, Southern Gospel music to contemporary “seeker” services to charismatic practices.  I also know that the rise of the charismatic movement within the Unitas Fratrum has divided or played a supporting role in the division of several provinces (Honduras, Czech Republic, and Alaska) of the global Moravian Church.

Official worship resources of the Northern and Southern Provinces in North America reflect the diversity of practice in their congregations.  The logic of that fact makes sense to me.  As I age, however, I find myself becoming more liberal and collegial in many matters theological and socio-political yet more conservative in matters liturgical.  European classicism appeals to me, and I have no desire to dilute that very much.  Guitars in church always make me uncomfortable, for not once have I heard classical guitar music in church.  Once, about fifteen years ago, at a conference in the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia, someone handed me a tambourine in the vain hope that I would play it.  I returned the instrument immediately silently as I looked at that person with an icy gaze.  Here I stand; I will do no other.  If that reality offends someone, I offer no apology, for I have committed no offense.

Now, without further ado, I commence the body of this post.

II.  MORAVIAN BOOK OF WORSHIP  AND SOME RELATED VOLUMES (1995)

Scan by Kenneth Randolph Taylor

+++++++++++++

General Comments

By 1995, the year the Moravian Book of Worship debuted, ecumenical influences had also transformed worship in the Moravian Church in America.  Celebrations of Holy Communion had become more frequent in many congregations.  Also, the Northern and Southern Provinces had adopted the Revised Common Lectionary.  The-gesimas were gone and Sundays after Pentecost replaced Sundays after Trinity.  These changes are evident in each annual edition of the Moravian Church Desk Calendar and Plan Book, available from the Interprovincial Board of Communication.

Scans by Kenneth Randolph Taylor

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

One of the most obvious differences between the Moravian Book of Worship (1995) and the Hymnal and Liturgies of the Moravian Church (1969) is the contemporary nature of the current service book-hymnal.  The services are in modern English, even providing two forms (King James and contemporary ecumenical) of the Lord’s Prayer.  52% of the hymns are new to American Moravian hymnals.  The 1995 hymnody is also more ecumenical than that of 1969, for 21% of the texts (excluding translations) are of Moravian authorship.  Many of the “new” texts are actually new and the products of authors alive in 1995.  Likewise, 42% of the tunes in the Moravian Book of Worship are new to American Moravian hymnals.  Many of those tunes are works of composers alive in 1995.

Hymns and Other Music

The Moravian Book of Worship, a new service book-hymnal, not a revision of its predecessor, offers more diversity of musical styles than does the Hymnal and Liturgies of the Moravian Church (1969).  Most tunes in the 1969 volume were for four voices, with a smattering of other styles and arrangements.  In the 1995 book, however, one can find numerous representations of Lutheran chorales, Moravian chorales, contemporary four-part chorales, rounds, unison hymns, chords for guitar or autoharp, antiphonal songs, spirituals, and folk songs.  Also available is Singing from the Heart:  A Shorter Moravian Hymnal and Liturgies (2010), an abbreviated version of the Moravian Book of Worship with guitar chords included.  Singing from the Heart also contains thirteen original “Congregational Prayers for Moravian Worship,” brief forms for worship.

The arrangement of the 559 hymns is topical, with the church year establishing the first categories.  Hence the first category is Advent.  The count of 559 hymns in the Moravian Book of Worship is down from 594 in the Hymnal and Liturgies of the Moravian Church (1969) and 952 in the Hymnal and Liturgies of the Moravian Church (Unitas Fratrum) (1923).  The 1995 book contains 33 selections of service music and 20 entries in its Psalms and Canticles section of the Liturgy.

On One Hand Yet On the Other Hand

Ecumenical convergence has its virtues, especially in liturgy.  Jettisoning the -gesimas and the Season after Trinity Sunday is good, as is adopting the Revised Common Lectionary, a near-twin of the current Roman Catholic lectionary.  These are visible signs of Christian unity.  Addressing God is “you,” not as “thee,” is also positive, for using the contemporary form of English restores the familiarity of language present in older forms of English when God, one’s parents, one’s friends, and one’s neighbors were all “thee.”  Much change is actually a return an older tradition.

As positive an ecumenical convergence is much of the time, it is not always a good thing, for it can lead to a “vanilla” hymnody.  I, as a collector of hymnals and service books-hymnals (especially old ones), like diversity in hymnody.  Moravian hymnals have always included a healthy representation of ecumenical hymnody, as they should.  I have found, however, that many wonderful ethnic hymns, present in older hymnals, seldom make the cut in subsequent hymn books.  (A comparison of U.S. Lutheran hymnals of the twentieth century, as ethnic synods merged into non-ethnic denominations, is an especially good way of documenting this fact.)  Sometimes ecumenism becomes an altar on which hymnal committees sacrifice beautiful ethnic hymns and quality texts.  Thus sometimes the best way to balance one’s heritage is to use more than one book, lest wonderful hymns fall into disuse and obscurity.

The Liturgy of 1995

The thoroughly revised Liturgy of 1995 bears many similarities to that of 1969, for the new Liturgy retains much of Moravian tradition–in modern English, however.  There is also evidence of textual nipping and tucking, one of the oldest games in liturgical practice.  The Liturgy of 1995 continues another Moravian practice–flexibility.  There are many rubrics such as the one on page 4, in General Liturgy 1:

All may join in The Church Litany, or the Shorter Church Litany, or the Service may proceed as the liturgist directs.

“Or…as the liturgist directs” occurs often in the Liturgy (pages 1-254 of the Moravian Book of Worship).

The Liturgy of 1995 contains six sections, which I will unpack in order:

1. General Liturgies,
2. The Church Year,
3. Topical Liturgies,
4. Rites and Sacraments,
5. Services for Holy Communion, and
6. Psalms and Canticles.

General Liturgies

There are seven General Liturgies.  (The Hymnal and Liturgies of 1969 has four of them.)

1. General Liturgy 1, which contains the Church Liturgy and the Shorter Church Liturgy, is a variation on the traditional Moravian service.
2. General Liturgy 2–Reconciliation contrasts divine perfection and the sinful world.
3. General Liturgy 3–Adoration, unlike its 1969 predecessor, uses the Nicene Creed, not the Apostles’ Creed.  The Church in the Nicene Creed is “Christian,” not “catholic,” however.  There is an asterisk then a note explaining the original text reads “catholic” and states that “catholic” means “universal.”  (The Protestant Reformation, by traditional counting, started 497 and 1/2 years ago.  Can we finally get past a Protestant hang-up with Roman Catholicism, please?  Should not anti-Roman Catholicism be a thing of the past?  I write as one who, although not a Roman Catholic, acknowledges the riches of that tradition.)
4. General Liturgy 4–Creation, a new service, contains contemporary music (by Jaroslav J. Vajda and Martin Nystrom) and a statement of faith drawn from the Ground of Unity in the Unity Book of Order.
5. General Liturgy 5–Grace combines elements of the 1969 Liturgies of Confession, Trust, and Covenanting.  It also features a different statement of faith drawn from the Ground of Unity in the Unity Book of Order.
6. General Liturgy 6–Discipleship combines traditional and contemporary music.
7. General Liturgy 7–Celebration, a new service with a non-traditional arrangement of traditional elements, combines traditional and contemporary hymns.

Church Year

Some of the services in the Church Year section retain titles from the Hymnal and Liturgies (1969):

1. Advent and Palm Sunday,
2. Advent 2,
3. Christmas,
4. Easter Morning,
5. Easter,
6. Trinity, and
7. All Saints.

The Liturgy of 1969 offers just one service in Lent, but the Moravian Book of Worship includes two–Lent 1 and Lent 2.

Two services in the Church Year section have slightly different names than their 1969 counterparts:

1. “Epiphany and Christian Witness” has become “Epiphany and World Mission,” and
2. “Pentecost (Whitsunday)” has become “Pentecost and Spiritual Renewal.”

New to the Church Year section is “Reign of Christ/Second Coming,” for the Sunday immediately preceding Advent more than any other Sunday.  The existence of this service indicates that the Moravian Church has authorized the observance of Christ the King Sunday, which the Roman Catholic Church has celebrated on the Sunday immediately preceding Advent since 1970.  And, just in case you, O reader, wonder about the linguistic difference between “Christ the King” and “Reign of Christ,” it is not just a matter of inclusive language (although Jesus was male).  The Bible does contain a distinction between a kingdom and a royal reign, as I have learned by reading scholarly books.  That reading has also taught me that often the distinction is one without much a difference, for the reality of a reign does imply the existence of a kingdom.

The Liturgy of 1995 omits the service for the Ascension, due to the rare use of that rite from the Liturgy and Hymnals (1969).  The Moravian Book of Worship does not include Ascension themes elsewhere, however.

Topical Liturgies

Most of the titles of the Topical Liturgies are new; only three repeat from the Hymnal and Liturgies (1969):

1. Education,
2. Thanksgiving, and
3. National Occasions.

The other titles are:

1. A General Prayer of Intercession,
2. Intercessions in a Time of Crisis,
3. Christian Hymns,
4. Christian Unity,
5. Evangelism (“The Spread of the Gospel” in 1969),
6. New Year and Anniversaries,
7. Peace and Justice, and
8. Stewardship.

The National Occasions service contains a line as troublesome to me as those to which I objected in the Hymnal and Liturgies (1923) and the Hymnal and Liturgies (1969) in Part IV of this series.  On page 141 of the Moravian Book of Worship one can find the following petition:

Enable us to accept the authority of government for your sake….

Is there no embrace of civil disobedience?  And what about the authority of tyrannical governments?  (Sometimes I like to turn to my inner Mohandas Gandhi.)

Rites and Sacraments

The Moravian Book of Worship contains four Rites and Sacraments:

1. Baptism,
2. Confirmation and Affirmation of Baptism,
3. Marriage, and
4. Memorial Service and Burial.

One must consult the Manual for Worship Planners (1995) to find seldom-used services which would fit into this section otherwise.  They are:

1. Ordination of a Deacon,
2. Consecration of a Presbyter,
3. Consecration of a Bishop,
4. Special Celebration of Holy Communion (formerly Private Communion),
5. A Service of Word and Sacrament,
6. Groundbreaking for a Church Building,
7. the Laying of a Cornerstone, and
8. Dedication of a Church Building or other Structure.

Services for Holy Communion

The Liturgy of 1995 offers eight Services for Holy Communion, four of which the Moravian Book of Worship contains.  Those four are:

1. In Celebration of Christ’s Coming,
2. In Celebration of the Atonement,
3. In Celebration of the Resurrection, and
4. In Celebration of the Holy Spirit.

Four others are available in Services for Holy Communion (1996):

1. In Celebration of the Chief Eldership of Jesus Christ (for November Thirteenth),
2. In Celebration of Maundy Thursday and Good Friday,
3. In Celebration of Unity and Renewal (for August Thirteenth and the Martyrdom of Jan Hus), and
4. In Celebration of the Anniversary of a Congregation.

Psalms and Canticles

I have summarized the Psalms and Canticles section of the Liturgy of 1995 already.

End Matter

The church calendar, the obligatory acknowledgments, and a set of indices (minus biographical notes) complete the Moravian Book of Worship.

III.  READINGS FOR HOLY WEEK (1995)

This is an appropriate venue to write about another liturgical volume and its predecessors.  The Readings for Holy Week (1995), which exists in a regular edition, a large-print edition, a music edition, and an organ edition, is a successor of a series of books, reaching back to the time of Count Nicholas Ludwig von Zinzendorf (1700-1760).  He prepared the first Moravian harmony of the Passion accounts in the canonical Gospels for liturgical use.  A second edition, picking up the story the day before Palm Sunday, debuted in 1769.

The line of English-language Passion Week Manuals began in 1771.  I found an 1877 edition at archive.org.  The Northern Province printed a new edition in 1932.  The innovative aspect of that version was printing hymn stanzas at appropriate places in the narratives.  Prior to then liturgists were supposed to select the hymn stanzas.  The following year the Revised Bethlehem Edition of the 1932 Passion Week Manual debuted, adding choir music and using the American Standard Version of the Bible (1901).  The Southern Province published its Passion Week Manual in 1943, using the text of the Authorized Version of the Bible and using fewer and different hymn stanzas than its Northern Province counterpart.  Readings for Holy Week (Passion Week Manual) (1969), keyed to the Hymnal and Liturgies of the Moravian Church (1969), succeeded the 1932 and 1943 Passion Week Manuals.  The innovation in this edition was to cease breaking up the readings into different services, therefore allowing for more variety in congregational observance.

The Readings of Holy Week (1995), keyed to the Moravian Book of Worship (1995), uses the text of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible (1989) and combines traditional and contemporary hymns from various genres.  The various editions (such as regular and music) break up the composite narrative by day and provide a resource for corporate and private devotion.

IV.  SING TO THE LORD A NEW SONG:  A NEW MORAVIAN SONGBOOK (2013)

Scan by Kenneth Randolph Taylor

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hymnody and written liturgy is always changing–often for better, but sometimes for worse.  It is certainly never like an insect preserved for millions of years in amber.  Although I am a self-described and practicing European classicist and a liturgical conservative, I do not reject the new because it is new and affirm the old because it is old.  No, I seek quality and affirm it regardless of its age.  Unfortunately, much of recent church music is of inferior quality; mind-numbing praise choruses with few words one sings repeatedly come to mind immediately.  Verbose, theologically dense texts appeal to me, and most of those are old.

Sing to the Lord a New Song:  A New Moravian Songbook (2013), a product of the Moravian Music Foundation, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, contains gold, dross, and much in the middle.  The texts–liturgies, prayers, hymns, and songs–are all new, as are some of the tunes.  Most of the tunes, however, are standards.  Three examples follow:

1. “Passion Chorale” is the tune for the familiar “O Sacred Head, Sore Wounded.”  In Sing to the Lord a New Song it is the tune for “Walk With Me Each Day, Savior.”
2. “Slane” is the tune for “Be Thou My Vision” and “Lord of All Hopefulness” in many hymnals.  In Sing to the Lord a New Song it is the tune for “We Humbly Gather in This Place.”
3. “Tallis’ Canon” is the tune for “All Praise to Thee, My God, This Night” in many hymnals.  In Sing to the Lord a New Song it is the tune for a new Communion hymn, “Gather All Sisters and Brothers.”

Those are three examples of good texts.  Unfortunately, some of the texts are bad.  Exhibit A in my case is a Christmas song, “In This Crowd, Sing Aloud,” set to “Jingle Bells.”    The unimpressive lyrics include the following:

What a big surprise!

The Savior was a child!

The Christmas story goes to show God’s plans are really wild!

That text is far removed from the exalted standards of the Moravian Youth Hymnal (1942), a volume whose creators sought to give young people “the best in sacred music.”

Sing to the Lord a New Song contains eight liturgies, some prayers, and 78 or so hymns and songs.  The liturgies are:

1. Liturgy of Servanthood,
2. The Good Shepherd,
3. Examine Prayer,
4. Reflections on Psalm 121,
5. A Journey Through Psalm 23,
6. Mothers’ Day,
7. Fathers’ Day, and
8. inTending commUnity:  A Reflection.

Some of the liturgies and prayers are of a higher literary quality than others, but I propose that none of the authors can claim to be stylistic heirs of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556).

My verdict regarding Sing to the Lord a New Song is that one should pretend that the liturgies, the prayers, and some of the hymns and songs do not exist–like Jar Jar Binks, Howard the Duck (1986), and the Sixth Doctor’s garish outfit.

Above:  The Doctor and Davros in Revelation of the Daleks (1985)

A Screen Capture I took via PowerDVD

One can use most of the book in a spiritually and intellectually profitable manner, however.

The church calendar, the obligatory acknowledgments, and several indices complete the volume.  An index of hymn tunes is glaringly absent, however.

V.  CONCLUSION

I grew up in the State of Georgia–the southern part longer than in the north thereof.  There is only one Moravian congregation in the state–in the Atlanta suburb of Stone Mountain, to be exact.  Since 2005 I have lived in Athens-Clarke County, Georgia, to the northeast of Atlanta.  The combination of the these facts means that I have viewed the Moravian Church from a distance and never entered a building of a congregation thereof.  My experiences of Moravian music and liturgy have come via books, compact discs, radio programs, and Internet videos.  Classical Moravian music has become one of my favorite genres and has functioned as the soundtrack to much of my blogging–especially regarding Moravians and the Moravian Church.

Much of what I have learned while researching and writing this series of posts bothers me.  Members of the Unitas Fratrum are heirs to an illustrious heritage of quality–one which many, to their credit, maintain.  More of them should honor it and extend it into the future.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

FEBRUARY 25, 2015 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF SAINTS GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS, NONNA, AND THEIR CHILDREN:  SAINTS GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS THE YOUNGER, CAESARIUS OF NAZIANZUS, AND GORGONIA OF NAZIANZUS

THE FEAST OF ELIZABETH FEDDE, LUTHERAN DEACONESS

THE FEAST OF JOHN ROBERTS, EPISCOPAL MISSIONARY TO THE SHOSONE AND ARAPAHOE

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Updated and Corrected Slightly on April 25, 2015

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HARDCOPY SOURCES

Burcaw, Robert T.  Discovering the New Moravian Book of Worship.  Bethlehem, PA:  Interprovincial Women’s Board of the Moravian Church, 199

__________, ed.  The Moravian Book of Worship Manual for Worship Planners.  Bethlehem, PA:  Interprovincial Board of Publications and Communications, 1995.

Frank, Albert H.  Companion to the Moravian Book of Worship.  Winston-Salem, NC:  Moravian Music Foundation, 2004.

Hymnal and Liturgies of the Moravian Church.  Bethlehem, PA:  Moravian Church in America, 1969.

Hymnal and Liturgies of the Moravian Church (Unitas Fratrum).  Bethlehem, PA:  Moravian Church in America, 1923.

Knouse, Nola Reed, ed.  The Music of the Moravian Church in America.  Rochester, NY:  University of Rochester Press, 2008.

Moravian Book of Worship.  Bethlehem, PA:  Moravian Church in America, 1995.

Moravian Church Desk Calendar and Plan Book 2014.  Bethlehem, PA:  Moravian Church in North America, 2013.

Moravian Youth Hymnal.  Bethlehem, PA:  Interprovincial Board of Christian Education, 1942.

Readings for Holy Week.  Bethlehem, PA:  Interprovincial Board of Communication, 2000.

Readings for Holy Week.  Music Edition.  Bethlehem, PA:  Interprovincial Board of Communication, 2000.

Sing to the Lord a New Song:  A New Moravian Songbook.  Winston-Salem, NC:  Moravian Music Foundation, 2013.

Singing from the Heart:  A Shorter Moravian Hymnal and Liturgies.  Winston-Salem, NC:  Moravian Church in America.  2010.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Above:  My Copies of the Hymnal and Liturgies of the Moravian Church (Unitas Fratrum) (1923), the Moravian Youth Hymnal (1942), the Moravian Youth Hymnal (1961), and the Hymnal and Liturgies of the Moravian Church (1969), February 20, 2015

Image Source = Kenneth Randolph Taylor

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

LITURGY IN THE MORAVIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA, PART IV

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Throughout, the revisers have striven to maintain the high standards and noble ideals handed down in the worship-song of the Moravian Church.

—Hymnal and Liturgies of the Moravian Church (Unitas Fratrum) (1923), page 5

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I.  PREFACE AND INTRODUCTION

This post stands in lineage with the Preface and Parts I, II, and III.

With this post I enter the phase of this series in which I operate almost entirely from hardcopy sources.  This reality appeals to me, for I relate better to a book than to a PDF file of a book.  I prefer paper to a screen any day.  And I can open two books and compare them side-by-side more easily than I can compare pages on PDF files on the same computer.

The Moravian Church in America published two major liturgical books-hymnals–in 1923 and 1969–and two youth hymnals-songbooks during the span of time this post covers.  The two provinces usually succeeded in balancing quality of texts and music on one hand and cultural popularity of style on the other.

II.  HYMNAL AND LITURGIES OF THE MORAVIAN CHURCH (UNITAS FRATRUM) (1923)

Above:  My Copy of the Hymnal and Liturgies of the Moravian Church (Unitas Fratrum) (1923), February 20, 2015

Image Source = Kenneth Randolph Taylor

Perhaps the best way to commence an analysis of the Hymnal and Liturgies of the Moravian Church (Unitas Fratrum) (1923) is with its appearance.  The gold-embossed letters in an ornate font set against a black cover proclaim a strong sense of reverence for God and the worship thereof.  Fortunately, most of the content is consistent with the formality of the external font.  Unfortunately, some of the content is inconsistent with the formality of the external font.

Next I move along to the Liturgy, which occupies pages 11-171.  Most of the content is identical to that of the 1890 expanded version of the 1876 Liturgy from the Liturgy and Hymns.  Some notable differences exist, however:

1. The Lord’s Supper service permits the use of individual cups.
2. The Communion for the Sick has become the Private Celebration of the Lord’s Supper.
3. Language in some rituals indicates the influence of the American Standard Version of the Bible (1901).
4. The new Special Services section includes four new services:  Missionary, Patriotic, For Schools and Colleges, and the Office for the Service Preparatory to the Holy Communion.
5. There is a second rite for the Burial of the Dead.
6. The Liturgical Service in Memory of the Martyrs has become the rite for All Saints’ Day.
7. The service for a Day of Humiliation and Prayer has departed the Services for the Church Seasons section for the new Special Services section.
8. The service for the First Sunday in Advent also fits the Third and Fourth Sundays in that season as well as Palm Sunday.  (The Second Sunday in Advent retains a separate service.)
9. The Communion Liturgies section has become the Communion Hymns section.

Of all of these changes, the one which arches my eyebrows the most is the fact that the service for three of the four Sundays in Advent applies also to Palm Sunday.  I, as an Episcopalian who uses The Book of Common Prayer (1979), am accustomed to a Palm Sunday ritual unique to that day.  The Moravian service in questions sounds like Advent, for it includes the hymn “Come, Thou Long-Expected Jesus” and sounds like Palm Sunday, for it includes the hymn “Hail to the Lord’s Anointed” and Isaiah 42:3 (Authorized Version):

A bruised reed shall He not break, and the smoking flax shall He not quench; He shall bring forth judgment unto truth.

The Patriotic service (pages 79-81) replaces Office of Worship XXXI (pages 31 and 32 of the Offices of Worship and Hymns, 1891).  The new service replaces a certain prayer, the one with the morally troublesome petition to learn “submit ourselves to every ordinance of man” for God’s sake.  That prayer, in full is:

Watch graciously over all governments; establish them in truth and righteousness, and give them thoughts of peace.  Bless the President of the United States and both Houses of Congress; the Governor and Legislature of this Commonwealth, and all others that are in authority; and grant us to lead under them a quiet and a peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.  Teach us to submit ourselves to every ordinance of man for Thy sake; and to seek the peace of the places where we dwell.  Give prosperity, O God, to this land, and salvation to all its people.

–Offices of Worship and Hymns (With Tunes) (1891), page 32

Is there no exemption for civil disobedience against Jim Crow laws and genocidal dictators?  The replacement prayer is still troublesome from a post-Watergate perspective, however:

Bless the President of the United States and both Houses of Congress, the Governor and Legislature of this Commonwealth, and all others that are in authority.  Protect them from violence, and fill the hearts of the people with reverence and love for those who, as the ministers of God, have been set for the punishment of evil-doers and the praise of them that do well.  Raise up for us shepherds that shall perform Thy pleasure, who, in patience and fortitude, shall stay themselves upon their God.

—The Hymnal and Liturgies of the Moravian Church (Unitas Fratrum) (1923), page 80

The Hymnal and Liturgies (1923) includes a lectionary table, a list of the festivals of the church year, 25 chants and responses, 952 hymns, and several indices.  The topically arranged hymns include a healthy representation of the output of Moravian authors, translators, and composers as well as products from ecumenical hymnody.

The hymns range from the old to the more recent, “recent” meaning the author, translator, or composer was alive in 1923.  Most of the hymn content of the book, however, comes from people who died before that year.  And the quality of texts ranges from John Mason Neale (1818-1866) translations of Greek and Latin hymns on the high end to Frances Jane Van Alstyne (Fanny J. Crosby) (1820-1915) hymns on the low end, with “Jesus Loves Me, This I Know” occupying room in the middle (closer to Crosby than to Neale).

The format of the hymn section is old-fashioned by contemporary standards.  The musical systems contain the first verse only, so the other verses fill space below the systems.  This is a format consistent with practice of the time.  I have identified it in other volumes dating from 1895 to 1918 in my collection.  I have also noticed a different format–placing more or all verses inside the systems–in denominational hymnals as early as 1918.

III.  MORAVIAN YOUTH HYMNAL (1942-1961)

Above:  My Copies of the 1942 and 1961 Editions of the Moravian Youth Hymnal, February 20, 2015

Image Source = Kenneth Randolph Taylor

The First Edition (1942)

The Moravian Youth Hymnal for Use in Church School and All Young People’s Meetings stands in line with Moravian youth hymn books as far back as 1755.  It is certainly a successor to the Hymns and Offices of Worship (1866) and the Offices of Worship and Hymns (1872).  Those who prepared the Moravian Youth Hymnal manifested a commitment to quality.  As the Preface to the First Edition stated:

It is a lamentable fact that the Christian churches of America have been slow in giving their young people the best in sacred music.  Many testify to the fact that they find better music in their public schools than in their churches and church-schools.  The various denominations have been moving to raise the quality of church-school music.  With this hymnal, the Moravian Church makes its contribution to a great cause.

The First Edition opens with 219 hymns, arranged topically.   All the verses are inside the musical systems, unlike the arrangement in the Hymnal and Liturgies (1923).  The selection of hymns indicates a classical bias, of which I approve.  They range from antiquity (Clement of Alexandria, who lived from 170 to 220 C.E.) to the twentieth century, with Henry Van Dyke‘s masterpiece, “Joyful, Joyful, We Adore Thee,” set to a tune arranged from Ludwig von Beethoven‘s Symphony #9.  Also, “Jesus Loves Me! This I Know,” present in the Hymnal and Liturgies (1923), is absent from the Moravian Youth Hymnal.  The classical bias is also evident in the Orders of Worship.  The first Order of Worship opens with either “Morning” from Edvard Grieg‘s Peer Gynt or a hymn, “Light of the World, We Hail Thee.”  The hymnal impresses me.

The Worship Section of the Moravian Youth Hymnal (1942) contains Orders of Worship, Aids to Worship, and a Devotional Poetry section.  There are sixteen Orders of Worship:

1. Morning Watch;
2. Divine Guidance;
3. The Word of God;
4. The Lord Is Come;
5. The Lord is Risen;
6. The Spirit-Filled Life;
7. The Good Shepherd;
8. Worship and Admonition;
9. Christian Education;
10. Worship Through Music;
11. Life, a Stewardship;
12. The Christian Home;
13. For God and Country;
14. Peace and World Brotherhood;
15. The Field is the World; and
16. A Service for the Out-of-Doors.

Order of Worship XIII, the patriotic service, includes the troublesome prayer about submitting “ourselves to every ordinance of man” for God’s sake, unfortunately.  I have too much of a rebellious tendency in my thinking to consent to that sentiment.

There are six categories of Aids to Worship:

1. Calls to Worship,
2. Prayers,
3. Offertory Sentences,
4. Benedictions,
5. Suggested Scripture Selections; and
6. Responsive Readings.

The Devotional Poetry Section has twelve categories:

1. Worship,
2. Prayer,
3. God’s Word,
4. God’s Time,
5. Faith and Trust,
6. The Child Christ,
7. The Man Christ,
8. Salvation and Easter,
9. The Christian Life–Brotherhood-Aspiration,
10. Nature and the Out-of-Doors,
11. Peace, and
12. Morning Worship.

Indices complete the volume.

Subsequent Editions and Printings

The Moravian Youth Hymnal went into multiple printings and editions.  I acquired two different versions via the Internet for my library.  One is the First Edition (1942); the other comes from 1961.  The title page of that volume contains four years:  1942, 1954, 1956, and, of course, 1961.  That book has two prefaces and claims to be the Second Edition.  I notice some discrepancies, however:

1. The Preface to the Second Edition states that the hymn section remains unaltered and that the Orders of Worship have undergone extensive revision.
2. Yet that same Preface mentions junior hymns supplement (#222-235), all classical, tasteful hymns, such as “Away in the Manger” and “We Three Kings.”
3. The 1961 version of the Moravian Youth Hymnal also contains hymns #220 (Christian Gregor‘s Hosanna of 1783) and #221 (Francis Florentine Hagen‘s Morning Star).

The revised Orders of Worship exist in two sections:  Services of Worship and Liturgical Forms.  The revised forms quote the Revised Standard Version of the Bible (1952), not the Authorized Version.  Updated versions of all of the sixteen orders from 1942 are present, with one name change; “Divine Guidance” has become “Choosing the Way.”  The two new Services of Worship are “The Church” and “Thanksgiving and Harvest Home.”  The eleven Liturgical Forms are:

1. Worship,
2. Beatitudes,
3. Christ (Lent),
4. Trinity,
5. Christian Life,
6. Christian Growth,
7. Love,
8. Humility,
9. Peace,
10. Stewardship, and
11. Youth.

The Aids to Worship section has five categories–the six from 1942 minus Prayers.

Indices complete the volume.

I know from Internet searches that the Moravian Youth Hymnal remained in print at least as late as 1966.

IV.  MORAVIAN FELLOWSHIP SONGS (NO EARLIER THAN 1954)

Moravian Fellowship Songs is a volume considerably less illustrious than the Moravian Youth Hymnal.  The slim paperback (96 pages, to be precise) offers no publication date, but my review of internal evidence (copyright notices on songs) indicates that the American Moravian Youth Fellowship published the book no earlier than 1954.  The range of quality of the 112 songs ranges from the abysmal to the excellent.  Classics of hymnody rub shoulders with “This Old Man” and “Hiking Song.”  Between those two extremes reside rounds and spirituals, far from my favorite genres.  (I am a European classicist.  Brian Wren takes this attitude to task in Praying Twice:  The Music and Words of Congregational Song, 2000.  It is an expression of classism, he writes in disapproval.  Nevertheless, I remain an ardent European classicist.)  Forms for a communion service and a lovefeast fill the back of the book, which ends with an index and a list of fun songs.

V.  HYMNAL AND LITURGIES OF THE MORAVIAN CHURCH (1969)

Above:  My Copy of the Hymnal and Liturgies of the Moravian Church (1969), February 20, 2015

Image Source = Kenneth Randolph Taylor

The final volume I analyze in this post is the Hymnal and Liturgies of the Moravian Church (1969), the one with a cross and a chalice on the red front cover.  My copy of the Hymnal and Liturgies (1969) is thicker than my copy of its 1923 predecessor despite the fact that the 1969 book contains 358 fewer hymns than the Hymnal and Liturgies (1923).  The 1923 volume offers 952 hymns and 25 chants and responses, but its immediate successor contains 594 hymns and 29 chants and responses.  Another difference is that the Hymnal and Liturgies (1969) offers a more ecumenical hymnody than does its immediate predecessor.  The selection in the 1969 volume is more contemporary relative to its publication date and contains more folk and gospel hymns than does the Hymnal and Liturgies (1923).

The Liturgy of 1969 is similar to that of 1923 in many ways.  There are, however, some noticeable differences:

1. The Liturgy of 1923 contains two General Liturgies, I and II.  The Liturgy of 1969, however, contains four, the Liturgies of Confession, Trust, Adoration, and Covenanting.
2. The version of the Church Litany in the Hymnal and Liturgies (1969) is abbreviated and revised to remove duplications.
3. There is just one rite for the Burial of the Dead again.  (There are two in the Liturgy of 1923.)
4. The Liturgy of 1969 merges the Liturgical Services for the Church Seasons section and the Special Services section from 1923 into the Church Year and Special Occasions section.
5. Some of the rites in Church Year and Special Occasions section have different names than their 1923 counterparts.  “Missionary” has become “the Spread of the Gospel,” “Epiphany” has become “Epiphany and Christian Witness,” “Whitsunday” has become “Pentecost (Whitsunday),” “All Saint’ Day” has become “All Saints,” “For Schools and Colleges” has become “Education,” “Patriotic” has become “National Occasions,” and “A Day of Humiliation and Prayer” has become “Penitence and Prayer.”
6. The Communion Hymns section has become the Holy Communion section.
7. The preparatory service for the Lord’s Supper, located in the Special Services section in 1923, has moved to the Holy Communion section.
8. The Liturgy of 1969 merges the services for Pentecost and August Thirteenth.
9. The Liturgy of 1969 merges the confirmation service and the rite for Baptism of Adults, adds the Reaffirmation of Faith, and creates a unified rite for the Admission of Adults with the option of omitting unnecessary elements in congregational settings without, as the Preface says, “damage to the whole.”

The Liturgy of 1969, debuting on the cusp of great change in the language of worship and in the calendar of much of Western Christianity, retained old-fashioned pronouns (Thee, Thy, et cetera) and the old calendar, complete with Septuagesima, Sexagesima, Quinquagesima, and Sundays after Trinity.  (The revised Roman Catholic calendar and lectionary, which influenced much of Protestantism and Anglicanism, became effective on the First Sunday of Advent, 1969.  The -gesimas were gone and Sundays after Pentecost replaced Sundays after Trinity.)  These facts, combined with the rapidly changing hymnody of the 1970s (not to mention the 1980s), rendered the Hymnal and Liturgies (1969) outdated when it was young.  The volume was not unique in this regard; I can name other books of the same genre and generation (about 1965-1973) to which that statement applies.  Many of them were excellent books of greater quality than then-contemporary, Low Church Evangelical resources.  And, as much as I pray to God as “You,” not “Thee,” I would rather sing out of the Hymnal and Liturgies (1969) than out of non-denominational Evangelical hymn books such as Hymns for the Living Church (1974), Hymns for the Family of God (1976), and The New Church Hymnal (1976).

As usual with Moravian hymnals, the indexing is thorough.  Also, the biographical notes in one index are quite helpful.

VI.  CONCLUSION

The Moravian Book of Worship (1995) replaced the Hymnal and Liturgies (1969).  Just as use of the Hymnal and Liturgies (1923) continued after 1969, use of the Hymnal and Liturgies (1969) persists.  (I have found evidence of this on congregational websites.)  The increasing diversity of the Moravian Church in America, fed in large part by immigration, has led to more variety in worship and song styles.  Official and unofficial Moravian Church publications I have read accept, if not praise, this change.  I, however, remain a staid Episcopalian and an unapologetic European classicist.  I know what I like, and old Moravian hymnals approach that ideal more often than contemporary ones do.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

FEBRUARY 22, 2015 COMMON ERA

THE FIRST SUNDAY IN LENT, YEAR B

THE FEAST OF ERIC LIDDELL, SCOTTISH PRESBYTERIAN MISSIONARY TO CHINA

THE FEAST OF SAINT PRAETEXTUS, ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF ROUEN

THE FEAST OF RASMUS JENSEN, LUTHERAN MISSIONARY TO CANADA

THE FEAST OF SAINTS THALLASIUS, LIMNAEUS, AND MARON, ROMAN CATHOLIC MONKS

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HARDCOPY SOURCES

The Book of Common Worship:  Provisional Services and Lectionary for the Christian Year.  Philadelphia, PA:  Westminster Press, 1966.

The Book of Worship for Church and Home; With Orders of Worship, Services for the Administration of Sacraments, and Aids to Worship According to the Usages of The Methodist Church.  Nashville, TN:  Methodist Publishing House, 1965.

Burcaw, Robert T., ed.  The Moravian Book of Worship Manual for Worship Planners.  Bethlehem, PA:  Interprovincial Board of Publications and Communications, 1995.

Common Service Book of the Lutheran Church.  Philadelphia, PA:  Board of Publication of the United Lutheran Church in America, 1918.

The Covenant Hymnal.  Chicago, IL:  Covenant Press, 1973.

Frank, Albert H.  Companion to the Moravian Book of Worship.  Winston-Salem, NC:  Moravian Music Foundation, 2004.

Holy Women, Holy Men:  Celebrating the Saints.  New York, NY:  Church Publishing, 2010.

The Hymn Book of the Anglican Church of Canada and the United Church of Canada.  1971.

The Hymnal.  Philadelphia, PA:  Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath-School Work, 1895.

The Hymnal.  Philadelphia, PA:  Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath-School Work, 1911.

The Hymnal.  New York, NY:  Oxford University Press, 1918.

Hymnal and Liturgies of the Moravian Church.  Bethlehem, PA:  Moravian Church in America, 1969.

Hymnal and Liturgies of the Moravian Church (Unitas Fratrum).  Bethlehem, PA:  Moravian Church in America, 1923.

The Hymnal with the Supplement of 1917.  Philadelphia, PA:  Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath-School Work, 1917.

Hymnbook for Christian Worship.  St. Louis, MO:  Bethany Press, 1970.

Hymns for the Family of God.  Nashville, TN:  Paragon Associates, 1976.

Hymns for the Living Church.  Carol Stream, IL:  Hope Publishing Company, 1974.

Knouse, Nola Reed, ed.  The Music of the Moravian Church in America.  Rochester, NY:  University of Rochester Press, 2008.

The Liturgy of the Reformed Church in America Together with the Psalter Selected and Arranged for Responsive Reading.  Gerrit T. Vander Lugt, Ed.  New York, NY:  Board of Education, 1968.

The Methodist Hymnal.  New York:  Eaton & Mains, 1905.

The Methodist Hymnal:  Official Hymnal of The Methodist Church.  Nashville, TN:  Methodist Publishing House, 1966.

Moravian Book of Worship.  Bethlehem, PA:  Moravian Church in America, 1995.

Moravian Youth Hymnal.  Bethlehem, PA:  Interprovincial Board of Christian Education, 1942.

Moravian Youth Hymnal.  Bethlehem, PA:  Interprovincial Board of Christian Education, 1961.

The New Church Hymnal.  Lexicon Music, 1976.

The New Psalms and Hymns.  Richmond, VA:  Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1901.

The Pilgrim Hymnal with Responsive Readings.  New York, NY:  Pilgrim Press, 1904.

The Pilgrim Hymnal with Responsive Readings and Other Aids to Worship.  Boston, MA:  Pilgrim Press, 1912.

Worship in Song Hymnal.  Kansas City, MO:  Lillenas Publishing Company, 1972.

The Worshipbook–Services and Hymns.  Philadelphia, PA:  Westminster Press, 1972.

Wren, Brian.  Praying Twice:  The Music and Words of Congregational Song.  Louisville, KY:  Westminster John Knox Press, 2000.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Above:  The Flag of the United States of America, 1877

Image in the Public Domain

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

LITURGY IN THE MORAVIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA, PART III

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Watch graciously over all governments; establish them in truth and righteousness, and give them thoughts of peace.  Bless the President of the United States and both Houses of Congress; the Governor and Legislature of this Commonwealth, and all others that are in authority; and grant us to lead under them a quiet and a peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.  Teach us to submit ourselves to every ordinance of man for Thy sake; and to seek the peace of the places where we dwell.  Give prosperity, O God, to this land, and salvation to all its people.

—Offices of Worship and Hymns (With Tunes) (1891), page 32

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I.  PREFACE AND INTRODUCTION

This post stands in lineage with the Preface, Part I, and Part II.

I wrote Part II of this series in August 2014.  Since then I have been pursuing other projects, but now I return to this series.  I predict that the Liturgy in the Moravian Church in America series will have five installments.  The projected Part IV will cover the Hymnal and Liturgies of the Moravian Church (Unitas Fratrum) (1923), the Moravian Youth Hymnal (1942, 1954, 1956, and 1961), and the Hymnal and Liturgies of the Moravian Church (1969).  The projected Part V will encompass the Moravian Book of Worship (1995) and Sing to the Lord a New Song:  A New Moravian Songbook (2013).

Part of what I have been doing relative to blogging since August has proven helpful in preparing for the writing of this post and the initial planning of the projected Parts IV and V.  Among my other projects is the Ecumenical Calendar of Saints’ Days and Holy Days at SUNDRY THOUGHTS, my original weblog.  Some of the people I have added to the Ecumenical Calendar have been figures to whom I will refer to in this post and in subsequent posts in this series.  When, for example, I read the name “Mrs. J. Kenneth Pfhol” in the Preface to the Second Edition of the Moravian Youth Hymnal (1954), I know that she was actually Harriet Elizabeth “Bessie” Whittington Pfohl (1881-1971), wife of Bishop John Kenneth Pfohl, Sr. (1874-1967).  And the name of Francis Florentine Hagen (1815-1907) means something to me, for I have also declared him to be a saint recently.

A few notes regarding sources are appropriate.  An invaluable source has been Michael E. Westinghouse’s academic paper, “A Look at Eighteenth and Nineteenth-Century Liturgy” (December 2011), which he wrote in partial fulfillment of his Master of Arts in Liberal Studies at Wake Forest University.  I found that resource via an Internet search and downloaded the PDF file.  Links to electronic copies of certain books at archive.org populate this post so that you, O reader, will have an opportunity to read those volumes.  Finally, I have included a Bibliography of Hardcopy Sources at the end of this post.

Shall we launch into the material without further ado, O reader?

II.  ESTABLISHING AN AMERICAN MORAVIAN IDENTITY

 Context and Theoretical Approach

Transitions are difficult times, for being betwixt and between, neither one thing or another, is inherently awkward.  That is true of individuals, as those familiar with adolescence understand.  It also applies to institutions, such as those making the transition from one language to another.  The Moravian Church in America struggled with that issue as it contended with problems germane to cultural assimilation and related questions of identity in the marketplace of ecclesiastical ideas in the United States of America.  The new shape of American Moravian identity and practice arose from the old and remained easily recognizable as Moravian.

Certain old ways were ceasing to be feasible.  Moravian communal living, which had not prevented profitable enterprises among members of the Unitas Fratrum, had made maintaining a rigorous worship schedule possible.  Yet, by the late 1850s, as many of the United Brethren accepted mainstream employment and kept schedules consistent with it, attendance at services plummeted.  A contributing factor to this change in church attendance was the decline in the number of German speakers and the increase in the number of English speakers.  Many liturgical resources were in German, hence irrelevant to English speakers.  The production of German-language hymnals continued, with a new hymnbook (containing 836 texts) in 1848 and its revision rolling off the presses in 1885.  A constituency for such resources existed for some time, obviously, but it was shrinking.  In addition, many English-speaking Moravians departed the Unitas Fratrum for congregations of other Protestant communions, such as the Baptists and the Methodists, which had simpler forms of worship.

During much of the nineteenth century U.S. Moravian worship resources were reprints or adaptations of books from England and Germany.  The first original U.S. Moravian liturgies and hymnals debuted in the 1860s and 1870s, a few years after 1857, when the global Moravian Church, accepting an American proposal, restructured itself and granted home rule in the provinces.  American Moravian provincial synods, using their domestic autonomy, declared liturgical independence and innovated within their tradition.

U.S. Lutheran minister Philip H. Pfatteicher, writing about the transition from the Service Book and Hymnal (1958) to the Lutheran Book of Worship (1978), including the Contemporary Worship series of ten temporary and provisional volumes in which liturgists experimented from 1969 to 1976, observed:

The revolution of the 1960s and the early ’70s was flawed because, as Sigurdur Nordal wisely observes in another context, “The preservation of old values is an indispensable counterpart to the creation of the new.”  The church needed by trial and occasional error to come to understand that the new is not always found in opposition to the old but arises from the old as its natural growth and development.  Stability and continuity are essential elements of catholic Christianity.

—Commentary on the Lutheran Book of Worship:  Lutheran Liturgy in Its Ecumenical Context (1990), page 10

Likewise, U.S. Moravian liturgical innovation during the late 1800s arose from old practices and adapted to then-contemporary circumstances.

New Hymnals and Liturgies

Prior to 1851

The first Moravian liturgical book anyone printed in America was the 1801 hymnal (with the supplement of 1808) of the British Province, in 1813.  A Collection of Hymns for the Use of the Protestant Church of the United Brethren–New and Revised Edition (composite, 1809) was just one resource Moravians in the United States used in worship.  There was also the British Province’s revised hymnal of 1826, A Collection of Hymns for the the Use of the Protestant Church of the United Brethren–New and Revised Edition.  And there were, of course, German-language resources. Then, in 1849, the British Province published another hymnal, the Liturgy and Hymns for the Use of the Protestant Church of the United Brethren, or Unitas Fratrum–A New and Revised Edition, with 1260 hymns.

The Liturgy and Hymns for the Use of the Protestant Church of the United Brethren, or Unitas Fratrum–A New and Revised Edition (1851)

Two years later the American adaptation of the 1849 British Liturgy and Hymns debuted.  The U.S. version dropped some hymns, added others, and offered 1200 hymns.  It was a text-only volume, in accordance with Moravian practice at the time.  The traditional services, such as the Church Litany, populated the front of the book, but the Litany had been falling out of favor in America.

The Hymns and Offices of Worship, for Use in Schools; With an Appendix of Tunes (1866) and the Offices of Worship and Hymns, Principally for Use in Schools; With an Appendix of Tunes (1872)

Reinvigoration of U.S. Moravian worship began in 1864, with the authorization of the creation of new liturgies.  The resulting volume was the Hymns and Offices of Worship, for Use in Schools; With an Appendix of Tunes (1866).  The second edition, renamed the Offices of Worship and Hymns, Principally for Use in Schools; With an Appendix of Tunes, debuted six years later.  The Offices of Worship marked a turning point in American Moravian liturgical practices.  The first volume, intended for occasional use  in informal settings, such as Sunday Schools and boarding schools, became popular in more contexts, such as churches and homes, hence the slight difference in the title in the second edition.  Peter Wolle (1792-1871), whose Moravian Tune Book, technically Hymn Tunes Used in the Church of the United Brethren (1836) had edited traditional Moravian tunes to make them sound less foreign to native-born Americans, served on the committee for the first edition.  One goal of the 1866 edition was that Moravian children would, to quote The Book of Common Prayer with regard to scripture in the collect for Proper 28, to “read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest” the 360 hymns included in the volume and grow up with a better grasp of Moravian hymnody than many Moravian adults had.  The first edition introduced seven Offices of Worship (drawn heavily from the Bible) for use alongside the traditional rites.  The second edition (1872) revised some of those Offices and added four more.

The Offices of Worship stood within tradition and departed from it simultaneously.  Including hymn tunes and texts (seldom on the same page) departed from the then-contemporary practice yet approached a tradition the Moravian Church had abandoned in the seventeenth century.  Also, the Offices of Worship, which were consistent with traditional rituals in content were new in structure.  Furthermore, the 1866 and 1872 books standardized the American hymn tunes which many congregations had been singing for years.  The hymnal portion of the 1872 Offices of Worship, consisting of 365 texts, was small by Moravian standards (1260 in the 1849 British hymnal, 1200 in the 1851 American hymnal, et cetera), but it was a start.  And the third edition, that of 1891, contained 1564 hymns.

The Liturgy and Hymns of the American Province of the Unitas Fratrum, or the Moravian Church (1876 and 1890)

The Liturgy and Hymns of the American Province of the Unitas Fratrum, or the Moravian Church (1876) drew from German rites, ecumenical hymnody, and the Offices of Worship.  The Liturgy and Hymns, which existed in early and late versions, became more extensive by 1890, when it came to include ten Communion Liturgies and fourteen Liturgical Services for the Church Seasons, including two for Sunday Evening.  These Communion Liturgies and Liturgical Services included designated hymns for the congregation to sing.  The rubrics for the Liturgical Services gave ministers discretion to use those rites in lieu of the traditional Church Litany.  The 1876/1890 book was the first really American Moravian formal liturgy and hymnal.  It also reflected the influence of the Oxford Movement within the Anglican Communion and established the template for the beloved Hymnal and Liturgies of the Moravian Church (Unitas Fratrum) (1923).  930 hymns (words only), 28 doxologies and benedictions (also words only), and an index completed the volume.

The Offices of Worship and Hymns (With Tunes) (1891)

The next liturgical development was the Offices of Worship and Hymns (With Tunes) (1891), which returned to the long-abandoned Moravian tradition of pairing words and tunes in hymnals consistently.  This book, which arranged the tunes by meter, provided the tune (usually without words inside the systems) then the hymns one could sing to it.  This, the third and greatly expanded edition in the Offices of Worship series of volumes, was for use in churches, homes (at morning and evening worship), schools, et cetera.  Whereas the first edition (1866) had offered 360 hymns and the second edition (1872) had contained 365 hymns, the third edition boasted 1564 hymns, indexed thoroughly in various indices.  Furthermore, the 1891 Offices of Worship offered 31 services, including one for a national holiday, in contrast to the seven services in the 1866 book and the eleven services in the 1872 volume.  The 1891 Offices of Worship resembled the 1876/1890 Liturgy and Hymns, down to the tables for the festivals and the lectionary for the church year.

The Liturgy and Offices of Worship and Hymns of the American Province of the Unitas Fratrum, or the Moravian Church (1908)

The merged form of the Offices of Worship (1891) and the Liturgy from the Liturgy and Hymns (1876 and 1890) was the Liturgy and Offices of Worship and Hymns of the American Province of the Unitas Fratrum, or the Moravian Church (1908).  Two standard works became one.  The Hymnal and Liturgies of the Moravian Church (Unitas Fratrum) (1923) succeeded it in 1923.

One should not imagine, however, that adherence to the official Moravian rituals, even allowing for substituting another rite for the Church Litany, was uniform in the late 1800s and early 1900s.  Sometimes extemporaneous prayer replaced litanies, for example.  Furthermore, congregations adapted liturgical practices.  The Reverend Otto Dreydoppel, Jr., in Chapter 1 of The Moravian Book of Worship Manual for Worship Planners (1995), quoted Bishop Edwin W. Kortz, who said that the Moravian Church

is not so much a liturgical church as it is a free church with a long and rich tradition of liturgical prayer.

–page 13

That description is consistent with the liturgical deviations I mentioned earlier in this paragraph.

III.  CONCLUSION

Some of the old problems persisted after the publication of the Offices of Worship (1866, 1872, and 1891) and the Liturgy and Hymns (1876 and 1890).  Although the Offices of Worship and Hymns (1891) had congregations singing hymns such as “Rock of Ages, Cleft for Me” in particular services, the Reverend Francis Florentine Hagen (1815-1907), a great Moravian composer, found cause to complain about the detrimental effects of singing German chorale tunes badly upon the life of the Church in 1893:

By forcing upon English-speaking American Churches foreign tunes, which but few are able to sing properly, we estrange from our services the very people among whom God has placed us to work.  Need we wonder at our stunted growth?

–Quoted in The Music of the Moravian Church in America, edited by Nola Reed Knouse (2008), page 255

The saga of liturgy and hymnody in the Moravian Church in America is far from over.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

FEBRUARY 19, 2015 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF SAINT NERSES I THE GREAT, CATHOLICOS OF THE ARMENIAN APOSTOLIC CHURCH; AND SAINT MESROP, BIBLE TRANSLATOR

THE FEAST OF BERNARD BARTON, ENGLISH QUAKER POET AND HYMN WRITER

THE FEAST OF SAINT ELEUTHERIUS OF TOURNAI, ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP AND MARTYR

THE FEAST OF MILES COVERDALE, BIBLE TRANSLATOR

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HARDCOPY SOURCES

The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and Other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church Together with The Psalter or Psalms of David According to the Use of The Episcopal Church.  New York, NY:  Oxford University Press, 1979.  Reprint, 2007.

Burcaw, Robert T., ed.  The Moravian Book of Worship Manual for Worship Planners.  Bethlehem, PA:  Interprovincial Board of Publications and Communications, 1995.

Engel, Katherine Carte.  Religion and Profit:  Moravians in Early America.  Philadelphia, PA:  University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009.

Frank, Albert H.  Companion to the Moravian Book of Worship.  Winston-Salem, NC:  Moravian Music Foundation, 2004.

Hutton, James E.  A History of the Moravian Church.  London, England, UK:  Moravian Publication Office, 1909.  Reprint.

Hymnal and Liturgies of the Moravian Church (Unitas Fratrum).  Bethlehem, PA:  Moravian Church in America, 1923.

Knouse, Nola Reed, ed.  The Music of the Moravian Church in America.  Rochester, NY:  University of Rochester Press, 2008.

Pfatteicher, Philip H.  Commentary on the Lutheran Book of Worship:  Lutheran Liturgy in Its Ecumenical Context.  Minneapolis, MN:  Augsburg Fortress, 1990.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Above:  A View of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

Publication Date = May 20, 1761, by Thomas Jeffreys

Artist = Thomas Pownall (1722-1805)

Painter and Engraver = Paul Sandby (1731-1809)

Image Source = Library of Congress

Reproduction Number = LC-DIG-pga-04087

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

LITURGY IN THE MORAVIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA, PART II

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Grant us to bless them that curse us, and to do good to them that hate us;

Have mercy upon our slanderers and persecutors; and lay not this sin to their charge;

Hinder all schisms and scandals;

Put far from thy people deceivers and seducers;

Bring back all that have erred, or have been seduced;

Grant love and unity to all our congregations;

Hear us, gracious Lord and God!

–From the Church Litany, in A Collection of Hymns for the Use of the Protestant Church, of the United Brethren; New and Revised Edition (1809), page x

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I.  PREFACE AND INTRODUCTION

This post stands in lineage with the Prelude and Part I.

Immigrant and emigrant traditions intrigue me.  One reason for this fact is the reality of my ancestry, for I descend primarily from English people, some of whom settled in North America during the colonial era.  Some of my ancestors fought under the command of General George Washington during the U.S. War for Independence, in fact.  So I, a Caucasian, English-speaking male with deep roots in the United States of America, feel as non-ethnic as one can.  The closest I come to a sense of ethnicity is, to quote Gilbert and Sullivan’s H. M.S. Pinafore, “I am an Englishman.”  Indeed, “God Save the Queen,” er, “My Country, “Tis of Thee.”  Do you want tea with that?

People whose roots do not run deeply in the country in which they live occupy a different cultural space than do the rest of us.  Xenophobes and nativists consider that different cultural space inherently negative.  I reject the extremes of ethnocentrism, which holds up one’s culture as the ideal, and cultural relativism, which rejects the existence of standards and considers one culture just as good as any other.  No, I stand in the middle, where I welcome the positive influences and reject the negative ones, regardless of cultural origin.  Emigrants and immigrants have enriched this nation in countless ways, from cuisine to physical infrastructure.  Nevertheless, my digestive tract rejects much of their spicy food, so I practice considerable caution in the realm of culinary multiculturalism, much to the approval of my innards.

One of my the themes of this post is the struggle of many American Moravians with many of their fellow Americans who misunderstood them.  “Why do you use different hymn tunes than we do at the Methodist (or Baptist, Presbyterian, et cetera) Church?’ some asked, sometimes with hostility.  “What is the reason you insist on being different from other Protestants?” many wanted to know.  And, given the prominence of the nativistic politics of the American Party/Native American Party/American Republican Party in the middle third of the nineteenth century, these were serious questions which pointed to profound issues with which the Moravian Church in America had to struggle.

One lesson I have learned is that, despite the frequency of repetition of the ethic of “live and let live” or even to embrace and learn from certain differences, many people are unapologetic conformists.  This reality becomes obvious in a plethora of locations, from schools to places of employment.  I argue, however, that if God had intended us to be alike, God would not have created us to be different.

A few words about sources are appropriate before I delve headlong into the material.  I have listed hardcopy sources at the end of the post.  You, O reader, will find links to other posts behind parts of the text.  And I have found much useful information in an academic paper, “A Look at Eighteenth and Nineteenth-Century American Moravian Liturgy” (December 2011), which Michael E. Westmoreland, Jr., wrote for his Master of Arts in Liberal Studies degree at Wake Forest University.  I found the paper via an Internet search and downloaded the PDF file.  That document will also prove useful when I start taking notes for Part III of this series.

II.  GERMAN LEGACIES

The origins of the Renewed Unitas Fratrum were, of course, Germanic.  Central to it were Count Nicholas Ludwig von Zinzendorf (1700-1760) and his estate near Berthelsforf, Saxony.  On that estate, in 1722, Moravian exiles had settled and formed a community, Herrnhut.  Developments there and elsewhere in Europe functioned as background to American settlements and influenced them.

Rituals

Many of the influences (some of which I covered in Part I) pertained to rituals of varying degrees of formality.  There was, for example, the Church Litany, based on a litany which Martin Luther had revised from the Roman Catholic Liturgy of the Saints.  Luther had translated that text into German and removed all references to saints and the Pope.  The revised version was never as popular with Lutherans as with Moravians.  The Moravian revision debuted at Herrnhut in 1731 and became the center of Moravian liturgical practice and reinforced the communal nature of Moravian religious life.

More informal was the Singstrunde, or the “Singing Hour,” which started in 1727.  Across the Moravian world in the 1700s this constituted a standard part of evening devotions.  At Bethlehem, Pennyslvania, for example, the community held such a service each Saturday, in the late 1740s.  The form of Singstrunde was to sing stanzas and half-stanzas of hymns based on  a theme, thereby creating a sermon in song.  This, of course, required great knowledge of hymnody.  By 1770 readings from the Bible had become part of the service.

Related to the Singstrunde was the Love Feast, which had become the high point of Moravian festivals by the 1750s.  Composers wrote anthems for Love Feasts, which included common meals.

The Moravian practice of saying the Litany of the Wounds every Friday in communal settings in the 1700s pertained to the fact of Good Friday.  When people said it less frequently, they did so at least once a month, one week before Communion Sunday.  (The scheduling of Moravian Communion services has varied from once a quarter to once a month.)  Other times for the saying the Litany of the Wounds included days in the season of Lent.  Since 1753 the Litany has existed in two parts:  the Litany of the Life, Suffering, and Death of Christ, and the Hymn of the Wounds.

Forms were ordered and usually simple, although occasionally elaborate.  The purpose of worship was to promote love for Jesus and each other, and the forms were flexible with constant cores, so as to meet needs in various circumstances.  Related to that norm of ordered simplicity was the basic ministerial garment for Baptism, Communion, Marriage, and Confirmation.  The white surplice (often with a white belt) debuted in Moravian worship at a Communion service in Europe on May 2, 1748.  It, like other vestments, functioned as a uniform, thereby preventing the minister’s wardrobe from becoming a distraction.  My survey of websites of North American Moravian congregations has yielded images of clergymen and clergywomen leading worship while wearing a white surplice, a black Geneva robe (without a stole), and secular clothes.  This is consistent with the optional nature of Moravian vestments outside of those four rites.

The focus on divine (rather than on human) authority became more apparent than it was already in the Moravian Church in 1741.  There has been a series of Chief Elders, spiritual leaders of the Unitas Fratrum.  That year, however, Johann Leonhard Dober (1706-1766) resigned the position.  The job had become impossible due to the recent global expansion of the Church.  Also, Dober had no desire to function as a kind of Moravian Pope, which was what his office might have come to entail had he not resigned his post.  On November 13, 1741, the Church announced formally that Jesus Christ was the Chief Elder.  Since then November 13 has been the Festival of Christ the Chief Elder.  The designated parament color is White and the readings are Ezekiel 34:11-16, 23-24; Psalm 8; Hebrews 4:14-16; and John 10:1-10.

Settlements

Moravians arrived on the North American mainland in 1735.  The first group settled in Savannah, Georgia.  The initial Georgia mission (1735-1779) failed primarily due to internal divisions.  Outside pressures made matters worse, for the pacifistic Moravians refused to take up arms against the Spanish in the late 1730s.  This fact did nothing to endear them to the British military authorities.  Most of the Georgia contingent departed for Pennsylvania in 1740 and founded the settlement of Nazareth the following year.  The founding of other Moravian settlements ensued, such as at Bethabara (1753) and Salem (1766), in North Carolina.

Early Moravian settlements were communes which emphasized the self-sufficiency of the community and members’ responsibilities to and for each other.  Musical skills carried a high priority, but church music did not require professionalism.  Practice time was important and distracted people from dubious pursuits, but too much practice time detracted from communal duties.   Survival mattered, as did the rigorous daily worship schedule, which included morning, midday, and evening prayers.

Hymnals

The hymnals were mostly in German during the 1700s.  In fact, the first English-language Moravian hymnal rolled off the printing presses in England in 1742.  The Tunes for the Hymns in the Collection with Several Translations from the Moravian Hymnbook, with supplements in 1746 and 1749, was a personal collection which James Hutton had prepared.  The original edition had only 187 hymns, thus it was small by Moravian standards.  A Collection of Hymns of the Children of God in All Ages, From the Beginning Till Now; Designed Chiefly with the Brethren’s Church (1754), with Bishop John Gambold, Sr. (1711-1771), as the Editor, contained 1,055 hymn texts, however.  These spanned the time from the Early Church to the-then contemporary age and included works by Isaac Watts and Charles Wesley.  Only fifty-one hymns came from the Ancient Unity.  Next in line was  A Collection of Hymns, for the Use of the Protestant Church of the United Brethren (1789), with a mere 887 hymns plus liturgical texts dispersed among the hymns.  Given the fact that American Moravians used imported British and German worship materials prior to their 1851 hymnal, many of the Brethren in North America knew these English-language materials well.  For a long time, however, German was the main language of worship on this side of “the pond.”

Count Zinzendorf published the Herrnhuter Gesangbuch (1735), thereby starting the Moravian tradition of words-only hymnals for congregations and tune books for church musicians.  The 1735 hymnal offered 999 texts, 208 of which Zinzendorf had written.  Only two hymns came from the Ancient Unity.  Subsequent editions published through 1755 added a total of twelve appendices and four supplements.  Modern Moravian sources consider much of the textual content of hymnals from the “Sifting Time” (ending about 1750) as lacking good taste and exhibiting an excessive–even childish–emphasis on the wounds of Christ.

The next major development in German Moravian hymnody was the “London Book” of 1753-1755.  Alt und neuer Bunder Gesang, a.k.a. Das Londoner Gesangbuch, debuted in two parts.  It contained 3,264 hymns arranged chronologically, from the Early Church to then-contemporary times.  Of these texts, 1,096 came from Moravian sources.  The texts, in German and English in parallel columns, emphasized the fact that the Moravians thought of themselves as standing in continuity with the Early Church and as part of the Universal Church.  This great accomplishment in hymnody also corrected much of the childish language of earlier Moravian hymnals.

Christian Gregor (1723-1801), a bishop from 1789, was responsible for the next great leap in (German) Moravian hymnody.  He, the “Father of Moravian Music,” composed hundreds of hymn texts, introduced arias and anthems into Moravian worship, and stabilized the denomination’s hymnody.  He edited the Gesangbuch (1778), with its 1,750 hymns, more than 300 of which he wrote or revised.  Six years later the Choralbuch, intended for organists, appeared.  The Gesangbuch contained only words and the Choralbuch offered only music.

German-language hymnals remained in use in the United States throughout the 1800s.  A domestically published volume from 1848 contained 836 hymns and went into new printings in 1854 and 1861.  The revision debuted in 1885.  By then English had become the main language of worship, however.

III.  THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND CULTURAL ASSIMILATION

The transition to English was part of a process of cultural assimilation and adaption to the dominant culture.  I would be remiss if I were, O reader, to leave you with the mistaken idea that all linguistic developments among American Moravians at the time moved toward the English tongue.  There were, for example, missions among Native people.  Hence there was, for example, A Collection of Hymns for the Use of the Christian Indians, of the Missions of the United Brethren in America (1803), which missionary David Zeisberger prepared.  The second edition debuted in 1847.

The first printing of a Moravian hymnal in the United States occurred in 1813.  The volume in question was A Collection of Hymns, for the Use of the Protestant Church of the United Brethren–New and Revised Edition (1801) with its 1808 supplement.  The 1809 composite hymnal served well in Britain until the publication of its successor in 1826; another revision followed in 1849.  The U.S. Moravian hymnal of 1851 was a revision of that volume, hence the division between Parts II and III of this series.  The 1801-1808-1809 book was itself a revision of the 1789 Collection of Hymns, which John Swertner had also edited.

The two volumes were similar yet different.  Both, consistent with Moravian practice of the age, had words only.  The 1789 hymnal offered 887 hymns, but the 1801 book contained 1,000.  The 1808 supplement thereto added 200 hymns.  The 1789 hymnal dispersed the liturgies among the hymns, but the 1801-1808-1809 volume grouped the liturgies at the front of the book.  Those forms were:

1. The Church Litany;
2. Doxologies at Ordinations;
3. Easter Morning Litany;
4. Baptismal Litanies;
5. Holy Communion; and
6. Liturgy for Burials.

Another important volume was Hymn Tunes Used in the Church of the United Brethren (1836), which Peter Wolle (1792-1871) edited.  The core target audience was Moravian, but Wolle intended it for other Christians also.  He edited the traditional Moravian tunes to make them less foreign.  That fact indicated that Moravians were feeling pressures to conform to the practices of others.

I have read enough in the realm of liturgy during the last few years to develop a firm grasp of the difficulties inherent in linguistic and cultural changes in the public worship of God.  Among many culturally Germanic Lutherans (especially in the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) in the United States, the transition to worshiping in English entailed the loss of traditional texts.  Much of this transition was abrupt, for domestic hysteria and vandalism during World War I (a time when many people relabeled Sauerkraut as “Liberty Cabbage”) compelled its acceleration.  The Dutch-language worshipers from the Christian Reformed Church in North America felt much of the same pressure during the Great War.  Their transition was mostly complete by 1940, at the cost of much grief and many tunes and texts.

Language carries culture, which influences one’s identity.  Thus those who dismiss the “other” as automatically and inherently defective because it is different not only engage in ethnocentrism but inflict harm on others.  Those nativists and xenophobes also harm themselves, for their insistence on homogeneity deprives them of positive influences from other cultures.

American Moravians, who were making the transition from German to English as the primary language during the first half of the nineteenth century, experienced an awkward time.  There were still many older church members who knew the German hymns and litanies by heart, but many of the younger Moravians knew English, not German.  And copies of the English-language worship resources were frequently scarce.  One result of this situation was having many people reading the services badly from books (of which the supply was often insufficient) and generally being lost in the ritual, thereby diminishing the traditional services.  Those services were also becoming less frequent, for changing lifestyles rendered the former rigorous worship schedules obsolete.  Also, many Evangelical congregations (such as those of Baptists and Methodists) attracted many young Moravians.

Were traditional Moravian melodies bad because they were different?  Of course not!  Yet many non-Moravians thought so.  I have listened to some traditional Moravian music and concluded that is superior to much traditional American Protestant (especially Baptist and Methodist) music, actually.  Then again, I am an unapologetic European Classicist.  Nativism and xenophobia, however, led to opposition to such foreign influences.

IV.  CONCLUSION

The story of adaptation to America will continue in Part III, which will start with the British hymnal of 1849, the basis of the U.S. hymnbook of 1851.  This series will continue with summaries of revisions in the hymnody and liturgies of the Moravian Church in America as it adapted to changing circumstances.

The allegation that Moravians were somehow foreign or insufficiently American was false.  In fact, an examination of the germane facts belies it, not that bigots care about objective reality.  The first documented celebration of July 4 occurred at Salem, North Carolina, in 1783.  The Moravians there observed the occasion with a Love Feast.  As a common expression states, “enough said.”

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

AUGUST 11, 2014 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF SAINT GREGORY THAUMATURGUS, ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF NEOCAESAREA; AND SAINT ALEXANDER OF COMANA “THE CHARCOAL BURNER,” ROMAN CATHOLIC MARTYR AND BISHOP OF COMANA, PONTUS

THE FEAST OF AUGUSTUS MONTAGUE TOPLADY, ANGLICAN PRIEST AND HYMN WRITER

THE FEAST OF SAINT CLARE OF ASSISI, FOUNDER OF THE POOR CLARES

THE FEAST OF JOHN HENRY NEWMAN, CARDINAL

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HARDCOPY SOURCES

Frank, Albert H.  Companion to the Moravian Book of Worship.  Winston-Salem, NC:  Moravian Music Foundation, 2004.

Hutton, James E.  A History of the Moravian Church.  London, England, UK:  Moravian Publication Office, 1909.  Reprint.

Hymnal and Liturgies of the Moravian Church.  Bethlehem, PA:  Moravian Church in America, 1969.

Hymnal and Liturgies of the Moravian Church (Unitas Fratrum).  Bethlehem, PA:  Moravian Church in America, 1923.

Knouse, Nola Reed, ed.  The Music of the Moravian Church in America.  Rochester, NY:  University of Rochester Press, 2008.

Moravian Church Desk Calendar & Plan Book 2014.  Bethlehem, PA:  Interprovincial Board of Communication, 2013.

Moravian Daily Texts 2014.  Bethlehem, PA:  Interprovincial Board of Communication, 2013.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Above:  Herrnhut, Saxony, Germany, in 1765, by Gunter Rapp

Image in the Public Domain

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

LITURGY IN THE MORAVIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA, PART I

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Faithful God, I pray again,

Give me patience in my pain,

For Christ’s sake grant soft release,

Let Thy servant pass in peace;

Then with all Thy saints above

Let me praise Thy boundless love.

–from Hymn #854, Hymnal and Liturgies of the Moravian Church (Unitas Fratrum) (1923); text (1661) by John Amos Comenius; translated (1903) by J. N. Libby

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I.  PREFACE AND INTRODUCTION

The Moravian missions to the mainland of North America started in 1735.  For that reason, Part II of this series will commence with that year.  Before I arrive at that point in the narrative and analysis I must, if I am to cover the material properly, lay the foundation.  That is my task in this post.

You, O reader, may find my background germane.  My initial theological formation occurred in a series of United Methodist parsonages in the South Georgia Conference in the 1980s.  In 1991, I converted to The Episcopal Church, the natural denominational choice for me.  Since then, my theology has gone through stages, becoming more Roman Catholic then less so then more so again then substantially Lutheran, but with Transubstantiation remaining in the mix.  To that theological stew I have added Single Predestination (a Lutheran influence), so could not, if I wanted to do so, return to The United Methodist Church and remain intellectually honest.  I left that denomination on amicable terms, not in protest against anything.  My departure was a matter of going toward my spiritual home.  At that home I intend to remain, for I was born to be an Episcopalian.

Moravianism is, as constitutional documents of that Church state, a religion of the heart.  Thus it has common ground with Evangelicalism (in the traditional American use of that word), especially the Pietistic side thereof.   Pietism originated as an alternative to overly theoretical and academic Lutheran theology.  Among the founders of Pietism was Phillip Jakob Spener (1635-1705), author of Pia Desideria (Pious Desires, 1675).  Pietism is neither all good nor bad, but I, not a Pietist, note that it, in its extreme manifestations, devolves into legalism quickly and easily.  Our Lord and Savior violated and rejected legalistic rules and got into much trouble for that fact, but many of his followers have, in his name, written new legalistic rules.  The irony of that reality astounds and dismays me.

August Hermann Franke (1663-1727), who studied under Spener, advocated turning to one’s heart for piety.  Martin Luther had contended simply:

I am baptized.  I am a Christian,

consistent with this theology of the spoken word and the faithfulness of God.  Franke, however, considered Luther’s theology on this subject inadequate and inaccurate.  He insisted on the crucial role of an experience of conversion.  Such an experience  lack, but my Christian faith is genuine.  So I, although regenerate in the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Anglican theologies of baptismal regeneration, am “born from above” if not “”born again” (in the familiar Evangelical use of that term).

The emphasis on religion of the heart–that is, an emotional religion, leaves me quite cold, for I am more intellectual than emotional.  Thus the high level or rationalism in Anglicanism appeals to me.  And the overly individualistic nature of much of Evangelicalism (in the traditional American use of that term) –especially the Pietistic element thereof–contradicts the properly communitarian nature (inherited from Judaism) of Christianity.  Yet the Moravians, I am glad to report, have a history of a strong communal focus.  Their religion of the heart focuses not on their hearts but on the body of Jesus of Nazareth, as in the Liturgy of the Wounds.

Before I proceed I ought to define some terms, so I do so now.

1. Unitas Fratrum, Latin for the “Unity of the Brethren,” is the official name of the worldwide Moravian Church.
2. The Ancient Unity, or Bohemian Brethren, was the Moravian Church from its founding (officially March 1, 1457) to its disruption after the Battle of White Mountain (1620), during the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648).
3. The Hidden Seed was the Moravian Church during its time in the political and cultural underground of Europe after the Battle of White Mountain.
4. The Renewed Unitas Fratrum is the modern Moravian Church, from August 13, 1727, the Moravian Pentecost.
5. A litany is a responsive, standardized church prayer.  Moravians have built church services around litanies, for one litany, with germane elements added, has provided the structure for many a service.
6. “Liturgy” is a trickier word to define.  This series of posts is Liturgy in the Moravian Church in America, with “liturgy” indicating a predictable pattern of worship, which is my standard definition of it, per Father Peter Ingeman, who retired recently from his position of Christ Episcopal Church, Valdosta, Georgia.  He insisted that even “non-liturgical churches,” which do not use a service book, are actually liturgical so long as they have a regular pattern of worship.  In narrow definitions, however, “liturgy,” in Moravian contexts, refers either to the entire worship service or to a long hymn which provides the structure for an entire service.

Now, without further ado….

II.  FROM JOHN WYCLIFFE TO THE AFTERMATH OF THE HUSSITE WARS

The Moravian Church is the oldest Protestant denomination, predating Martin Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses (1517) by sixty years.  The Protestant movements did not spring from nothing.  No, they had deep roots.

The story begins in the late 1340s and early 1350s, when the Black Death (most likely a combination of agents, including the Bubonic Plague), devastated Europe.  Some estimates of the death toll exceed half of the population, but conservative educated guesses are closer to one-third or two-fifths.  Even the cautious estimate range (about 33-40%), within less than five years, speaks of economic and societal trauma.  Urban workers became more assertive, peasants rebelled, and traditional power structures felt threatened.  The Marxian Conflict Theory I learned in college tells me that those structures, given their exploitative and corrupt nature, deserved all the rebellion with which they had to contend.  Among the most powerful and scrutinized institutions was the Roman Catholic Church, which has had its ups and downs over nearly two thousand years.

John Wycliffe

John Wycliffe (circa 1330-1384) was an English Roman Catholic priest and professor of philosophy and theology at Oxford.  He espoused some then-radical positions, which included the following:

1. Each Christian should have a direct and unmediated relationship with God.  Priests and the Church were not necessary as mediators; Christ is the only mediator.
2. No national Church should have to endure or tolerate Papal interference.
3. The Holy Scriptures should be available to the people in their vernacular language.  Thus Wycliffe began the project (1380-1397) of translating the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome into English.  From Wycliffe came to the tradition of English-language Bibles.
4. The doctrine of Transubstantiation of the bread and wine at the Mass lacks Scriptural support and is false.

Wycliffe, who condemned the corrupt Papacy (headquartered at Avignon, France,  not at Rome), under the influence of the French monarchy, had to retire from Oxford in 1381.  There was no Inquisition for him, but authorities had scapegoated him for the Peasants’ Revolt that year and forced him out of office.  In the next century, however, on Papal orders, officials exhumed his bones and burned them.  Wycliffe was officially a heretic.

Yet ecclesiastical authorities failed at killing Wycliffe’s ideas, which Jan Hus and Martin Luther credited as influences.  Then there were the Lollards, an English group which expanded upon Wycliffe’s theology.  They sounded very much like Protestants (a word which did not exist until 1539) for they rejected the entire Roman Catholic sacramental system and refuted the doctrine of Purgatory.  The Lollards, composed mostly of artisans and merchants, were a theological minority group.  They, like many other minorities over time, were quite unpopular.

Above:  My “Heretic” Shirt, Draped Over a Desk Chair

Image Source = Kenneth Randolph Taylor

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jan Hus

Jan (Anglicized as John) Hus (1372-1415), a Bohemian (Czech) priest and scholar of peasant origin, read and translated works of John Wycliffe and Lollards.  Hus, from 1401 the Dean of the philosophy faculty at the University of Prague, lived during the Great Schism of the Papacy (1378-1417), when more than one man claimed the Papal office simultaneously.  The Roman line was:

1. Urban VI (r. 1378-1389),
2. Boniface IX (r. 1389-1404),
3. Innocent VII (r. 1404-1406), and
4. Gregory XII (r. 1406-1417).

The Avignon line, officially Antipapal after the fact, consisted of:

1. Clement VII (r. 1378-1394) and
2. Benedict XIII (r. 1394-1417).

There was a third line, also officially Antipapal after the fact.  The Council of Pisa (1409) deposed (or claimed to depose) Gregory XII and Benedict XIII (both of whom remained in office anyway) and created the line of Council Popes:

1. Alexander V (r. 1409-1410) and
2. John XXIII (r. 1410-1415), whom I hope nobody will confuse with “Good Pope John” XXIII (r. 1958-1963), a great and holy man.

The Council of Constance deposed Gregory XII and Benedict XIII (for real this time) as well as the first John XXIII, replacing them with Martin V (r. 1423-1431).  There remained unfinished business from the Great Schism, however, for there was one Clement VIII (r. 1423-1429), who reconciled with Rome and spent his last years as the Bishop of Majorca.  And there was one Benedict XIV (r. 1425-?), who disappeared from history.  The Papacy was, however, back in Rome without serious question of that fact.

During the Great Schism of the Papacy the kingdoms, empires, and principalities of Europe lined up in support of one Papal claimant or another, creating a mess which did not cover the Roman Catholic Church in glory.  This was a theological question of the utmost importance for many people, for many people thought that following the wrong Pontiff might lead them to damnation.  Meanwhile, the list of Roman Catholic martyrs become longer and questions regarding ecclesiastical authority became more widespread.

Hus, who made the University of Prague a hotbed of Wycliffian and Lollard thought, ran afoul of the Council Popes.  Alexander V forbade Hus from preaching and ordered the Archbishop of Prague to burn copies of Wycliffe’s books.  Hus remained defiant.  The first John XXIII excommunicated Hus fully and an interdict on his followers.  Hus remained defiant.  The Church, on the authority of the Council of Constance, burned copies of his writings and the man himself on July 6, 1415.  Among the forty-seven charges of heresy were denying Papal infallibility, supporting the right of priests to marry, and condemning indulgences.

Jan Hus was dead, but his ideas and those he found and spread abroad remained alive.  They continue to live, of course.  And the Moravian and Episcopal Churches observe the feast of Jan Hus on July 6.

The Hussite Wars and Their Aftermath

Among the strengths of Roman Catholicism is centralized authority (except during the Great Schism of the Papacy, of course).  This facilitates abuses (such as the Inquisitions) sometimes, but does provide for order.  Such order was sorely lacking in the nascent Hussite movement immediately after the martyrdom of Jan Hus, hence the Hussite Wars (1420-1431) and subsequent violence.  Related to theological disputes was the politics of monarchy in Bohemia, a thicket in which I refuse to become lost in this post.  Another thicket I choose to avoid is the complexity of Hussite factionalism during those early decades.  The two major factions, however, were the Calixtines/Utraquists and the Taborites.

Terms such as “radical,” “revolutionary,” “liberal,” “conservative,” and “reactionary” are inherently relative to the center, wherever that is in any given context.  So I hope that you, O reader, will understand what I mean when I write that the Calixtines/Utraquists were revolutionaries and radicals, for they were Hussites in mostly Roman Catholic Europe, but they were, by the standards of other Hussites, conservatives.  They, based out of the University of Prague, considered partaking of the Holy Eucharist crucial to salvation.  The sacrament, they insisted, must be in both kinds–bread and wine–as opposed to the traditional practice of giving the laity bread alone.  The Calixtines/Utraquists also favored civil courts alone, meaning the abolition of special eccleasiastical courts for the clergy.  And they opposed political activity by members of the clergy.  The Calixtines/Utraquists, with aristocratic support, were the established Hussite faction.  Many of them, being relatively conservative in their political-religious milieu, returned to Holy Mother Church.

In contrast were the Taborites.  They borrowed a page from Acts of the Apostles 4:32-37 and lived communally, without private property.  They were closer to the Lollards than to the Calixtines/Utraquists, rejecting the Roman Catholic sacramental system, accepting only two sacraments, and embracing iconoclasm (in its original meaning).  The Taborites also rejected “worldly amusements” and called for violence against aristocrats, such as those who supported the Calixtines/Utraquists.  Many of the Taborites expected Jesus to return in 1420.  That prediction proved as inaccurate as did all other prognostications of dates for the Second Coming.

The Adamites split off from the Taborites.  The Adamites not only committed violence against people (such as Roman Catholics) who disagreed with them, but considered themselves the elect of God.  And they practiced nudism and considered marriage sinful.  One goal of the Adamites was to return to the pre-Fall Edenic state of human innocence.  They failed, and Taborites all but exterminated the sect in 1421.

Violence between the Calixtines/Utraquists and the Taborites continued for years, even after the official end of the Hussite Wars.  It was literally a bloody mess.

III.  THE ANCIENT UNITY/BOHEMIAN BRETHREN AND THE HIDDEN SEED (1457-1722)

Gregory the Patriarch

The official date of the founding of the Moravian Church (Unitas Fratrum) from the ashes of the Hussite Wars is, according to official hymnals and calendars, March 1, 1457.  J. E. Hutton, in a footnote in his History of the Moravian Church (1909), argued that this date is arbitrary and “only a pious imagination.”  He continued:

We are not quite sure of he year, not to speak of the month.  If the Moravian Church must have a birthday, March 1st, 1457, will do as well as any other; but the truth is that on this point precise evidence has not yet been discovered.

Regardless of the state of discoveries in Moravian history since 1909, one does find a consensus regarding the identity of the founder of the Unitas Fratrum.  He was Gregory the Patriarch (circa 1420-1473), nephew of John Rockycana, the Calixtine/Ultaquist Archbishop-Elect of Prague since 1448.  Gregory, a former monk and the son of a knight, found Peter of Chelcic (circa 1390-circa 1460), a Taborite preacher, influential.  Thus the Unitas Fratrum emerged from the mixing of Calixtine/Ultaquist and Taborite influences.  Strong Wycliffian and communal strands came via the Taborite influences, but the initial settlement in the Kunwald Valley had support from King George Podiebrad and Rockycana, who interceded on behalf of the Moravians with the monarch.

Thus, O reader, we find an early example of the willingness to disagree on much while maintaining unity.  This is one of the best aspects of the Moravian Church.  As a traditional motto of the Unitas Fratrum older than that denomination says:

In essentials unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, love.

Moravians have disagreed about what is essential, but their denomination has traditionally been one of the more tolerant Christian bodies.  Thus they have been fine witnesses for Christ amid the notoriously fractious and schismatic branch of Christianity called Protestantism.  Many of these schisms have occurred for legalistic reasons.  Just over a century old, for example, is the Church of God (Guthrie, Oklahoma), which formed in protest against perceived liberalism in the Church of God (Anderson, Indiana).  That alleged liberalism consisted of deciding that men wearing neckties to church were not violating Biblical standards.  Neckties remained ungodly in the Guthrie denomination.

The Ancient Unity created its ministerial orders–the priesthood and the episcopate–in 1467.  The present Moravian bishops stand in succession with the earliest bishops of the Unitas Fratrum.

Luke of Prague

Among the most influential bishops of the Ancient Unity was Luke of Prague (circa 1458-1528), who joined the Bohemian Brethren in 1481.  He was the young Church’s most influential theologian and writer, especially of hymns.  And what else are hymns but sung theology, especially for a denomination for which congregational singing is a hallmark?  Luke might have been one of the editors of the Czech hymnal of 1501, the first Protestant hymnbook.  Information about this volume of eighty-nine hymns is sketchy, for no known copy of the book exists.  We do know, however, that Luke edited the Czech hymnal of 1505, the first proper Moravian hymnbook.  Again, no known copy survives, but sources indicate that it contained about 400 hymns.  And Luke edited the Czech hymnal of 1519, of which no known copies survive.  (I detect an unfortunate pattern regarding the lack of availability of primary sources.)  This volume contained Roman Catholic texts translated into Czech, indicating the editor’s receptiveness to the best of that tradition at the dawn of the Protestant Reformation.

Various Hymnals

The lineage of Moravian hymnals continued after Luke’s death:

1. The first German-language hymnbook of the Brethren debuted in 1531.  Michael Weisse, the editor, provided a book of 157 hymns with tunes.  (In fact, all of the early Moravian hymnals, starting with that of 1505, contained words and music.)  Weisse, however, included hymns with a Eucharistic theology which rejected the real presence of Christ and favored the Zwinglian position of a purely symbolic act.  Thus, in 1544, Jan Roh (Anglicized as John Horn) (circa 1485/90-1547) revised this hymnal, replacing certain texts and changing the Eucharistic theology to indicate the real presence.  Three known copies of the 1544 hymnal remain.  Roh/Horn was qualified to evaluate theology, for he had worked on the official Moravian confession of faith in 1532 and 1535 and, like Luke of Prague before him, engaged in theological dialogue with Martin Luther.
2. Roh/Horn had also edited the 1541 Czech hymnal, a revision of the 1501 hymnbook, of which no known copies exist.
3. There were also Polish-language hymnals before the Polish Brethren merged with the Polish Lutherans in 1570.  The first hymnbook was that of 1554.  The second, revised and enlarged from the first, debuted in 1569.
4. Jan Blahoslav (1523-1571), a bishop from 1557, wrote Musica (1558), a book about how to sing hymns properly.  Three years later he finished editing the Czech hymnal of 1561, which contained 761 texts and more than 450 melodies.
5. Kirchengesang, the German-language Moravian hymnal of 1561, contained 348 hymns plus an appendix of 108 Lutheran hymns.  This volume was as much about politics as it was about theology in a setting in which the separation of church and state was a novel idea.  This book, reprinted in 1580, remained in print in the subsequent editions of 1606, 1639, 1661, and 1694.

Religious persecution had been a reality for the Moravian Church since 1461.  By the early 1600s, however, the situation had become dire.  Evidence of this comes via the Czech hymnal of 1618, some copies of which survive.  The annotator, whose job was to identify the authors of texts, stopped by the middle of the volume.  His fate remains a mystery, but one might surmise reasonably that it had something to do with the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648).  After the Protestant defeat in the Battle of White Mountain (1620), Roman Catholic forces drove the Moravian Church underground, seized Moravian church buildings, and nearly extinguished the Brethren.  Yet a “hidden seed” survived for about a century.

John Amos Comenius

The Moravian Church weathered a severe storm for about a century.  One reason for its survival was Jan Amos Komensky (Anglicized as John Amos Comenius) (1592-1670), a bishop who wrote a history of the Unitas Fratrum, reprinted the catechism and the confession of faith, maintained the continuity of the episcopate, and spent two periods in exile.  His written legacy proved crucial to maintaining the Church.  Indeed, in the 1720s, when Moravian fortunes were brighter, the faithful depended greatly on the works of this great man.  And, at that time, there was still an episcopal line because had passed the torch before he died.

Comenius, whom contemporaries recognized as an expert and pioneer in the field of education, edited the last Czech hymnal (that of 1659) of the Brethren.  He did this in exile in Amsterdam and designed the volume accordingly, for it was sufficiently small to fit inside a pocket.

Comenius had done much to preserve the hidden seed of the Moravian Church.  The work of facilitating its renewal fell to another man.

IV.  HERRNHUT AND THE RENEWED UNITAS FRATRUM (1722-1734)

Count Zinzendorf and the Renewal

That man was Count Nicholas Ludwig von Zinzendorf (1700-1760), who owned a large estate at Berthelsforf, inside the current borders of the Federal Republic of Germany.  Zinzendorf, a Lutheran, proved to be the most influential figure in the Unitas Fratrum in the 1700s.  Not only did he provide a safe haven for Moravians at his estate (starting in 1722), but he, a Lutheran minister from 1735 and a Moravian bishop from 1737, wrote sermons, Bible commentaries, and more than 2000 hymns.

Moravian exiles formed a village, Herrnhut (“the watch of the Lord”) on Zinzendorf’s estate in 1722.  For five years substantial differences among the Brethren remained, but the Count formulated the “Brotherly Agreement,” which the Moravians adopted on May 12, 1727, to settle these disagreements.  Three months later, at a Wednesday service in preparation for the Holy Communion at Herrnhut, the congregation found a sense of unity.  The date was August 13, 1727, the official date of the founding of the Renewed Unitas Fratrum.  The event, according to Zinzendorf, was the Moravian Pentecost.

Developments in Worship

Moravians developed liturgical practices in the safe environment of Herrnhut:

1. Among the oldest Moravian forms is the Church Litany, based on a text which Martin Luther wrote, in turn based on a Roman Catholic litany.  The rather lengthy Church Litany constitutes the basis of a separate, non-preaching service.  Baptisms and ordinations are among the optional elements one might plug into it.
2. Moravians have used the Daily Texts since 1728.  These function well as either congregational or individual devotions.  They draw from the Bible and hymns, for hymns function prominently in Moravian theology.  Lutherans emphasize their core doctrines in written confessions of faith, such as those in the Book of Concord.  But the Moravians, who have original and secondhand confessions of faith (even from the Lutherans), use hymns to emphasize core doctrines more than Lutherans do.  One may purchase each year’s copy of the Daily Texts from Moravian provincial publishing houses and read each day’s Daily Texts at official websites, such as this one.  Related to the Daily Texts are the watchwords, which also started in 1728.
3. The now-traditional baptismal service dates to 1730.
4. The now-traditional Communion service dates to 1731.
5. The now-traditional Easter dawn service dates to 1732.
6. The now-traditional Watchnight service for New Year’s Eve dates to 1733.

Other traditional Moravian services came later.

Early Missions

Moravian missions began in 1732.  (The Moravian Church Desk Calendar and Plan Book 2014 lists August 21 as the anniversary of that event.)  The mission to St. Thomas started in 1732.  The Greenland mission followed on January 19, 1733.  And the missions to the mainlands of South America (at Suriname) and North America (at Georgia) began in 1735.  Thus Part II of this series will begin with 1735.

V.  CONCLUSION

Ecumenism has long been one of my priorities.  Yes, I have staked out my ground (generally socially and theologically liberal yet somewhat liturgically conservative, consistent with much of early Anglican Catholicism), but I do not pretend or presume that everyone ought to be like me.  I have opinions, by which I stand, but Christian traditions other than my own enrich my spiritual life.  The best of Moravianism overlaps significantly with the best of my adopted Anglicanism; collegiality is a shared value.

I have, from time to time in this post, made some critical comments also.  I hope that my readers will have sufficiently thick skins to accept without offense the objective reality of shameful periods in church history (many of which the Roman Catholic Church and  other denominations have acknowledged frankly, to their credit) as well as the existence of differing opinions.  The truth is that I like both the Roman Catholic Church and the Moravian Church:

1. Rome is Holy Mother Church; I respect her while admitting my disagreements with her.  And the Vatican has admitted and apologized for shameful periods of church history, such as the Crusades and the Inquisitions.  It has even rehabilitated Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), whose alleged heresy was stating that the Earth revolves around the Sun, thereby calling into question centuries of bad theology predicated upon an erroneous understanding of the solar system.  He also placed the words of the Pope in the mouth of a blathering idiot in the Dialogues, an impolitic action.  And, at the time, many Protestant leaders were as dubious of the Copernicus-Galileo hypothesis as Rome was.  Pope Francis has done much to bring glory to the name of Christ; may the Holy Father continue to succeed in that effort.  His Papacy is possibly the best thing to happen to the Roman Catholic Church and the rest of Christianity in a long time, despite much persistent anti-Roman Catholic bias in the right and left wings of Protestantism.
2. The Moravians do not constitute an ecclesiastical presence in my vicinity, so geography is one factor which keeps me separate from them.  Certain theological differences would have the same effect if geography were not an issue, however.  Nevertheless, the Moravians, I am convinced, have contributed much that is positive to the Universal Church and continue to do so.  The world is a better place due to their presence.

During much of the researching and drafting of this post I played (again and again) a compact disc of early American Moravian music to get into the proper intellectual and cultural context.  It is lovely music with a distinctly European classical sound–just the kind of genre I like.  So, if you are interested, O reader, I encourage you to seek out by means both legal and ethical Lost Music of Early America:  Music of the Moravians (1998), by the Boston Baroque, Martin Pearlman, Director.  The number is Telarc CD-80482.

Until Part II, O reader….

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

JULY 29, 2014 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF SAINTS MARY AND MARTHA OF BETHANY, FRIENDS OF JESUS

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HARDCOPY SOURCES

Ackroyd, Peter.  Foundation:  A History of England from Its Earliest Beginnings to the Tudors.  New York, NY:  St. Martin’s Press, 2011.

Cantor, Norman F.  In the Wake of the Plague:  The Black Death and the World It Made.  New York:  The Free Press, 2001.  Reprint, paperback, 2002.

Cary, Phillip.  The History of Christian Theology Course Guidebook.  Chantilly, VA:  The Teaching Company, 2008.

Frank, Albert H.  Companion to the Moravian Book of Worship.  Winston-Salem, NC:  Moravian Music Foundation, 2004.

Holy Women, Holy Men:  Celebrating the Saints.  New York, NY:  Church Publishing, 2010.

Hymnal and Liturgies of the Moravian Church.  Bethlehem, PA:  Moravian Church in America, 1969.

Hymnal and Liturgies of the Moravian Church (Unitas Fratrum).  Bethlehem, PA:  Moravian Church in America, 1923.

Hutton, J. E.  A History of the Moravian Church.  London, England:  Moravian Publication Office, 1909.  Reprint.

Kelly, J. N. D.  The Oxford Dictionary of Popes.  New York, NY:  Oxford University Press, 1986.

Knouse, Nola Reed, ed.  The Music of the Moravian Church in America.  Rochester, NY:  University of Rochester Press, 2008.

Metzger, Bruce M., and Roland E. Murphy, eds.  The New Oxford English Bible with the Apocrypahal/Deuterocanonical Books–New Revised Standard Version.  College Edition.  New York, NY:  Oxford University Press, 1994.

Moravian Book of Worship.  Bethlehem, PA:  Moravian Church in America, 1995.

Moravian Church Desk Calendar and Plan Book 2014.  Bethlehem, PA:  Interprovincial Board of Communications, 2013.

Moynihan, Brian.  The Faith:  A History of Christianity.  New York, NY:  Doubleday, 2002.

Stearns, Peter N., ed.  The Encyclopedia of World History:  Ancient, Medieval, and Modern Chronologically Arranged.  New York, NY:  Houghton Mifflin Company, 2001.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Above:  Some of the Moravian Hymnals I Own:  1923, 1942, 1961, 1969, 1995, and 2013

Image Source = Kenneth Randolph Taylor

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Last Summer I wrote about U.S. Lutheran liturgy.  This Summer I wrote about U.S. Dutch Reformed liturgy and left that series in such a state that I will be able to resume it and write about narrowly defined topics in subsequent posts.  Now, however, I turn to the Moravians, but I choose not to call the series “U.S. Moravian Liturgy.”  There are excellent reasons for this decision.

The Moravian Church consists of the global Moravian Unity (the Unitas Fratrum) and related denominations outside the worldwide church.  The Unitas Fratrum (Latin for “Unity of the Brethren”), with its Unity Board, consists of, as of May 2014, twenty-one unity provinces (those with voting rights on the Unity Board), six mission provinces, and thirteen mission areas (most, but not all, under the supervision of a unity province).  Four of these provinces are in North America.

1. The Moravian Church in America consists of the Southern Province (1753), headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and the U.S. congregations of the Northern Province (1741), headquartered in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
2. The Moravian Church in Canada consists of the Northern Province congregations in Alberta and Ontario.
3. The Northern and Southern Provinces constitute the Moravian Church in North America.
4. The Alaska Moravian Church (1885), a.k.a. the Alaska Province, headquartered in Bethel, Alaska, has been working with indigenous peoples for almost 130 years.  Its founders were missionaries from the Northern Province.  It uses hymnals, songbooks, and rituals in indigenous languages as well as in English.
5. The Moravian Church in Newfoundland and Labrador (1771), or the Labrador Mission Province, ministers among the Inuit people there.
6. The Northern Province has 93 congregations, excluding fellowships.  Eight of these are in Alberta and one is in Ontario, for a total of nine churches in Canada.  The other churches are scattered across twelve states and the District of Columbia–from California to Maryland–with the greatest concentration (twenty-three) in Pennsylvania.
7. The Southern Province has fifty-seven congregations, excluding fellowships.  These exist in four states, with North Carolina having the greatest concentration (forty-eight).  There is one Moravian congregation in my state of Georgia–to my southwest, in the metropolitan Atlanta area.
8. The Labrador Mission Province has four congregations.
9. The Alaska Moravian Church has twenty-four congregations.

Above:  The Flag of Newfoundland and Labrador

Image in the Public Domain

The Unity of the Brethren, which Czech immigrants to Texas founded in 1903, does not belong to the Unitas Fratrum, but does relate ecumenically to the Northern and Southern Provinces and support the seminary in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.  This denomination has twenty-seven congregations–twenty-six in Texas and one in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Above:  Flag of Texas

Image in the Public Domain

My study so far of the Moravian Unity has revealed diversity in worship styles–from traditional liturgies and trombone choirs on the classical end of the spectrum to Southern Gospel hymnody to Charismatic services.  The Charismatic movement has become quite popular with parts of the Unitas Fratrum and divided three provinces.  Thus there are a unity province and mission province each in Honduras and the Czech Republic, for example.  And Alaska has had, since 2012, its province and a “ministry group” (not quite a mission province).

Before I proceed I feel the need to make a few points clear:

1. I am a staid, orderly Episcopalian.  On the head-heart spectrum of Christianity I give more priority to the former than to the latter.  I, unlike John Wesley, who founded the Methodist Church, to which I belonged as a youth, have never felt my heart strangely warmed.  I have never had a “born again” experience, but I have known God for as long as I can remember.  Experiential Christianity, which the Moravian Church emphasizes, is not my cup of tea.  I was born to be an Episcopalian.
2. I have no interest in designating any person or party in the Alaska dispute a hero, villain, or anything else.  My goal relative to it is to summarize reality accurately while avoiding becoming lost in details.
3. My Internet-based research via official Moravian websites has answered many questions and created others.  The latter category is unimportant to me, for I choose not to pursue many details unrelated to my primary interest here–the analysis of liturgies and hymnals in the Northern and Southern Provinces of the Unitas Fratrum.

Above:  Flag of Alaska

Image in the Public Domain

The “ministry group,” as the Unitas Fratrum‘s Unity Board defines it, is the United Alaska Moravian Ministry (UAMM), which broke away from the Alaska Moravian Church in 2011.  As best as I can determine, UAMM consists of four churches, one or two fellowships, and a preaching station in the southern part of the state.  The flagship congregation is Anchorage Moravian Church (old website here; current website here), a fellowship of the Alaska Province from 1973 to 2001.  Since the church left the Alaska Moravian Church for UAMM in 2011, the Alaska Province planted a new congregation, First Moravian Church of Anchorage, in 2012.  The Senior Pastor of Anchorage Moravian Church and Bishop of UAMM is the Right Reverend William Nicholson (born in Dillingham, Alaska, in 1951, and raised in the Russian Orthodox Church).  He has served as Senior Pastor of that congregation (with an interruption in his tenure) since 2001.

A Moravian bishop is a spiritual leader, not an administrator per se.  Often a Moravian bishop serves as President of the Provincial Board and is therefore an administrator in that capacity, but the episcopal office is a spiritual one.  The first indigenous Bishop of the Alaska Moravian Church was the Right Reverend Jacob Nelson, who served from 1983 to 2013.  The Synod elected Nicholson to serve as a bishop in 2008, and thus the Province had two bishops.  The Synodical records from 2009 spoke of the two bishops.  Then, in 2010, something happened, for the Alaska Provincial Board removed Bishop Nicholson from his post as Senior Pastor.  Church bulletins from the time listed the position of Senior Pastor as vacant (until an Interim Pastor was present) and Nicholson as the Church Administrator.  Synodical records from 2011 referred a resolution to endorse the Provincial Board’s decision to terminate Nicholson’s ministerial duties in the Alaska Moravian Church to that Board.  The UAMM, with Nicholson restored as Senior Pastor of Anchorage Moravian Church, started its existence apart from the Alaska Synod in 2011.  As of January of that year, however, Anchorage Moravian Church was still part of the Alaska Moravian Church.

The Unity Board of the Unitas Fratrum met in 2012 and rendered a decision relative to UAMM.  The new group, now under the supervision of the Unity Board, became a “ministry group.”  The Unity Board also encouraged reconciliation between UAMM and the Alaska Moravian Church, requested that Nicholson seek guidance from other Moravian bishops, instructed him to refrain from ordaining anyone until a province commissions that act, and forbade him to compete with the Alaska Province in villages.  The Unity Board also deferred a decision regarding mission province status for UAMM.

My research into the Alaska dispute indicates at least two major factors–the Charismatic movement and rural-urban differences–in the schism.  Official records of the Alaska Moravian Church indicate the presence of the Charismatic movement as well as opposition to it in that province.  The dispute had been brewing for a period of some years in 2010, when the Synod rejected, by a vote of 21 to 39, a resolution affirming both traditional and contemporary worship as “vital to bring life, retain the younger generation, and possibly bring revival to the Alaska Province.”  And, since 2006, some congregations had been celebrating Spiritual Feasts, informal gatherings of people for the Holy Spirit-led praise of God consisting of testimonies, songs, and brief sermons then a potluck meal.  Revivalism was nothing new to the Alaska Province, whose Book of Order permits revivals, but the Charismatic movement made many people uncomfortable.

The Anchorage Moravian Church (abbreviated as AncMC online) websites (former and current) have proven especially helpful to me, for they have, among things, included many bulletins.  Detective work has led me to identify (by matching hymns to hymn numbers) two of the hymnals that congregation uses.  They are The Celebration Hymnal (1997), a hymnbook for blended worship, and the Hymnal and Liturgies of the Moravian Church (1969), a resource of the Northern and Southern Provinces.  These bulletins also reveal a combination of Moravian liturgies (used in the Sunday morning service) and the absence of them (in the Sunday evening service).  And further evidence of the Charismatic nature of the congregation and UAMM is the ministry group’s covenant relationship the Honduras unity province, the Charismatic Moravian province in that country.  (The mission province is the traditional group.)

The rural-urban thread comes from the current website of Anchorage Moravian Church.  As Bishop Nicholson wrote:

In November 2012 because of being far removed from rural Alaska and its “Spirit-filled” Missions emphasis, the AncMC is now recognized as a member Church of United Alaska Moravian Ministry (UAMM), a Moravian Group recognized by the Moravian Unity Board. UAMM is seeking Mission Province status with the Moravian Unity Board. UAMM is made up of growing Moravian Fellowships and Churches in Manokotak, Big Lake, Kenai and Anchorage. UAMM’s mission is to “Further the Gospel” on the Alaska highway system and to other non-Moravian areas of Alaska and the world.

So ends that thread of this post.

I choose to focus the upcoming series of Moravian-related blog posts to the Northern and Southern Provinces because, in so doing, I contain the content to material I can cover well.  If I cannot do something well, I prefer not to do it at all.  Researching and writing that series will require time, more reading, and much concentration, all of which will be good for my mind and my spirit, especially as I analyze liturgical materials, one of my favorite activities.  Such tasks constitute a form of prayer for me.

Until later, O reader…A bientot.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

JULY 13, 2014 COMMON ERA

PROPER 10–THE FIFTH SUNDAY AFTER PENTECOST

THE FEAST OF CLIFFORD BAX, PLAYWRIGHT AND HYMN WRITER

THE FEAST OF SAINT EUGENIUS OF CARTHAGE, ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP

THE FEAST OF SAINT FRANCIS SOLANO, “THE APOSTLE OF AMERICA”

THE FEAST OF ORANGE SCOTT, ABOLITIONIST

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

UPDATE:

On February 24, 2018, Bishop Williamson of the United Alaska Moravian Ministry Group (not affiliated with the Worldwide Moravian Unity, the website says prominently) joined with other Moravian churches to form the Global Fellowship of Moravian Revival Churches (GFMRC) at a ceremony in Kenya.  The GMF describes itself as an “undefiled and evangelical movement.“

KRT

April 24, 2018

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++