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:  My Copies of Sing! A New Creation (2001), Worship the Lord:  The Liturgy of the Reformed Church in America (2005), Psalms for All Seasons (2012), Lift Up Your Hearts (2013), Our Faith (2013), and The Worship Sourcebook  (2013)

Image Source = Kenneth Randolph Taylor

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

U.S. DUTCH REFORMED LITURGY, PART VII

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

Let us break bread together….

Let us drink wine together….

Let us praise God together….

–Hymn #837, Lift Up Your Hearts:  Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs (2013)

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

I.  PREFACE AND INTRODUCTION

This post flows naturally from its six predecessors.  I, to make navigation as easy as possible for those with even the slightest inclination to use all the tools available at this weblog to find something here, have created a guide post for this series, a project I have assigned myself as a hobby.  Yes, I am an intellectual.  Yes, I enjoy the vibrant life which takes place between my ears and behind my eyes.  Besides, I trust that God gave me my intelligence so that I may use it well.  And I am grateful for the educational level I have attained, so I refuse to hide my light under a bushel.  I have dialed down the linguistic showiness from my peak level, which often includes a peppering of French, Latin, and Greek terms not translated into English, but my knowledge base is impossible to hide.

This post rests upon a foundation of many sources.  I have listed the hardcopy sources at the end of the post.  Most sources, however, are electronic.  Thus you, O reader, will find URLs behind some parts of the text.  And, if you wish to follow my tracks further, you may find and download the germane Agendas for Synod and Acts of Synod of the Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRCNA or just CRC) here and those of the United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA) here.  The Acts and Proceedings of the General Synod of the Reformed Church in America (RCA) are available here.  I have relied upon summaries and reports of proceedings of the recent bi-national (U.S. and Canadian) gatherings of these denominations, along with previously posted Agendas thereof, to complete preparations for this post.  I have endeavored to check facts and write accurately without becoming lost in the details and hope that I have succeeded.

From 2001, the beginning of the new millennium (there was no retroactive year Zero of the Common Era), to the middle of 2014, the RCA and the CRCNA moved closer to each other while recognizing that major issues continued to separate them.  The two denominations admitted the reality of these differences while working together on much they could do better cooperatively.  Meanwhile the URCNA, which split from the CRCNA in 1995, engaged in ecumenical work to the theological right of the RCA and the CRCNA.  The URCNA commenced work on a joint hymnal with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) as the RCA and the CRCNA neared the completion of labors on their shared hymnbook, Lift Up Your Hearts (2013).  The desire for greater unity, even if not in the form of merger, was in the air.

II.  THEOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS

Liturgy is an extension of slavery.  For example, what is the content of a particular rite?  And why does someone decide to create or not to create a certain ritual?  Thus I lay a firm foundation before moving along to analysis of hymnals, et cetera.

Ecumenical Relationships

And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you.  Holy Father, protect them in your name thta you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one.

–John 17:11, The New Revised Standard Version (1989)

+++

+++The Reformed Collaborative:  The Reformed Church in America and the Christian Reformed Church in North America+++

+++

The RCA-CRCNA relationship, the Reformed Collaborative, has come to involve a range of activities, from having a common supplier of church publications to sharing one benefits provider to cooperating in planting congregations to authorizing union churches to creating and authorizing a new official hymnal.  Other examples of cooperation fall into the realms of ministering to people with disabilities; creating a shared translation of the three traditional Reformed doctrinal standards/Forms of Unity:  the Canons of Dort, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Belgic Confession; holding bi-national denominational meetings simultaneously in 2011 and 2014; arranging for the “orderly exchange of ministers” across denominational lines; studying the Belhar Confession (1986) simultaneously and approving it (the RCA as the fourth Form of Unity in 2010 and the CRCNA as an Ecumenical Faith Declaration two years later); and laying aside old animosities.  The 1857 schism in the RCA which created the CRCNA resulted from ill will and created more of it.  That antipathy continued well into the twentieth century.  Certainly some tension remains, for some people will always retain grudges and other negative attitudes, but at least good will has been more plentiful lately.

For a thorough explanation of the Reformed Collaborative one may consult the CRC’s 2014 Agenda for Synod, pages 279-286.

There had been simultaneous meetings of the RCA General Synod and the CRCNA Synod at Calvin College, in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 1989, with leaders of both denominations encouraging delegates to mingle.  The pace of rapprochement quickened six years later, when the RCA General Synod approved an overture

to explore avenues of reconciliation between the Reformed Church in American and the Christian Reformed Church in North America for additional programmatic cooperation.

–Quoted in the RCA Acts and Proceedings, 2001, page 101

In 2002 the CRC Synod approved dialogue with the RCA

to ascertain how our ministry and mission throughout the world might be strengthened by greater cooperation between our two denominations.

—Acts of Synod, 2002, page 498

Five years later, on the occasion of the anniversary of the CRCNA’s schism from the RCA, the RCA General Synod commended its offspring “for one hundred and fifty years of faithful ministry” and looked forward to

increasing cooperation in ministry, joint appointments of overseas missionaries, common publishing and distribution of print and multimedia materials, and orderly exchange of ministers

as the RCA anticipated “even greater cooperation and ever deeper fellowship as we, separately and together, follow Christ in mission to this world so loved by God”  (Acts and Proceedings, 2007, page 270).  In 2011 the CRC Synod approved “A Resolution of Appreciation” for Dr. Wesley Granberg-Michaelson, who was retiring from the post of RCA General Secretary, which he had held since 1994.  And the RCA General Synod of 2014 and the CRCNA Synod, meeting in a joint session, approved unanimously a resolution declaring that

the principle that guides us, and the intention that motivates us is to “act together in all things except those in which deep differences of conviction compel us to act separately.”

Those 2014 bi-national meetings overlapped in an opening worship service, a Sunday evening service, daily morning prayer, and three joint sessions.

+++

+++The National Association of Evangelicals, the National Council of Churches, and the World Council of Churches+++

+++

The CRCNA remained a member of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), an organization the RCA would have joined had the NAE consented.  Part of the RCA–one regional synod and some congregations–had affiliated already, for the decentralized nature of the denomination had made that possible.  Yet the RCA itself sought to join the NAE while remaining a member of the National Council of Churches (NCC) and the World Council of Churches (WCC), something the NAE had forbidden.  On March 6, 2000, however, the NAE changed that policy.  Thus the RCA applied for membership later that year.  Yet, in March 2001, the reversed the new policy and the RCA’s application became a dead letter.

Some quarters of the RCA continued to harbor anti-WCC sentiments.  An overture to the General Synod of 2012 requested reconsideration of membership in that Council and the presentation of a report to the following year’s General Synod.  The WCC, the author(s) of the overture claimed, had supported Zimbabwean Communists financially, opposed the State of Israel, and demonstrated Universalist tendencies.  The overture failed for, as the rebuttal said, some of the charges were twenty years old and, even if true then, were no longer applicable.  The rest did not survive fact checks.

The CRCNA continued to have an observer on the NCC’s Faith and Order Commission until after the Synod of 2007.  After the observer died the denomination’s ecumenical council, for reasons the Agendas for Synod and Acts of Synod do not reveal, sent no replacement.

+++

+++The Formula of Agreement and Allied Denominations+++

+++

The RCA entered into the Formula of Agreement with the United Church of Christ (UCC), the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) [PC(USA)], and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) in 1997.  Thus full communion–including the recognition of each other’s ministers–came into being among the four denominations.  The ELCA was also in full communion with the North American provinces of the Moravian Church, a global ecclesiastical body.  And the UCC had full communion with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) [CC(DC)].  These close relations created some tension with the UCC and the ELCA over questions regarding their increasing inclusive policies regarding non-celibate homosexuals and positions of church leadership.  (I will leave that thread unresolved until later in this post.)  And the RCA entered into bilateral and multilateral dialogue involving the Moravian Church.

The Moravian-RCA-CRCNA-UCC-CC(DC)-PC(USA)-ELCA Consultation on Scripture and Moral Decision-Making (2011-2012) started partially because of disagreements over expressions of human sexuality.  The germane report to the RCA General Synod of 2013 (Acts and Proceedings, pages 281-291) indicated that “Jesus is Lord” constituted the starting point of the discussions regarding moral discernment.  The participants:

• Affirmed human dependence on grace;
• Rejected cheap grace, that which demands nothing of us;
• Affirmed God’s call to help the oppressed and to work for justice;
• Supported honoring God in all ways, including sexuality; and
• Agreed that Christian love entails admonishing and building each other up.

+++

+++The Roman Catholic Church+++

+++

Above:  The Flag of Vatican City

Image in the Public Domain

The RCA, CRCNA, UCC, and PC(USA) entered into dialogue with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity over a period of years.  These discussions, which Pope John Paul II initiated, grew from a round of dialogue at the Vatican in December 2000.  As time progressed the number of participating Reformed denominations increased until becoming four.  This dialogue resulted in statements on Baptism and the Holy Eucharist/Lord’s Supper before moving along to the theology of ordained ministry and its relationship to the theology of sacraments.

Dialogue of this sort entails mutual respect.  That much constitutes a vast improvement over the ecclesiastical hostility of just a few decades prior.

+++

+++The Split Peas, Et Cetera+++

+++

Above:  The Burning Bush Logo

Image in the Public Domain

From that happy note I turn, O reader, one of my accurate and unfortunate conclusions based on much evidence:  some of the self-identified pure are purer than others.  This explains many ecclesiastical schisms as groups break away to preserve the purity of the faith, as they understand it.  Thus, regardless of how conservative a denomination might be, there is usually at least one group to its right.  This fact helps to explain why so many denominations exist inside a particular nation-state.  The Presbyterian and Reformed family of churches in the United States and Canada constitutes a prime example of this reality.  I have to keep track of all these denominations.  I know, for example, the difference between the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and the American Presbyterian Church (APC).  I can distinguish between the Presbyterian Reformed Church (PRC) and the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA).  I do not confuse the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (1956-1965) for the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (1981-).  Yet sometimes I experience great difficulty in discerning major differences between and among some of the denominations, some of them very small (as in just four or five congregations), in the Presbyterian and Reformed family in North America.  Certainly this kind of fractiousness was not what our Lord and Savior had in mind during his time on Earth.

+++

+++The Protestant Reformed Churches in America+++

+++

Consider, O reader, the case of the Protestant Reformed Churches in America (PRCA), which split off from the CRCNA in the middle 1920s.  The founders of the PRCA rejected Common Grace theology, the affirmation that even those not among God’s Elect could function as instruments of grace.  Thus, the logic said, the holy people of God should cooperate with a variety of individuals to perform good deeds and honor God.  Common Grace theology rejected Christian separatism.  But the founders of the PRCA were hyper-Calvinists who were among the purest of the self-identified pure.  As I wrote in previous posts in this series, the Orthodox Protestant Reformed Churches in America (OPRCA) broke away in 1953, only to return to the CRC fold eight years later.  The PRCA considered the OPRCA, on the eve of its reunion with the CRCNA, to be “erring brethren” who had embarked upon an evil path in 1953.  Not surprisingly, the PRCA rebuffed all CRCNA attempts at dialogue, as late as 2003.

The CRCNA split in the 1990s; part of its right wing defected to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) and another segment formed the United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA) in 1995.  Not even the very conservative URCNA proved sufficiently pure for the PRCA, which brought up the issue of Common Grace for three years until, in 2004, the young denomination conceded the impossibility of meaningful conversations with such an unwilling church.

+++

+++The Orthodox Christian Reformed Churches+++

+++

The URCNA, meanwhile, courted the Orthodox Christian Reformed Churches (OCRC), which traced its existence to the late 1970s and early 1980s.  The founders of the OCRC had found the CRCNA, a conservative body, too liberal, so they left.  The URCNA, after nine years of trying, succeeded in absorbing the OCRC in August 2008.

+++

+++The North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council, the Christian Reformed Church in North America, and the United Reformed Churches in North America+++

+++

The North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (NAPARC) had suspended the membership of the CRCNA in 1997.  The CRCNA’s offense had been to open all church offices (especially those of elder and minister) to women.  The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) had led the charge, but the four other members at the time–the Korean American Presbyterian Church (KAPC), the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARPC), the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA), and the rump Reformed Church in the United States (RCUS)–had voted to suspend the CRCNA’s membership.  That membership ended formally in 2002.  By then the PCA, the OPC, the KAPC, and the rump RCUS had terminated ecclesiastical relations with the CRCNA.  The RPCNA followed suit in 2003.  Nevertheless, the ARPC insisted for a few years that this matter would not affect their relationship with the CRC.  Then the ARPC broke off relations in 2011.

Thus, at the time of the CRCNA’s Synod of 2012, the list of North American denominations in ecclesiastical fellowship had shrunk to two–the RCA and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC), to whom it sold Christian education materials.  In 2014 the CRCNA expanded that list to three names by adding ECO:  A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians, a 2012 offshoot of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) [PC(USA)].  The PC(USA) had moved toward becoming more inclusive of non-celibate homosexuals in church offices.  Many of those who opposed this remained within the PC(USA), but others left.  Two of the destinations for those leaving were the EPC and the nascent ECO.

Most of the CRCNA’s erstwhile friends and allies in North America established relations or contact with the URCNA, which joined NAPARC in 2005.  The ARPC and the RPCNA had been ordaining women as deacons for a long time.  The URCNA  noted that this practice predated late twentieth-century feminism and was therefore “not the result of a liberalizing or destructive hermeneutic” (Acts of Synod, 2012, page 221).  The URCNA entered into Corresponding Relations, the entry-level relationship, with the RPCNA in 2004 and took the relationship to the next level–Ecclesiastical Fellowship–in 2012.  Contact with the ARPC, PCA, and KAPC remained intermittent through 2014.  The rump RCUS entered into Corresponding Relations in 2001 and Ecclesiastical Fellowship three years later.  The OPC entered into Corresponding Relations in 1999 and Ecclesiastical Fellowship eight years later.  Then, in 2012, the URCNA accepted the OPC’s invitation to create a joint hymnal, perhaps due for publication in late 2016, shortly after the simultaneous meetings of the URCNA Synod and the OPC General Assembly.

The URCNA sought other ecumenical partners in North America.  It came close at the Synod of 2014 to resolving to develop a plan to merge with the Canadian and American Reformed Churches (CanRC), a body with Dutch origins and founded in 1950.  At that same Synod delegates learned more about the Free Reformed Churches of North America (FRCNA), another denomination with Dutch Reformed roots and founded in the 1950s.

+++

+++South Africa+++

+++

In this series of posts I have referred to relations between and among North American and South African Dutch Reformed denominations, especially in the context of Apartheid.  Now I continue that practice.

• The RCA and the CRCNA pursued and deepened relationships with the Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa (URCSA), the 1994 merge of the Dutch Reformed Church in Africa (DRCA) and the Dutch Reformed Mission Church (DRMC).  Thus the URCSA became Black and Colored.
• The CRCNA established relations with the rump DRCA.
• The CRCNA maintained relations (established in 1982) with the Reformed Church in Africa, a denomination of mainly Indian ethnicity.
• The CRCNA continued to relate to the Reformed Churches of South Africa (RCSA), in its several synods.  Relations, which the CRC had suspended with the national synod before the end of Apartheid because of that synod’s support for the racist policy, but restored them in the 1990s.  Nevertheless, some injured feelings persisted in the RCSA’s national synod.
• The URCNA established relations with the RCSA in 2001.  Three years later the former cautioned the latter not to admit women to the offices of elder and minister.  The RCSA followed that advice, much to the satisfaction of the URCNA.
• The CRCNA established relations with the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa (DRCSA), the largest White denomination in the Republic of South Africa.  The RCA was already friendly with the DRCSA, which had apologized for supporting Apartheid with theology.

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

Above:  The Post-Apartheid Flag of the Republic of South Africa

Image in the Public Domain

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

The Belhar Confession and Its Implications

But let justice roll down like waters,

and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

–Amos 5:24, The New Revised Standard Version (1989)

+++

+++Background and Summary of the Belhar Confession (1986)+++

+++

The Belhar Confession (1986) and the adoption of it by the RCA and the CRCNA are germane to much material in this post.  Thus I begin this section with a summary of the Confession and its background.  All quotes come from the translation which the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) prepared and the RCA and the CRCNA published in Our Faith (2013), pages 145-148.  That translation is also available here.

The story of the Belhar Confession started in 1982, in the context of Apartheid in the Republic of South Africa.  The former Dutch Reformed Mission Church (DRMC), which went on to merge into the Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa (URCSA) in 1994, approved the Belhar Confession in 1986.  In 2010 the RCA made it the fourth Form of Unity, alongside the Canons of Dort, the Belgic Confession, and the Heidelberg Catechism.  The CRCNA adopted the Belhar Confession not as the fourth Form of Unity but as an Ecumenical Faith Declaration two years later.  The CRC Synod of 2012, citing a lack of consensus in the denomination regarding the definition and role of a confession, appointed a committee to study the issue and report to the Synod of 2015.

The process of studying, debating, and approving the Belhar Confession in the RCA and the CRCNA was not without controversy.  There was a consensus that Apartheid had been sinful and unjust, and therefore consigned properly to the trash bin of history, so racism was not a major issue.  No, the Belhar Confession’s implications in other arenas made many people uncomfortable and continue to do so.  But, as an old saying tells me, one purpose of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable, as in the Beatitudes and Woes (Luke 6:20-26).  So be it.

The Belhar Confession addresses issues of church unity, human unity, reconciliation in church and society, and divine justice.  Any human system which sets people at enmity with each other

is sin which Christ has already conquered, and accordingly…anything which threatens this unity [in Christ] may have no place in the church and must be resisted,

the document says.  Therefore the Belhar Confession rejects any role for racism in determining church membership, as it did in South Africa.  The text goes on to emphasize reconciliation via Jesus and the Holy Spirit and to

reject any doctrine which, in such a situation [of forced separation of the races] sanctions in the name of the gospel or of the will of God the forced separation of people on the grounds of race and color and thereby in advance obstructs and weakens the ministry and experience of reconciliation in Christ.

You, O reader, might be thinking something like, “So far so good.  What has been–and remains–so controversial and objectionable, except among and to White Supremacists?”  To answer that question I move along to the fourth section of the Belhar Confession, which emphasizes God’s call to establish justice and peace among people, the divine preference for the poor and the oppressed, and the church’s obligation to

stand by people, in any form of suffering and need, which implies, among other things, that the church must witness against any form of injustice, so that justice may roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream

and, “as the possession of God,” to

stand where the Lord stands, namely against injustice and with the wronged; that, in following Christ the church must witness against all the powerful and privileged who selfishly seek their own interests and thus control and harm others.

The document therefore rejects “any ideology which would legitimate forms of injustice and any doctrine which is unwilling to resist such an ideology in the name of the gospel.”  The Belhar Confession concludes:

Jesus is Lord.

To the one and only God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, be the honor and glory forever and ever.

What are the injustices which the church must witness against and oppose actively?  Pondering that question has made–and continues to make–many people uncomfortable.  Most of the arguments against the Belhar Confession I have read online criticism start with the “I’m not a racist, but…” defense.  Yes, Apartheid was an abomination, but there are good reasons having nothing to do with race, racism, ethnicity, and/or xenophobia to oppose the Belhar Confession, these critics write.

+++

+++Racism and Multiculturalism+++

+++

The most obvious implications of the Belhar Confession in the RCA and the CRCNA, historically and predominantly White denominations, pertain to racism (often unintentional and institutional) and multiculturalism.  The two denominations had been conducting anti-racism training  and seeking to diversify their ranks on all levels for decades by 2010 and 2012.  Since the 1980s, for example, the CRCNA had encouraged its congregations to observe All Nations Heritage Week, with a focus on a different racial or ethnic group each year.  The week ended with All Nations Heritage Sunday, the first Sunday in October.  Money from a special offering that day increased the ability of the CRC’s Race Relations Committee to award grants and scholarships to promote more diversity in denominational leadership.  And churches could combine this observance with World Communion Sunday quite easily.

The RCA General Synod of 2010 started the process which culminated in the 2013 report on White Privilege (Acts and Proceedings, page 142-163).  The report analyzed White Privilege in society and the RCA and led to a resolution to “develop an online and interactive RCA resource for freely discussing, understanding, and dismantling” it and another resolution to promote congregational partnerships across racial and ethnic lines.

+++

+++Gender:   Roles of Women+++

+++

Above:  The Venus Symbol (for Females)

Image in the Public Domain

So far, so good.  Now, however, the really controversial applications of the Belhar Confession enter the picture with issues of gender.  The sociological definition of sex is anatomy-based.  Gender consists the societal and social implications of that anatomy for one.  Does one, for example, have a glass ceiling?  And is one bitch or merely assertive?  And some cultures, by the way, have recognized more than two genders since time immemorial.  Gender is a social definition, not a biological reality.

The first gender issue to analyze in this post is that of the roles of women in the church.  I recall a story about a Roman Catholic schoolgirl.  Someone asked her how many sacraments there are.  She replied that the answer depends on whether one is male or female–a reference to the exclusively male priesthood.  The Reformed, of course, have ordination yet not as a sacrament.  Nevertheless, many women in the RCA and the CRCNA have experienced much difficulty and frustration regarding church leadership and continue to do so.

As I established in the previous post in this series, the RCA opened the offices of deacon and elder to women in 1973, six years before doing the same regarding the ordained ministry.  Then, in 1980, the RCA put two conscience clauses into place to maintain church unity and to protect ministers and other office holders who disagreed.  Over the years, however, abuses and misuses of the conscience clauses held women back and became divisive in the denomination.  The CRCNA, after more than twenty years of arguments, opened all offices to women effectively in 1995.  By 2010, however, related arguments continued and some of the Classes still refused to grant women equality in the church.

At the RCA General Synod of 2002 President John C. H. Chang noted in his report that, if his daughter did have a vocation to ordained ministry, she would “hit the wall of no-opportunity” in the denomination.  This was wrong, he said: “I’m wondering how many of our churches can accomplish the mission the Lord calls us to and keep telling our daughters ‘no'” (Acts and Proceedings, page 37).

This is a good time for numbers:

1. Nearly two-thirds of the members of the RCA are women, and
2. RCA seminaries, which provide strong support for female students, graduate nearly equal numbers of men and women.

Yet, according to the 2012 report of the denominational Commission for Women:

1. There were 1,556 active clergy in the RCA.
2. 271 (17.4%) were female.
3. Of those 271 female ministers, 100 (36.9%) served in parish settings, 128 (47.2%) served in other capacities, and 43 (15.9%) were without charge.
4. Of the 1,285 male ministers, however, 729 (56.7%) served in parish settings, 425 (56.7%) served in parish settings, and 131 (10.2%) were without charge.

That report continued, observing that many female ministers still experienced

instances of exclusion, inequality, and pain.  Women are still required to defend their calling and their ordination in the assemblies of the RCA, including on the floor of the General Synod, in a way that their male colleagues are not.

The General Synod of 2012 voted to remove the conscience clauses.  The requisite two-thirds of Classes had approved this change to the Book of Church Order by the time the General Synod of 2013 convened.  That year the General Synod Council decreed:

The RCA will be a fellowship of congregations in which all women are equipped and empowered to fully exercise their gifts in the life, ministry, mission, and offices of the church.

—Acts and Proceedings, page 212

That report went on to detail procedures for helping women advance in the denomination.

The passage of time will reveal the resolution of this matter.

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

+++

+++Gender:  Homosexuality and Homophobia+++

+++

Above:  The Marriage Equality Sign

Found in many places on the Internet

The RCA and the CRCNA are not ready for this yet.

The most common objection I have read to the Belhar Confession in “I’m not a racist, but…” critiques online regards homosexuality, a concept the document never mentions to alludes to directly.  One can, however, recognize the Belhar Confession’s implications regarding homosexuality and homophobia quite easily.

Both the RCA and the CRCNA contain a wide range of attitudes toward homosexuals and homosexuals; official documents have admitted this frankly.  And both denominations continue to maintain officially, with nuances, that, although the proper approach to these questions is one grounded in compassion, brotherly love, and the theology of the image of God (Genesis 1:27), same-sex desire is sinful (even if one has not chosen it) and ordination and same-sex unions are off-limits.

I do have one question before I proceed:  Can sin exist in the absence of choice?

Both the RCA and the CRCNA have also recognized their official failings to live up to their pastoral statements regarding the spiritual care of homosexuals since they started making such statements in the early 1970s.  Yes, homophobia is alive and well in the church, unfortunately.

Debates over homosexuality have threatened the unity of the RCA, which has a stronger liberal wing than does the CRCNA.  A dialogue regarding the topic started in the 2005 and continued for a few years.  During that time the General Synod rejected a barrage of anti-homosexual overtures and urged Classes and congregations not to press judicial actions.  Assemblies followed that advice according to a notice at the General Synod of 2011.

The RCA, which restated its support for full civil liberties and rights in 2006, refused to consider the question of same-sex unions and marriage solely in the context of human rights and civil rights, adding Reformed theology to the mix.  At the conclusion of the multi-year dialogue, in 2012, the General Synod resolved that “any person, congregation, or assembly which advocates homosexual behavior or provides leadership for a service of same-sex marriage or a similar celebration has committed a disciplineable offense” and created a committee “to pray and work together to present a way forward for our denomination” regarding the issue.  And the General Synod of 2014 started the process of amending the Book of Church Order to define marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Delegates to the General Synod of 2014, according to the official summary available at the RCA website, “chose not to state that the history of the RCA’s stated position is nuanced and that a wide array of perspectives regarding same-sex relationships exists in the RCA.” This puzzles me, for I understand the documented reality of the matter.  First, the history of the RCA’s stated position is nuanced.  I refer you, O reader, to “A Historical Survey of the Actions of the General Synod with Regard to Homosexuality:  1974-2012” (Acts and Proceedings, 2012, pages 334-340).  As for choosing not to say that a wide array of perspectives regarding same-sex relationships exists within the RCA, I could point to numerous examples to demonstrate that such an array exists, but two will suffice.  (I will not “flip note cards” on you, O reader.)  A report to the General Synod of 2009 reads in part:

Widely scattered views characterize RCA members’ beliefs about homosexuality….It would be unfair to many RCA members to represent their positions as lying along a line that is drawn, for example, between “open and affirming” on the one hand and “hate the sin but love the sinner” on the other.

—Acts and Proceedings, page 105

And, four years earlier, the Commission on Christian Action report regarding homosexuality acknowledged the lack of consensus, even among its own members.  Instead the report of 2005 (Acts and Proceedings, pages 364-372) contained verbatim perspectives of the commission members.

Homosexuality became a sticking point with some of the RCA’s ecumenical partners who had moved to ordain non-celibate homosexuals.  Thus the RCA, rejecting overtures to terminate these ecumenical relationships, entered instead into dialogue first with the United Church of Christ (UCC) then the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA).  These dialogues entailed statements of disapproval and concern sometimes, but the old RCA desire for church unity over ecclesiastical purity won the argument.

Perhaps the most publicized case regarding homosexuality in the RCA was that of the Reverend Doctor Norman Kansfield, President of New Brunswick Theological Seminary until June 2005.  Kansfield got into trouble when, in June 2004, he presided over the wedding of his daughter, Ann Margaret Kansfield, to Jennifer Aull.  This act of a doting father and father-in-law led to his suspension from ordained ministry and removal from the presidency of the seminary.  The General Synod of 2005 also denied him the status of General Synod Professor Emeritus on the grounds that it had removed him from office.  The three charges, as Acts and Proceedings, 2005, pages 43-52, contain them, were that:

1. Kansfield had acted “contrary to our faith and beliefs as affirmed by the Holy Scriptures and the decisions of General Synod concerning the relationship of active homosexuality;”
2. He had contradicted his ordination affirmation:  “I promise to work in the Spirit of Christ, in love and fellowship within the church, seeking all things that make for unity, purity, and peace;” and
3. He had violated his promise to submit himself “to the counsel and admonition of the General Synod, always ready, with gentleness and reverence, to give an account of my understanding of the Christian faith” by not doing so at the General Synod of 2004, prior to the wedding in Massachusetts.

Kansfield’s period of suspension ended in October 2011.  By that time the UCC had ordained both his daughter and daughter-in-law, who, as I type these words, serve as co-pastors of the Greenpoint Reformed Church, Brooklyn, New York, New York.  The RCA might not ordain practicing homosexuals, but its decentralized structure provides a back door by which a RCA congregation may call a practicing homosexual minister.

The CRCNA also contains a range of opinions regarding homosexuality.  The First Christian Reformed Church of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, is one of the most liberal congregations in the denomination.  It became the first church within the CRC to call a female pastor.  And, in 2002, it opened church offices to homosexuals living in monogamous relationships.  The Classis forced the congregation to back down, but the the First CRC website, as of the day I type these words, presents the Statement of Faith and Action, dated September 29, 2002:

We believe that all people are created in the image of God and are unconditionally loved by God. We are committed to embrace people of all ages, races, genders, sexual orientation, differing abilities, ethnic origins, and economic circumstances. We affirm that all who seek to live faithfully, that is confessing Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, are full participants in the life, membership, sacraments and leadership of this congregation. Our desire is to build community in the midst of differences and strive to honour God’s greatest commandment, to love one another as Christ loves us.

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

+++

+++Economic Justice+++

+++

Thus says the LORD:

For three transgressions of Israel,

and for four, I will not revoke the punishment,

because they sell the righteous for silver,

and the needy for a pair of sandals–

they who trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth,

and push the afflicted out of the way….

–Amos 2:6-7a, The New Revised Standard Version (1989)

Another implication of the Belhar Confession is economic justice, one of the major themes–more prominent than sexuality and expressions thereof, in fact– in the Bible.  I could provide an extensive catalog of RCA and CRCNA actions regarding economic justice, but three examples will suffice:

1. In 2007 the RCA supported the living wage–a higher minimum wage–as a moral issue.
2. That year the RCA called for a change in U.S. policies regarding Cuba, for “The new restrictions and the ongoing embargo are driven not by Christian love but by the political fears of an administration that benefited from sustaining a conflict from long ago.”  The RCA favored “a better way of being in relation to Cuba, a way that is built on unity, reconciliation, and justice” (Acts and Proceedings, pp. 259-260).
3. In 2009 the CRCNA supported the Accra Confession:  Covenanting for Justice (2004), a response to economic injustice, environmental degradation, and the failure of the church to address these issues properly, especially in the Third World.

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

Above:  The Apotheosis of War, By Vasily Vereshchagin

Image in the Public Domain

+++

+++War and Peace+++

+++

Yet another implication of the Belhar Confession concerns questions of war and peace.

The CRCNA made a pronouncement about war and peace in 1939.  The denomination has updated that position occasionally over the subsequent decades while maintaining much consistency.  There are just wars and unjust wars, the CRC says.  Both militarism and full-blown pacifism are errors, it tells people.  And selective conscientious objectors deserve the church’s support.  This last point has proven controversial within the CRC for some time.

The CRCNA updated its policy to reflect post-9/11 realities in 2006.  The denomination reaffirmed the 1982 conclusion that nuclear weapons are not “legitimate means of warfare” and the related call to reduce the supply of such weapons.  The CRCNA, stressing the call upon Christians to make peace, addressed the question of preemptive military action.  Such action

is justified under certain circumstances, when the threat of attack is imminent.  However, preventive warfare, initiating military action against a country or government that poses no near-term threat, amounts to little more than illegitimate aggression by the country that initiates the military action.

—Agenda for Synod, page 382-382

The 2006 report which the Synod adopted, also called for good treatment of selective conscientious objectors in the military.  When the discharge comes, it should be an honorable one, the CRC stated.  This point caused much consternation at the Synod.

The CRCNA was talking about the war in Iraq without using the country’s name.  The RCA did use the name “Iraq,” voting down an overture to call for an end to that conflict.  The previous year the RCA had rejected an overture to condemn preemptive warfare.

The RCA General Synod of 2003 referred a report, “Thinking Critically About Security:  Following Christ in an Age of Terror” (Acts and Proceedings, pages 116-121) to congregations for study.  According to that document, the principles for thinking about security were:

1. God is the all-in-all; security is not;
2. Security is inclusive of the world, not restricted to particular nation-states;
3. National self-interest is not global security;
4. Insecurity is holistic of sin, racism, injustice, disease, hunger, et cetera; and
5. Superpowers do not bring about global security; love does.

Both the RCA and the CRCNA have joined the National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT), founded in 2006.  Thus both have endorsed the following statement:

Torture Is a Moral Issue

Torture violates the basic dignity of the human person that all religions, in their highest ideals, hold dear.  It degrades everyone involved–policy-makers, perpetrators, and victims.  It contradicts our nation’s most cherished ideals.  Any policies that permit torture and inhumane treatments are shocking and morally intolerable.

Nothing less is at stake in the torture abuse crisis than the soul of the nation.  What does it signify if torture is allowed in deed?  Let America abolish now–without exceptions.

—Acts and Proceedings, 2008, page 230

Above:  The Flag of the State of Israel

Image in the Public Domain

The RCA also made pronouncements regarding the issue of Israel-Palestine, especially the conditions in the Occupied Territories and the circumstances of Palestinian Christians.  The General Synod of 2010 approved an overture to form the Working Group on Peace and Justice in Israel and the Occupied Territories.  The Working Group’s interim report of 2011 (Acts and Proceedings, pages 90-92) told stories of Palestinians and Israelis who had suffered from violence.  The 2012 report (Acts and Proceedings, pages 109-121), citing the Belhar Confession, called for:

1. the end of the Israeli occupation,
2. safety and security for Israel and Palestine,
3. full rights for both populations, and
4. the cessation of violence in the area.

The General Synod approved the report.

Above:  The Flag of the Palestinian National Authority

Image in the Public Domain

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

III.  WORSHIP AND LITURGY

As I have written in this post, liturgy is an extension of theology.  So, for example, theology of marriage influences the content of a form for the wedding ceremony and the existence or absence of a rite for same-sex unions.  I have, therefore, covered some liturgical ground in the previous section, “Theological Foundations.”  Now we are off to the races.

Diversity and Theology of Worship

I read on Facebook recently that, when a new wind blows, some people build a wall and others erect a windmill.  Which response is proper depends upon the nature of the new wind, for not everything new (or at least new to one) is inherently positive nor is all that is traditional bad (or at least outmoded) by nature.  Likewise, not all that is traditional is inherently good nor is everything that is new (at least to one) good by nature.  The best policy is to evaluate each tradition and innovation on its own merits or lack thereof.  That is, of course, a subjective decision; how can it be otherwise?

CRCNA officialdom evaluated traditions and innovations in worship.  The Synod of 2008 approved the revised Our World Belongs to God:  A Contemporary Testimony (1986), intended for use in worship and updated to the post-Cold War, post-9/11, new technological, and other realities.  A report to the Synod of 2011 expressed concerns regarding the widespread discontinuity with tradition in the denomination:

There is an increasing diversity of worship in the churches.  While this can indeed be healthy, it can also introduce the danger of liturgical anarchy, a loss of distinctly Reformed worship, and a loss of the adhesion of an important “glue” that might hold us together in our increasingly fragmented denomination.

+++

+++Pentecostalism+++

+++

One element of this diversity was Pentecostalism, something which caused grave concern in official CRC circles.  The General Synod of 1971 approved an overture to appoint a committee to study and offer guidance regarding the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the context of the Charismatic movement, or Neo-Pentecostalism, “as it is creeping into our denomination” and causing “unrest and confusion” in the CRCNA.  The subsequent 1973 report rejected the Charismatic movement as non-Scriptural and non-Reformed, describing it as an “error” and led to the denomination barring from church office anyone who affirmed the second-blessing teaching.  In 2007 and 2009 the CRCNA addressed Third Wave Pentecostalism, cautious of the theology of prophecy as well as of emotionalism in worship.

+++

+++The Reformed Church in America and the Worship Survey of 2004+++

+++

The RCA’s 2004 Worship Survey yielded interesting results.  Some of these pertained to the choice(s) of hymnal(s) on the congregational level.  Partial results follow.

There was no single hymnbook dominant in the RCA, despite the existence of an official main hymnal and an authorized supplement to it.  The top rankings, in descending order, were:

1. The Hymnal for Worship & Celebration (non-denominational, 1986)–16.2%;
2. Sing! A New Creation (RCA and CRCNA, 2001)–16%;
3. The Celebration Hymnal (non-denominational, 1997)–8.7%;
4. The Hymnbook (RCA, Presbyterian Church in the United States, Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., United Presbyterian Church of North America, and Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, 1955)–6.9%;
5. The Worshiping Church (non-denominational, 1990)–6.2%;
6. Hymns for the Family of God (non-denominational, 1976)–4.9%;
7. Hymns, Psalms and Spiritual Songs (ecumenical edition of The Presbyterian Hymnal, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 1990);
8. Sing Joyfully (non-denominational, 1989)–3.5%;
9. Praise! Our Songs and Hymns (non-denominational, 1979)–3%;
10. Rejoice in the Lord (RCA official hymnal, 1985)–2.7%; and
11. Hymns for the Living Church (non-denominational, 1974)–2.7%.

Sixty-eight other hymnals, some of them local productions, rounded out the English-language list.  Also, 1.9% of congregations reported using non-English-language hymnals.

Above:  Copies of Some of the Non-Denominational Hymnals from the Worship Survey of 2004

Image Source = Kenneth Randolph Taylor

How many Scripture readings do people hear read in Sunday morning worship?

1. One–56.2%
2. Two–37.3%
3. Three–14.3%
4. No response–2.4%

From which translation?

1. New International Version (NIV)–62.2%
2. New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)–25%
3. Revised Standard Version (RSV)–8.9%
4. Other–11.8%

73% of congregations reported extemporaneous prayers.

84.7% of congregations reported following the basic structure of worship the RCA set forth in its Liturgy.

How often do congregations celebrate the Lord’s Supper annually?

1. More than twelve–24.2%
2. Six–19.9%
3. Twelve–15.5%
4. Five–10.1%
5. Eight–8.3%
6. Four–7.4%
7. Seven–7.1%
8. Ten–4.7%
9. Nine–2.2%
10. Eleven–0.5%

Does the minister wear a robe?

1. Never–43.2%
2. Always–28.5%
3. Sometimes–28.2%

Are there paraments?

1. Yes–68.5%
2. No–31.5%

If so, does the church change the colors according to the church year?

1. Yes–92.6%
2. No–6.2%
3. No reply–1.2%

Are there banners?

1. Yes–73.5%
2. No–26.5%

Which seasons of the church year do congregations observe?

1. Advent–96.8%
2. Christmas–92.9%
3. Ordinary Time/Season after Epiphany–44.9%
4. Lent–90.4%
5. Easter–92.6%
6. Ordinary Time/Season after Pentecost–50.8%

80.3% of congregations reported using praise choruses.

Which creed(s) do congregations use in worship?

1. Apostles’–87.7%
2. Nicene–44.3%
3. Other–27.9%

Regional differences became clear:

1. Worship was more traditional in the East than in the Midwest and the West.
2. Use of the lectionary was more common in the East than in the Midwest and the West.
3. Children were most likely to be welcome to take the Lord’s Supper in the Northeast.
4. Paraments were most common in the East.
5. Banners were most common in the Midwest.
6. 62% of congregations in the Synod of the Far West used a RCA-approved rite for the Lord’s Supper.  Over 80% of congregations in the other synods did this.

Overall, the use of approved baptismal and Eucharistic rites remained constant (about 85-90%) from the previous survey, that of 1994.

+++

+++Bible Translations+++

+++

Both the RCA and the CRCNA expanded their lists of Bible translations approved for use in worship.  Going into 2001, the RCA had approved, among others, the NIV, the RSV, and the NRSV.  The latter was the preferred official translation.  In 2007 the RCA added Today’s New International Version (TNIV) to the list.  The CRCNA, going into 2001, had approved the Authorized (King James) Version (1611/1769), the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901, the RSV, the NIV, and the NRSV.  To this list it added the English Standard Version (ESV) in 2007 and the New Living Translation (NLT) the following year.

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

Forms

Some denominations have books of worship to which parishioners have access in congregations.  Roman Catholic publishers make available an array of Missals and Missalettes.  Lutherans have, as a matter of tradition, included forms for worship in their hymnals.  And my adopted denomination, The Episcopal Church, uses The Book of Common Prayer (1979), supplemented by subsequent authorized resources.

Other denominations have official yet seldom-used books of worship.  In the U.S.A., for example, there has been a lineage of Books of Common Worship in mainline Presbyterianism since 1906, the most recent debuting in 1993.  Likewise, the current United Methodist Book of Worship (1992) is the third volume in a lineage which reaches back to World War II.  Most United Methodists I have asked since 1992 and the majority of members of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) I have asked since 1993 have not heard of their denominational book of worship.  Most of that minority which has heard of it has not seen it.  Yet I, an Episcopalian, have a copy of each.  It is bad when one knows less about one’s own denomination than someone outside of it.

Above:  My Copies of These Books

Image Source = Kenneth Randolph Taylor

Both the RCA and the CRCNA have, as a matter of tradition, well-defined liturgical forms, most of which have been available to lay members and clergy alike.  In the old days these came bound with the hymnal.  Today, however, one may find them or most of them available easily at denominational websites.  Yet, given the variety in worship in the RCA and the CRCNA, there is demand for a volume of resources consistent with the Reformed orders of service that is not a formal book of services.

+++

+++The Worship Sourcebook (2004 and 2013)+++

+++

The Worship Sourcebook (First Edition in 2004, Second Edition in 2013) is not a volume like the Presbyterian Book of Common Worship (1993), that is, a full-blown service book.  No, the Sourcebook is exactly what the title indicates–a book which functions as a source of numerous prayers, litanies, et cetera, grouped according to element of worship, such as Prayers of Confession or Assurances of Pardon or Prayers of the People.  It does, however, derive much content from the Book of Common Worship (1993), which, in turn, quoted resources of a wide range of denominations.  The first edition of the Sourcebook sold well–“beyond expectations,” as a report to the CRCNA Synod of 2005 stated.  This volume, a joint project of Faith Alive Christian Resources (the common publisher of the RCA and the CRC) and the Calvin Institute of Christian Worship, Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan, went into the second edition in 2013.  I own a copy of this edition.

The 844-page Second Edition, which comes with a CD inside the back cover so that people can add content easily to church bulletins, opens with a Prologue explaining the history of Reformed worship and justifying the volume’s existence.  Traditionally, worship in European Reformed churches was “by the book,” as it was during the early colonial period in North America.  Yet Pietism, Revivalism, and the conditions of the American frontier took their tolls.  The abandonment of tradition became its own tradition.

The Preface to the Second Edition, on page 9, offers this reflection on styles of worship:

Broadly speaking, worship in just about any style suffers when it slips into mindless routine that fails to appreciate the formative power of habitual action to shape us as Christian disciples.  Worship also suffers from endless innovation that constantly casts about for the latest fad.  Between these two extremes lies the wisdom of “disciplined innovation,” in which pastoral leaders, like jazz musicians, draw upon ancient patterns and forms and then prayerfully, communally, adapt them to address local needs, circumstances, and opportunities.

In other words, freedom requires structure in order to avoid becoming anarchy.

+++

+++Liturgies of the Reformed Church in America+++

+++

The RCA has published revised and formal volumes of Liturgy occasionally, placing between two covers all the authorized services as of a certain time.  Thus, since the dawn of the twentieth century, the denomination has done this in 1906, 1968, 1987/1990, and 2005.  In the previous post in this series I wrote about Worship the Lord (1987) and listed forms which the RCA had authorized between then and 2000.  I will not repeat that content here.

Worship the Lord:  The Liturgy of the Reformed Church in America (2005) a handsome gray volume with three tastefully colored ribbons, contains all the forms authorized in the RCA as of the date of publication.  Thus it contains much material the denomination authorized prior to 2001.  The service forms approved for regular use since 2001 are:

1. Order for Profession of Faith,
2. Order for the Ordination and Installation of Elders and Deacons,
3. Order for Commissioning Christians to the Ministries of the Church,
4. Order for Recognition of Ministries in the Church,
5. Order for Christian Marriage,
6. Order for Christian Burial:  A Service of Witness to the Resurrection,
7. Order for Ordination to the Office of Minister of Word and Sacrament,
8. Order for Reception into the Classis and Installation of a Minister of Word and Sacrament, and
9. Order for Commissioning a Minister of Word and Sacrament into a Specialized Ministry.

Since the publication of Worship the Lord (2005) the RCA has made other forms available for use.  Two of these are the Proposed Order for the Organization of a New Chruch and the Order for Commissioning a Commissioned Pastor (2011) are two of them.  The next three pertain to Christian initiation.  Baptism and profession of faith are occurring more frequently in adults not raised in Christian households.  The RCA’s former default setting was infant or child baptism.  Now, however, adult baptism has become the default setting.  With this reality comes an amplification of missional emphases in new forms for these services.  Thus the newest RCA forms for Christian initiation are:

1. Celebrating the Baptismal Covenant:  A Combined Order for Baptism, Profession of Faith, and Reaffirmation of Faith;
2. Celebrating the Baptismal Covenant:  The Order for Profession of Faith and the Baptism of Youth and Adults; and
3. Celebrating the Baptismal Covenant:  The Order for Baptism of Children.

+++

+++A Common Form for the Baptismal Certificate+++

+++

Dialogue among the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the RCA, the CRCNA, the United Church of Christ (UCC), and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) [PC(USA)] resulted in two reports–one on Baptism and the other on the Holy Eucharist/Lord’s Supper–in 2011 then in denominational studies of them.  One tangible result of the study on Baptism was a common Certificate of Baptism (CRC, Agenda for Synod, 2011, page 356), the text of which follows:

Name was baptized with flowing water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit at name of the congregation by name of the minister.  Signature.  Date.

This shared certificate comes with the mutual recognition of Baptism across these denominational lines–Reformed and Roman Catholic.

+++

+++Reformed Ecumenicity in Liturgy+++

+++

The CRCNA Synod of 2013 expanded the range of authorized forms for Baptism and profession of faith with rites based on the most recent germane RCA rituals (CRC, Agenda for Synod, pages 333-347).  This action filled some needs in the CRCNA and demonstrated ecumenicity with the RCA.

+++

+++Approved Eucharistic Rites for Occasional Use+++

+++

Meanwhile, the RCA was approving Eucharistic rites for occasional use, especially in congregations which used contemporary worship and often improvised abbreviated forms.  In 2008, after several years of study and contemplation, the Commission for Christian Worship proposed to write some briefer forms but mainly to solicit them and to suggest extant third-party forms for the General Synod to approve.  So, with General Synod approval for this plan, the Commission went to work.  In 2009 the Commission suggested the following, all of which the General Synod approved:

1. The Lima Eucharistic Liturgy (1986),
2. The Consultation on Church Union Liturgy (1988),
3. The Formula of Agreement Liturgy (1998), and
4. Occasional Use Liturgy Number 1 (2009).

—Acts and Proceedings, pages 278-288

+++

+++The United Reformed Churches in North America+++

+++

The United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA), formed in 1995 from the CRCNA, had adopted the liturgical forms in the Psalter Hymnal (1959/1976) in 1996 and modified the Form of Subscription to the Canons of Dort the following year.  These decisions made sense, for most of these congregations sang out of the that hymnbook anyway, having not switched to the Psalter Hymnal (1987) years before.

The time to revise old forms and create new ones did arrive, however.  So, starting in 2007 and continuing through 2012, the URCNA developed, revised, and adopted the following:

1. Prayers,
2. Form for Frequent Celebration of the Lord’s Supper,
3. Form for the Reception of Families,
4. Form Number 1 for the Baptism of Infants,
5. Form Number 1 for the Profession of Faith,
6. Form Number 1 for Adult Baptism,
7. Form Number 1 for the Celebration of the Lord’s Supper,
8. Form for Excommunication,
9. Form for Readmission,
10. Form for the Installation of a Minister of the Word,
11. Form for the Installation of Elders and Deacons,
12. Two forms for the Solemnization of Marriage,
13. Form Number 2 for Baptism (based on Form Number 3 from the Psalter Hymnal of 1959/1976), and
14. Form Number 2 for the Celebration of the Lord’s Supper (based on Form Number 3 from the Psalter Hymnal of 1959/1976).

As of the conclusion of the URCNA Synod of 2012, unfinished business included the translations of the three ecumenical creeds (Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian) and the three Forms of Unity (the Canons of Dort, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Belgic Confession).  (Sources for this information = Acts of Synod, 2007, pages 298-308; Acts of Synod, 2010, pages 485-537; and Acts of Synod, 2012, pages 355-438.)  The Acts of Synod for 2014 are not available as of the time of the drafting and typing of this post, but official summaries of the Synod of 2014 available at the denominational website tell me that the Synod of 2016 will inherit the unfinished business I have described.

And, by the way, according to the Acts of Synod for 2010, the Bible translation quoted in revised forms is the English Standard Version (ESV).

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

The Relationship Between Baptism and the Lord’s Supper

The RCA decided in 1988 and reaffirmed the following year to admit baptized children who had yet to make a profession of faith to the table of the Lord’s Supper, at the discretion of local congregational leaders.  The CRCNA refused to go that far in the 1990s.  Instead it insisted that the only children permitted to take Communion were those who had made a profession of faith.  Therefore the CRCNA Synod of 1995 approved a new form for the public profession of faith by children as the denomination pushed for professions of faith at younger ages.

The CRCNA came around to the RCA’s position in 2006, adopting the recommendation allowing “for the admission of all baptized members to the Lord’s Supper on the basis of their membership in the covenant community.”  The Synod of 2007 appointed a committee to study the issue.  The Faith Formation Committee’s 2011 report affirmed the decision of 2006:  Profession of faith is not a requirement for partaking of the Lord’s Supper in all congregations.  No, “age and ability-appropriate obedience” constitutes the proper context for understanding participation in that sacrament.  The same report affirmed the sacrament of Baptism as a prerequisite for taking Communion.

The RCA revised and updated its advisory materials for congregational leaders regarding the admission of young children to the Lord’s Table.  In 2013 the General Synod Council prepared an interactive resource to accompany the CRC’s 2011 document, A Place at the Table:  Welcoming Children to the Lord’s Supper:  A Guide for Congregations.  And, the following year, the General Synod approved updated guidelines for permitting young children to participate in the sacrament, which the RCA had requested all of its congregations to celebrate more frequently ten years prior.

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

Infant Baptism and Infant Dedication

These discussions regarding admitting young children to the Lord’s Table overlapped with questions of infant dedication, which some RCA and CRCNA congregations permitted in lieu of infant Baptism.  The Baptism of infants is consistent with Reformed sacramental practice and tradition.  It is also consistent with the sacramental practice of tradition of the vast majority of Christianity.  The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Anglican denominations, and many Protestant communions–such as the Lutherans and the Methodists–also baptize infants and have done so for a long time–almost two thousand years in the case of Rome.  All these communions constitute probably at least 80% of the Christian Church, so they are hardly outliers.  Yet the RCA and the CRCNA had to deal with questions of the legitimacy of infant Baptism in the 200os.

The RCA General Synod of 2004 reminded people that the practice was not only normative but rooted in covenant theology.  The CRCNA Synod of 2007 agreed and also discouraged infant dedication.  The Synod of 2011 repeated this affirmation of infant Baptism.    The next year’s Synod stated that the practice is consistent with Scripture and repeated the discouragement of infant dedication.  The Synod continued:

Congregations should minister to those who will not present their children for infant baptism with a spirit of gratitude to God for the gift of these children, offering encouragement and accountability to parents as part of faithful, pastoral ministry

while teaching regarding infant Baptism (Acts of Synod, 2012, page 775).

And who may present a child for the sacrament of Baptism?  The RCA dealt with that issue.  The General Synod of 2006 required that at least one guardian or adult relative be a “confessing member” of the congregation in which the sacrament occurs.  The next year’s General Synod resolved that church elders, already responsible for deciding who may join a congregation, having a role in hearing public processions of faith, and governing admission to the Lord’s Table, will also decide where primary parental responsibility resides regarding the Baptism of a child.  This last provision is necessary sometimes, given the realities of shared custody of children after divorce.

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

Hymnals

+++

+++Sing! A New Creation (2001)+++

+++

I wrote about Sing! A New Creation (2001) in the previous post in this series, for work on it was mostly complete before 2001.  Yet the topic bears repetition here.  The joint RCA-CRCNA project, containing 294 songs, all from the latter half of the twentieth century, contained a variety of styles, including Taize music, world music, praise songs, and Roman Catholic folk hymns.  It sold well, according to Faith Alive Christian Resources reports to CRCNA Synods.  And it sold beyond the core RCA-CRCNA market, for one of my sources mentioned that he knew of Presbyterian Church (U.S.A) congregations which sang out of it.  As I have written already in this post, the 2004 Worship Survey revealed that only 16% of RCA congregations sang out of Sing! A New Creation.  That survey also documented the plethora of hymnals (mostly mildly Evangelical and quite contemporary) in use in the RCA.

Above:  Lift Up Your Hearts (2013), Its Two Official Predecessors, and Our Faith (2013)

Image Source = Kenneth Randolph Taylor

+++

+++Lift Up Your Hearts and Our Faith (2013)+++

+++

Work on Lift Up Your Hearts:  Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs (2013), successor to the CRCNA’s Psalter Hymnal (1987), official successor to the RCA’s Rejoice in the Lord (1985), and actual successor to a bevy of hymnals RCA congregations used, started in 2007.  Along the way Faith Alive Christian Resources created some precursor hymnals:

1. Contemporary Songs for Worship (2008), with 37 hymns;
2. Singing the New Testament (2008), with 260 hymns;
3. Hymns for Worship (2009), with 256 hymns; and
4. Global Songs for Worship (2010), with 57 hymns.

A 2007 survey of CRC congregations helped to define the reality of the context in which the joint hymnal committee worked:

1. 60% of congregations had blended worship services,
2. 70% had the Psalter Hymnal (1987) in the pews or chairs,
3. 12% had the Psalter Hymnal (1959/1976) in the pews or chairs, and
4. 60% always or usually sang out of a hymnal.

Official hymns of the two denominations, as a matter of tradition, contained the confessions of faith.  Yet, by 2011, few RCA and CRCNA congregations used those in worship.  Also, the joint committee targeted the ecumenical Reformed market, not just the two primary denominations.  So the creeds and confessions found a home in Our Faith (2013), a paperback book, and more songs filled the space of those documents would have occupied otherwise.

During my research for this post I consulted the website for Lift Up Your Hearts, a treasure trove of useful information despite the fact that it refers to the Psalter Hymnal (1959) as being from 1957.  There I read the names of congregations which had purchased the new hymnal.  Most of these came from the RCA and the CRCNA, but others belonged to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) [PC(USA)] and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC), as of early July 2014.  (Yes, I checked congregational websites.)  And I read that, of the more than 850 songs in Lift Up Your Hearts,

1. 136 came from the Psalter Hymnal (1959/1976),
2. 302 came from the Psalter Hymnal (1987),
3. 214 came from The Worshiping Church (1990), and
4. 126 came from Sing! A New Creation.

Above:  Glory to God:  The Presbyterian Hymnal (2013) and Its Three Immediate Predecessors

Image Source = Kenneth Randolph Taylor

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), a cousin of the RCA and CRCNA, also published a new hymnbook in 2013.  Glory to God:  The Presbyterian Hymnal and Lift Up Your Hearts are more contemporary than their immediate authorized predecessors.  The Hymnbook (1955), traditional when it was new, is a forebear of both 2013 hymnals, in fact.  Both Glory to God and Lift Up Your Hearts contain praise songs, world music, Roman Catholic hymns, Taize music, and traditional hymns.  Yet Glory to God tilts toward the traditional and Lift Up Your Hearts toward the contemporary.

Lift Up Your Hearts comes in a variety of editions–pews, reading, digital, and projection.  This diversity of formats appeals to a range of tastes, from the traditional, “give me a hardcover hymnal” school to those who project words onto a screen.

The organization of songs and other content in Lift Up Your Hearts indicates two headings with sections and subsections present.  The first heading is “The Story of Creation and Redemption,” or from creation to the Second Coming and the new creation.  This, by the way, is the entire organizational principle of the much-maligned (especially in the RCA) Rejoice in the Lord (1985).  The second heading is “Worshiping the Triune God,” with material arranged according to the Reformed order of worship, from “Opening of Worship” to “Sent Out.”

The very nice companion volume to Lift Up Your Hearts is Our Faith:  Ecumenical Creeds, Reformed Confessions, and Other Resources (2013).  It includes three sections:

1. Ecumenical Creeds (Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian),
2. Confessions (the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort), and
3. Testimonies (Our Song of Hope, RCA, 1978; and Our World Belongs to God:  A Contemporary Testimony, second edition, CRCNA, 2008).

+++

+++Psalms for All Seasons:  A Complete Psalter for Worship (2012)+++

+++

Another product of Faith Alive Christian Resources intended for the RCA, the CRCNA, and the ecumenical Reformed market is Psalms for All Seasons:  A Complete Psalter for Worship (2012).  This volume, at more than 1132 pages, with Psalm settings filling pages 2-1110 and Canticle settings (the Songs of Zechariah, Mary, and Simeon) filling pages 1012-1029, is the largest Psalter in North America.  It contains hymns based on Psalms as well as translations from a range of sources.  Some of these sources include:

1. The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), from which the first translation of each Psalm comes;
2. The New International Version (NIV);
3. The New Living Translation (NLT);
4. The Message (Eugene Peterson);
5. Evangelical Lutheran Worship (2006), the hymnal-service book of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA); and
6. The Book of Common Prayer (1979), of The Episcopal Church.

In the back of the book one finds the Revised Common Lectionary (RCL) and the following services:

1. Morning Prayer;
2. Noon Prayer;
3. Evening Prayer;
4. Night Prayer; and
5. Service of Prayer for a Meeting, Class, or Conference.

Above:  URCNA and OPC Hymnals

Image Source = Kenneth Randolph Taylor

+++

+++The United Reformed Churches in North America+++

+++

As I have written in this post, most congregations of the United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA) sing out of the CRCNA Psalter Hymnal of 1959/1976, a book whose reprinting the URCNA Synod has authorized twice.  Nevertheless, work on a new hymnal has been underway–with some changes of course along the way–since 1997.

The URCNA Synod of 2001 authorized work with the Canadian and American Reformed Churches (CanRC) on a joint metrical Psalter.  The CanRC was developing a successor to its Book of Praise (1984), the dominant portion of which was the Psalter.  Likewise, the Psalter was to constitute the main portion of the next URCNA hymnal.  Until the URCNA Synod of 2007 URCNA and CanRC hymnal committees were under the impression that they might be working on the same future hymnbook.  The URCNA Synod declared, however, that such ideas were mistaken.  The assignment was to work on a joint metrical Psalter alone.  So the CanRC Synod of 2007 authorized a revision of the Psalter work completed so far in advance of the publication of the new Book of Praise in 2010.  I found the PDF version of that 2010 hymnal with a simple Google search and have added it to my collection.

So, for five years (2007-2012), the URCNA labored to produce its new hymnal as a solo project.  Since hymnal revision costs money and publishers seek to recover their costs, concern over how to accomplish that goal was understandable.  There were also purposes to keep the cost per copy to a minimum and to maintain unity and identity within the URCNA.  Thus the Synod of 2012 approved an overture to require that congregations purchase the new hymnal when available.

Then, in 2012, the URCNA accepted an invitation from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) to work on a joint hymnal.  Thus the new hymnbook would succeed both the Psalter Hymnal (1959/1976) and the Trinity Hymnal–Revised Edition, the 1990 joint hymnbook of the OPC and the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).  The estimated date of publication of the embryonic hymnal is late 2016, shortly after the anticipated approval by the URCNA Synod and the OPC General Assembly, meeting simultaneously in the same city.  There are plans for separate URCNA and OPC editions, due to different rites.  The most recent news I have found is that the URCNA Synod of 2014 approved the Psalter portion.

All my attempts to learn what plans the PCA has for its next hymnal have proven fruitless.  Some options come to mind, however:

1. Singing out of reprinted editions of old hymnals is a feasible option.  The OPC’s Trinity Hymnal (1961) remains in print and in use, after all.  The same could become true of the 1990 OPC-PCA Trinity Hymnal.
2. Some PCA congregations might use the new URCNA-OPC hymnal.  Besides, many congregations outside the OPC and the PCA sing out of the 1990 Trinity Hymnal.
3. Some PCA congregations might find Lift Up Your Hearts (2013) to be a good fit.
4. And there are, of course, for those who prefer hymnals yet find none of the above options palatable, non-denominational hymnbooks.

+++

+++Informed Musings on Shared Official Reformed Hymnals+++

+++

Sharing an official hymnal in the history of U.S. Presbyterian and Reformed bodies does not necessarily precede organic union.

1. The Hymnal of the Reformed Church (1920) did not lead to the union of the RCA and the old Reformed Church in the United States (RCUS); the latter became part of the Evangelical and Reformed Church (ERC) in 1934 instead.  Today its legacy lives mainly in the United Church of Christ (UCC).
2. The Hymnbook (1955) was common to the RCA, the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARPC), the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS), the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (PCUSA), and the United Presbyterian Church of North America (UPCNA).  The PCUSA and the UPCNA merged in 1958 to create the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (UPCUSA), which joined with the PCUS in 1983 to form the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) [PC(USA)].  The RCA and the ARPC remain separate, however.
3. Between 1955 and 1983 came The Worshipbook–Services and Hymns (1972), common to the PCUS, the UPCUSA, and the Cumberland Presbyterian Church (CPC).  The PC(USA), successor to the PCUS and the UPCUSA, cooperates with the CPC, sharing a Book of Common Worship.
4. The OPC and the PCA published the revised Trinity Hymnal in 1990, after two failed attempts at organic union–one in 1982 and the other four years later.

So I wonder about the future of relationships involving the RCA, the CRCNA, the URCNA and the OPC, especially in the context of the sharing of hymnals.  Will the RCA and the CRCNA ever come to the point of formal reunion?  Will the URCNA find at least one more partner for organic union?  Only time will tell, and I will watch from the sidelines, in the See of Canterbury.

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

IV.  CONCLUSION

This long post is about coming together while remaining mostly separate and addressing societal-theological issues.  My research reveals that sometimes, as in the RCA and the CRCNA, there is at least as much disunity within a denomination as there is between them.  This proves especially true regarding matters of theology and worship.  And sometimes, as deceptive as a shared denominational label can prove to be regarding actual ecclesiastical unity, the existence of denominational separateness can mask a greater, underlying unity.  In other words, appearances and tightly-held identities, which provide psychological comfort for many people, can prove to be deceptive.

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

ADDENDUM

According to this report on the 2014 General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 2018 has become the probable publication date of the proposed URCNA-OPC hymnal.

KRT–AUGUST 29, 2014 C.E.

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HARDCOPY SOURCES

Brumm, James Hart, ed.  Liturgy Among the Thorns:  Essays on Worship in the Reformed Church in America.  Grand Rapids, MI:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007.  The Historical Series of the Reformed Church in America, No. 57.

Glory to God:  The Presbyterian Hymnal.  Louisville, KY:  Westminster/John Knox Press, 2013.

The Hymnal for Worship & Celebration.  Waco, TX:  Word Music, 1986.

The Hymnbook.  Edited by David Hugh Jones.  Richmond, VA:  John Knox Press, 1955.

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

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

Lift Up Your Hearts:  Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs.  Grand Rapids, MI:  Faith Alive Christian Resources, 2013.

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

Our Faith:  Ecumenical Creeds, Reformed Confessions and Other Resources; Including the Doctrinal Standards of the Christian Reformed Church in North America and the Reformed Church in America.  Grand Rapids, MI:  Faith Alive Christian Resources, 2013.

Praise! Our Songs and Hymns.  Grand Rapids, MI:  Singspiration Music, 1979.

The Presbyterian Hymnal:  Hymns, Psalms, and Spiritual Songs.  Louisville, KY:  Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990.

Psalms for All Seasons:  A Complete Psalter for Worship.  Grand Rapids, MI:  Faith Alive Christian Resources, 2012.

Psalter Hymnal.  Grand Rapids, MI:  CRC Publications, 1987.

Psalter Hymnal:  Doctrinal Standards and Liturgy of the Christian Reformed Church.  Grand Rapids, MI:  Publication Committee of the Christian Reformed Church, 1976.

Psalter Hymnal:  Doctrinal Standards and Liturgy of the Christian Reformed Church.  Centennial Edition.  Grand Rapids, MI:  Publication Committee of the Christian Reformed Church, 1959.

Rejoice in the Lord:  A Hymn Companion to the Scriptures.  Edited by Erik Routley.  Grand Rapids, MI:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985.

Sing! A New Creation.  Grand Rapids, MI:  Faith Alive Christian Resources, 2001.

Smidt, Corwin et al.  Divided by a Common Heritage:  The Christian Reformed Church and the Reformed Church in America at the Beginning of the New Millennium.  Grand Rapids, MI:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006.  The Historical Series of the Reformed Church in America, No. 54.

Trinity Hymnal.  Philadelphia, PA:  Great Commission Publications, 1961.

Trinity Hymnal–Revised Edition.  Suwanee, GA:  Great Commission Publications, 1990.

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

The Worship Sourcebook.  Second Edition.  Grand Rapids, MI:  Faith Alive Christian Resources, 2013.

Worship the Lord.  Edited by James R. Esther and Donald J. Bruggink.  Grand Rapids, MI:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987.

Worship the Lord:  The Liturgy of the Reformed Church in America.  New York, NY:  Reformed Church Press, 2005.

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

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

JULY 5, 2014 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF SAINT ANTHONY MARY ZACCARIA, FOUNDER OF THE BARNABITES AND THE ANGELIC SISTERS OF SAINT PAUL

THE FEAST OF SAINTS ADALBERO AND ULRIC OF AUGSBURG, ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS

THE FEAST OF H. RICHARD NIEBUHR, UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST THEOLOGIAN

THE FEAST OF WILLEM A. VISSER ‘T HOOFT, ECUMENIST

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

Above:  My Copies of The Hymnbook (1955), The Liturgy and Psalms (1968), and Psalter Hymnal (1959)

Image Source = Kenneth Randolph Taylor

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

U.S. DUTCH REFORMED LITURGY, PART V

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

Hope of the world, Thou Christ of great compassion,

Speak to our fearful hearts by conflict rent.

Save us, Thy people, from consuming passion,

Who by our falsehoods and aims are spent.

–Georgia Harkness, 1953, The Hymnbook (1955), Hymn #291

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

I.  PREFACE AND INTRODUCTION

In the early 1980s, hardly the pinnacle of humor on Saturday Night Live, some good jokes did slip through the filters.  Among them was this piece of faux wisdom:

Change is the only constant.  Then you need it for bus fare.

Change was among the constant factors in the Reformed Church in America (RCA) and the Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRCNA or just CRC) during the period of 1945-1969.  The RCA almost came apart at the seams because of the resulting tensions and resentments.  And the CRCNA moderated, much to the chagrin of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), with which it nearly merged.  By the end of 1969 the gap separating the RCA and the CRCNA had narrowed.

The process of taking notes for this post required me to spend much time with books and PDFs.  I have listed my hardcopy sources at the end of this post.  For the sake of convenience, however, I state here and now that the germane Agendas and Acts of Synod of the CRCNA are available at this link.  I have also provided other germane hyperlinks throughout the post as forms of documentation.

Before we continue, O reader, I inform you that the rough draft of this post, excluding the bibliography, filled sixty-eight pages of a composition book.  I have tried to be thorough without being excessive.  There is simply much material, despite the fact that I could have written many more pages.  So you might want to review Parts I, II, III, and IV of this series and take your time with this post.  The organizational structure should guide you through the material well.

I am, believe it or not, working on this series as part of a hobby.  I could be watching old Doctor Who serials, but I am doing this instead.  Make of that what you will.

Now, without further ado….

II.  ECUMENISM, BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION, AND BIBLE TRANSLATION

Liturgy does not occur in a vacuum.  To understand it properly one must have a grasp of its contexts.  The Hymnbook (1955), for example, was a joint project of the RCA and four Presbyterian denominations.  Thus that volume’s existence indicates something about the RCA’s ecumenical engagement at the time.  And the choice of Bible translation (the American Standard Version of 1901) for use in Psalter Hymnal (1959) points to the CRCNA’s official attitude toward the Revised Standard Version at the time.  So, before I undertake to explain details of liturgy in the RCA and the CRCNA from 1945 to 1969, I will lay a solid foundation.

Biblical Inerrancy and Infallibility

This issue arose in both the RCA and the CRCNA, with different results.

Before we proceed, O reader, we ought to understand definitions correctly.  The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition (1996), defines “inerrant” and “infallible” as synonyms.  They refer to being incapable of erring and to containing no errors.

The RCA had a contingent (mostly in the Midwest and the West) which valued inerrancy and infallibility.  The issue did not come before the General Synod until 1948, however.  In 1946 New Brunswick Theological Seminary hired Hugh Baillie MacLean, a Scottish Presbyterian, as Lecturer in Old Testament.  MacLean addressed the General Synod of 1948, causing a controversy in the process.  He affirmed the value of the Old Testament, arguing that the New Testament had not made it irrelevant.  That did not prove controversial, but the next part did.  He also stated that the Bible was a product of God and people, and that changing human understandings of God had influenced the development Scripture.  So, MacLean said, God never ordered the Israelites to commit genocide in Canaan, despite appearances in the Bible.  Actually, he argued, later writers told the story that way because they concluded that the Israelites should have killed all the Canaanites.

Had MacLean denied the truth of Scripture?  The General Synod of 1949 heard seventeen overtures (all from the generally more liberal East of the Church) supporting MacLean and thirteen overtures (all of them from the generally more conservative Midwest and West of the denomination) condemning him.  The scholar remained at his post until he died in 1959.  During his tenure he impressed his students with his knowledge, his ability to make the Bible come alive, and his commitment to divine love for people and for justice.

Among MacLean’s students was William Coventry, who became the center of a dispute in the RCA.  From May 1958 to January 1959 he struggled to receive a license to preach.  The conservative Classis of Passaic, where many of the ministers had graduated from Westminster Theological Seminary, an institution of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), denied Coventry said license in May 1958 because he had denied Biblical inerrancy and infallibility and argued that Adam had never existed.  Next four congregations of that classis appealed the decision to the Particular Synod of New Jersey, which sustained the appeal.  Yet the Classis of Passaic continued to refuse to grant the license to Coventry, not yet ordained.  So some progressive congregations, complaining of the stifling conservatism of the Classis of Passaic, requested transfer to a different classis.  The Classis of Passaic appealed the ruling of the Particular Synod of New Jersey to the General Synod of 1958, which directed the Particular Synod either to grant the license directly or to force the Classis of Passaic to do so.  Meanwhile, Coventry had accepted a call to a congregation in the adjacent Classis of Paramus.  That classis attempted to have him transferred to their jurisdiction so they could grant the license  to preach.  In January 1959, after consultation with clergy from both classes, an examiner asked Coventry specific questions regarding the interpretation of Scripture.  Coventry provided more orthodox answers and thereby received his license to preach.

Subsequent General Synods addressed the question of Biblical interpretation.  The 1959 General Synod ruled that the reality of a range of opinions regarding the proper interpretation of Scripture within the RCA and larger Protestantism did not constitute a cause for concern.  Four years later the General Synod approved a 1960 Theological Commission report which said in part,

Scripture as the Word of the faithful God is infallible and inerrant in all that it intends to teach and accomplish concerning faith and life.

The RCA rejected any rigid position on the subject.

The CRCNA, however, approached the topic differently.  This occurred in the context of a struggle between progressives (relatively speaking) and Confessionalists in the denomination.  The progressives favored a policy of permeation, or applying Christian faith in the modern culture, not hiding out from it.  They scored a victory in 1952, when all but one member of the Confessionalist old guard at Calvin Theological Seminary had to leave.  Nevertheless, these progressives were theological conservatives; they were just less conservative than the Confessionalists.  Affirmation of Biblical inerrancy and infallibility remained an assumed matter at Calvin Theological Seminary as late as 1959.  That year the CRCNA Synod received an overture that

no seminary student who is not wholly committed to the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture shall have access to any pulpit in the Christian Reformed Church

and deemed it

unnecessary at this time,

due to the orthodoxy of Calvin Theological Seminary.

Starting in 1959, however, there was an investigation of the Reverend Doctor John H. Kromminga, President of that seminary from 1954.  Professor Martin J. Wyngaarden, also of the seminary, alleged that Kromminga had, in writing, taken a position on Biblical inerrancy and infallibility inconsistent with the Belgic Confession of Faith.  The CRCNA Synod exonerated Kromminga of all charges, over Wyngaarden’s strong and vocal objections.  Kromminga, the Synod concluded, had merely used vague language initially; he had cleared up all misunderstandings with precise language.  He received indefinite tenure in 1962 and retired twenty-one years later.

The CRCNA reaffirmed its position regarding Biblical inerrancy and infallibility in 1961.  One can read the full text of that position in that year’s Acts of Synod, pages 253-328.  The General Synod of the RCA would never have approved such a hardline position.

The World Council of Churches, the National Council of Churches, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Roman Catholicism

The RCA had been a charter member of the Federal Council of Churches (1908-1950).  It maintained this affiliation through 1950, turning back overtures to leave in 1932, 1934, 1936, 1944, 1947, and 1948.  Objections to membership in the Federal Council included allegations that:

1. The Council was Communist;
2. The Council, if not Communist, was soft on Communism;
3. The Council was too liberal; and
4. Membership in the Council weakened the Reformed witness of the RCA.

The RCA also became a charter member of the World Council of Churches (1948-) and the National Council of Churches (1950-), the latter being the successor to the Federal Council.  Criticisms of RCA membership in the Federal Council became arguments against membership in these new Councils.  Within the right wing of the RCA other criticisms of them included:

1. Charges of meddling in matters economic, political, and social; and
2. Allegations that the Eastern Orthodox were not really Christians.

The General Synod turned back attempts to withdraw from the Councils in 1965, 1967, and 1968.

I will return to the first point periodically in this post, pointing out ironies regarding it.  As for the second point, I conclude that traditional Protestant hostility toward Roman Catholicism is germane, for that antipathy transferred to the Eastern Orthodox.

An intellectually honest approach to the question of Protestant anti-Roman Catholicism recognizes the fact the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), or Vatican II, was a dividing line in church history and ecumenical relations.  For many Protestants, however, Vatican II made no difference, for they remained hostile toward the Roman Catholic Church.  This applied to the conservative middle of the RCA, but not just to that segment of the denomination.  In 1960, for example, Norman Vincent Peale, pastor of Marble Collegiate Church, New York, New York, led a campaign against Senator John F. Kennedy, the Democratic nominee for President, on the basis of JFK’s Roman Catholicism alone.

Nevertheless, the generally more liberal Eastern portion of the RCA practiced more tolerance or acceptance of Roman Catholicism than did the generally more conservative Midwestern and Western parts of the denomination.  Eastern RCA ministers usually wore a clergy collar, for example, but their Midwestern and Western counterparts seldom did.  And, when two RCA clergymen attended an interfaith service at a Roman Catholic parish in Pequannock, New Jersey, in 1968, parts of the right wing of the RCA objected vociferously.  There was also the 1963 case of an allegedly incriminating photograph of two RCA ministers, a Roman Catholic priest, and an Eastern Orthodox priest at an event during the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.  One conservative Midwestern RCA clergyman registered his displeasure in The Church Herald, the denominational magazine.  He argued that the photograph suggested wrongly that the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches were Christian.

Old prejudices had stubborn staying power.

If this was the reaction in the RCA, how hard was the anti-Roman Catholic line in the CRCNA.  Very!  The 1949 Minority Report regarding CRCNA membership in the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) argued for continued affiliation with that group and included Roman Catholicism along with

Unbelief, Communism, Modernism

as

the great foes of orthodox Christianity

which both the CRCNA and the NAE opposed.  And the 1957 Synod protested the appointment of a U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See by President Dwight D. Eisenhower.  The Acts of Synod cited concerns about the separation of church and state, but anti-Roman Catholicism was certainly a major factor in the matter.  (Quotes from Acts of Synod, page 313)

The CRCNA was predictable in its opposition to the World and National Councils of Churches.  A report to the 1959 Synod referred to members of those Councils as

“churches,”

as if they were really sects, not churches, and stated that these alleged churches denied

the orthodox faith and Scriptural teaching.

(Quotes from Acts of Synod, page 60)

The picture became mixed at the CRC Synod of 1967.  The Majority Report (Acts of Synod, pages 380-443) recycled old criticisms of the World Council of Churches (WCC).  It is too liberal, the report said.  The WCC meddles in social, economic, and political issues, the report alleged.  The Synod adopted this report.  Yet there was the Minority Report (Acts of Synod, pages 444-485).  The bottom line of the Minority Report was the recognition of problem areas regarding potential CRCNA membership in the WCC with a noticeable absence of hostility toward that Council.  There were no charges of apostasy, for example.  It was a minority opinion, but it had a constituency within the denomination.

The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE)

The CRCNA joined the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), becoming a charter member.  From then to 1951, when the denomination left, CRC Synods received overtures to withdraw.  Throughout the 1950s and 1960s the CRCNA heard requests to rejoin, something it did eventually, but not before 1970.  The complaints against CRCNA membership in the NAE had nothing to do with charges of Modernism, for the NAE existed in part to resist Modernism.  No, opposition to NAE affiliation within the CRCNA had mostly to do with Reformed identity and doctrinal purity.  Arguments against the NAE gathered from the CRCNA Acts of Synod (1948-1951) included:

1. Membership in the NAE impairs the CRCNA’s Reformed witness (that rhymes with objections to RCA membership in other councils);
2. Membership in the NAE might “accelerate the growth of Fundamentalism in the Christian Reformed Church” (Acts of Synod, 1949, page 288); and
3. The NAE is too Arminian.

The Majority Report to the Synod of 1949 advised CRCNA withdrawal from the NAE

lest our Reformed witness be confused, submerged, and impaired; and lest our fellowship in the N.A.E. accelerate the growth of Fundamentalism in the Christian Reformed Church

because

Fundamentalism is anti-Reformed and anti-Calvinist

and is

at best Arminian, but in fact anti-theological.

(Quotes from Acts of Synod, pages 288 and 290)

The unsuccessful pro-NAE argument was a defensive one.  It held that the CRCNA must stand with the NAE because

the great foes of orthodox Christianity in our own day, Unbelief, Communism, Modernism, Roman Catholicism, are very strong and active today.  We believe that as history rolls onto the end this danger will become more acute.  This makes it all the more urgent that those who are fundamentally one in the Lord stand together to defend themselves.

(Quote from Acts of Synod, 1949, page 313)

A 1961 recommendation followed in the same vein, urging the CRCNA to rejoin the NAE to resist, among other influences,

Communism, Paganism, Roman Catholicism, and Modernism.

(Quote from Acts of Synod, page 476)

The CRCNA rejected NAE requests to send representatives to address denominational Synods and declined invitations to rejoin in the 1950s.  By the middle 1960s, however, the CRCNA and the NAE had become partners in creating the New International Version of the Bible, a fact which unsettled part of the denominational constituency.  And a 1967 NAE invitation to the CRCNA to return to the fold led to a study commission and a polite hearing, but not immediate re-affiliation.  Attitudes were softening.

The Revised Standard Version and the New International Version

The Revised Standard Version  (RSV) of the Bible did not change substantially between 1954 and 1969, but the CRCNA’s official opinion of it did.  Before the denomination approved of the RSV officially in 1969, however, it launched the process which led to the creation of the New International Version (NIV).

In the 1960s the RCA joined with the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARPC), the Cumberland Presbyterian Church (CPC), the Moravian Church in America (MCA), and the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS) to authorize common Sunday School materials, the Covenant Life Curriculum (CLC).  Some of these volumes have entered my library.  Thus I cite them to document the fact that they cited the RSV primarily.  Some in the right wings of the RCA and the PCUS (at least) considered the CLC materials theologically suspect due to the presence of very mainline Protestant Neo-Orthodoxy in them.  (I draw upon my memory of research into the reactionary wing of the PCUS via primary sources to support the PCUS part of the previous sentence.)  The Hymnbook (1955) of the RCA, the ARPC, the PCUS, the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (PCUSA), and the United Presbyterian Church of North America (UPCNA) quoted both the Authorized (King James) Version and the RSV.  The RCA clearly had no official objection to the RSV.

For fifteen years, however, the CRCNA had a different opinion.  An overture to the Synod of 1953 led to the creation of a study committee.  That group reported to the Synod of 1954 and lambasted the RSV.  They labeled it inferior stylistically to the Authorized (King James) Version and worse, theologically Modernistic:

This bias does not appear on the side of faith.

(Quote from Acts of Synod, 1954, page 435)

The Synod accepted the report’s conclusions and advised against any use of the RSV in CRC congregations.

The RSV was a product of the National Council of Churches (NCC), which the CRCNA considered apostate at the time, so the translation’s origins influenced the Synod’s conclusions.  The CRCNA, having mellowed by the late 1960s, appointed a new study commission in 1968 and approved the use of the RSV the following year.  The denomination’s representatives on the matter even suggested some changes to the RSV ahead of the publication of the Revised Standard Version, Second Edition (RSV II), in 1971.  At the time of the 1969 CRCNA Synod the RSV translation committee had agreed to give all these suggestions serious consideration, had approved some, and had rejected none.  Engagement proved fruitful; labeling the translation faithless did not.

The RSV II, by the way, was the foundation from which the translators of the theologically conservative English Standard Version (2001) worked.

The process which led to the translation of the New International Version (NIV) began with an overture at the Synod of 1956.  The proposal was that the CRCNA join with other conservative Churches to produce

a faithful translation of the Scriptures in the common language of the people.

The Synod of 1956 referred the matter to the Old Testament and New Testament faculty of Calvin Theological Seminary.  By the early 1960s they had secured sufficient support, including much from the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE).  The rest was history; translation began in 1965.

This work aroused opposition within the CRCNA.  At the Synod of 1964, for example, Classis Central California made an eleventh-hour attempt to halt work on the NIV.  It proposed an overture to this effect, providing the following reasons as grounds:

1. The American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901 is good enough.
2. Creating a new translation will be too expensive.
3. Having too many translations complicates needlessly he process of memorizing Scripture.
4. There is insufficient support within the CRCNA for a new translation.

That overture failed, but a subsequent overture from the same classis led to the approval of the RSV in 1969.

The Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America and the Christian Reformed Church in North America (1954-1961)

From 1955 to 1961 the CRCNA considered merging with the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA).  This proposal originated within the RPCNA, whose Synod of 1954 approved negotiations toward that end.  The CRCNA Synod of 1955 responded favorably, so talks commenced.  Major issues became obvious quickly and remain unresolved as the CRCNA stepped away from its traditional cultural isolationism, hence the failure of the merger negotiations:

1. In 1956 the CRCNA Synod rejected a request from the RPCNA Synod to join it in supporting a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States recognizing Jesus Christ as “the Saviour and Ruler of Nations.”  The CRCNA affirmed the sentiment yet deemed the proposed amendment improper.
2. Reports to CRCNA Synods from the late 1950s to 1961 pointed to differences between the two denominations regarding the Scriptural pattern of worship.  The RPCNA, unlike the CRCNA, rejected hymns, written prayers, and musical instruments.  Indeed, it still rejects hymns.  The RPCNA’s 2010 worship resource, The Book of Psalms for Worship, is exactly what the title indicates.
3. These CRCNA reports to Synod also mentioned a different ethic regarding the Christian’s proper relationship to civil authority.  The RPCNA considered voting and holding public office sinful.

A 1959 CRCNA report labeled merger unlikely, a 1960 report held out some hope, and a 1961 report, citing

some traditional positions and practices

of the RPCNA, declared merger an impossibility.

(Quote from Acts of Synod, 1961, page 121)

The Orthodox Protestant Reformed Churches in America and the Christian Reformed Church in North America, 1957-1961

The Protestant Reformed Churches in America (PRCA) broke away from the CRCNA in 1926 rather than affirm the Common Grace theology of Abraham Kuyper which the CRCNA Synod had made mandatory for ministers.  (I covered that ground in Parts III and IV of this series.  I have also provided links to all the previous parts of this series at the beginning of this post.)  The CRCNA was Calvinistic, but the PRCA was hyper-Calvinistic.  The PRCA split in 1953, when the Orthodox Protestant Reformed Churches in America (OPRCA) formed.

I use these labels for the sake of accuracy, but the CRC Acts of Synod usually referred to the PRCA as the PRCA (H. Hoekstra Group) and the OPRCA as the PRCA (De Wolf Group).  So, O reader, know that fact if you decide to read the Acts of Synod for details relevant to these groups.

The main purpose of the OPRCA (1953-1961) seems to have been to reunite with the CRCNA.  In fact, some congregations did this before the denomination followed suit in 1961, four years after talks started.  This rush back into the embrace of the CRCNA displeased the PRCA, which spewed ecclesiastical venom at its parent denomination.  A testy communication from the PRCA to the CRCNA in 1957 prompted this restrained and accurate summary in a report to CRCNA Synod:

The tone and contents of the letter are not as give promise of fruitful discussion.

(Quote from Acts of Synod, page 83)

Union between the OPRCA and the CRCNA became effective on July 13, 1961.  A letter from the PRCA to the OPRCA dated July 12, 1961, addressed the

Erring Brethren

and warned them to

desist from the evil path

they had followed since 1953.  (Quotes from Acts of Synod, 1962, page 461).  Then the PRCA picked a fight with the CRCNA over the records (before the schism of 1953) of churches, formerly PRCA but then OPRCA and later CRCNA.  The CRCNA resolved the matter by sending copies of all such records to the PRCA.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the Christian Reformed Church in North America, 1959-1969

J. Gresham Machen, late of Princeton Theological Seminary and the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (PCUSA), formed the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), initially named the Presbyterian Church of America, in 1936.  (Note the “of America,”  reader.  The Presbyterian Church in America, founded in 1973 as the National Presbyterian Church, produced a hymn book, Trinity Hymnal–Revised Edition (1990), with the OPC, after two failed attempts at organic union with that body in the 1980s.  I also ponder how difficult naming a new Presbyterian denomination in the United States must be, for sounding much like another label is probably impossible.  Fortunately, I can keep the denominational names separate most of the time.)  Machen was a theologically complex man–not even hostile to Evolution–but he died on January 1, 1937, and a power struggle divided his nascent denomination five months later.  Thus the Bible Presbyterian Church came into existence.

The OPC and the CRCNA began their ecclesiastical dance in 1944.  The two started preparing joint Sunday School materials in the early 1950s.  The CRCNA Synod of 1959 sought merger with the OPC, which seemed likely for a few years.  Negotiators in the early 1960s considered only one issue–polity–a possible barrier to organic union.  They did not think of it as an insurmountable barrier, however.  The crux of this issue was that the OPC General Assembly was less prone than the CRCNA Synod to bind church members with pronouncements.  The CRCNA had stricter rules about liturgy, for example.

In 1966 the OPC backed away from potential organic union with the CRCNA.  At first the OPC cited some of its internal issues, such as the process of adopting a new Form of Government and the pursuit of merger negotiations with the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod (RPCES).  (The RPCES became part of the Presbyterian Church in America in 1982 instead.)  Actually, the OPC was more concerned with perceived liberal tendencies in the CRCNA.  This had nothing to do with Synodical decisions, for the CRCNA had maintained a hard line regarding Biblical inerrancy and infallibility, for example.  But the Synod had not made a definite statement about Evolution (something which Machen would not have asked them to do, by the way).  And a prominent CRCNA minister had sounded rather Arminian regarding the Atonement recently.  Furthermore, no matter how often the CRCNA called the World Council of Churches too liberal, the OPC remained unsatisfied.  No number of CRCNA assurances from 1967 to 1969 sufficed.  The CRCNA was insufficiently orthodox for the OPC.

The United Presbyterian Church of  North America and the Reformed Church in America

There was a 1944-1949 proposal to merge the RCA and the United Presbyterian Church of  North America (UPCNA).  This was not the first overlap between the UPCNA and a Dutch Reformed denomination.  As I have established previously in this series:

1. The UPCNA had discussed merger with the CRCNA in the 1890s,
2. The CRCNA’s Classis Hackensack had used and adapted the UPCNA’s Psalter (1887),
3. The UPCNA’s Psalter (1912) served as the basis of the CRCNA’s Psalter (1914), and
4. The UPCNA and the RCA had discussed merger in the late 1920s and early 1930s.

The United Presbyterians and the Dutch Reformed were hardly strangers to each other, but the proposed merger in the 1940s failed.  The UPCNA passed it, as did the RCA General Assembly of 1949, yet not enough RCA Classes approved it by sufficiently wide margins.  Supporters of organic union had made their case:

1. The two denominations were similar, therefore compatible;
2. The RCA would become part of a larger and more prominent denomination;
3. The merged body would enjoy better name recognition, for many people knew the name “Presbyterian” better than “Reformed;” and
4. The merger would decrease Christian divisiveness.

Yet the proposed merger died because Midwestern and Western Classes of the RCA killed it in the name of maintaining Dutch identity, doctrinal orthodoxy, and liturgical similarity.

The UPCNA found its merger partner, the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (PCUSA).  They joined in 1958 to create the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (UPCUSA).

The Presbyterian Church in the United States and the Reformed Church in America, 1962-1969

The Eastern portion of the RCA, always more supportive of organic union with others than the Midwestern and Western sections thereof, tried again in the 1960s.  Potential suitors included the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. and the United Church of Christ, but the RCA leaders decided to try to merge with the Southern Presbyterians, the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS), instead.  This proposal stirred up strong opposition within the right wings of both denominations, but the RCA’s right flank succeeded in preventing the merger.  RCA critics stated their reasons:

1. The PCUS was insufficiently Reformed;
2. The PCUS belonged to the Consultation on Church Union (COCU); and
3. The PCUS was too liberal.

The 1969 death of the RCA-PCUS merger and the years-long debate leading up to it stirred up much resentment within the RCA.  Other issues contributed to the infighting in the RCA, but the proposed merger functioned as a major lightning rod.  Many progressives thought that conservatives had taken their denomination away from them.   Many conservatives wondered, however, how progressives had become so radicalized.  The RCA might have come part at the seams in the early 1970s had the General Synod of 1970 not decentralized much of the decision making in the denomination, thereby relieving the General Synod of the responsibility of issuing so many statements.

The PCUS merged with the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (UPCUSA) in 1983 to create the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) [PC(USA)].

III.  PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PIETY

Perhaps the proposed RCA-PCUS merger served primarily to crystallize a host of issues which divided the wings of the RCA.  These existed mainly in the realm of public and private piety.  The CRCNA dealt with the same issues also.

Racism and Civil Rights

The Dutch Reformed, whether theologically relatively liberal or conservative, were all over the proverbial map regarding how best to address questions of civil rights.  There were many overt racists in the pews, of course, as there were in the larger society.  These defended segregation with a host of reasons, including white privilege, the assumption that God had separated the races, and concerns for property values.  Among those who opposed racism disagreement about how best to correct the situation divided the ranks.  Those who focused on individual responsibility thought that a sufficient number of people repenting of the sin of racism was enough to solve the problem.  Others, however, added to that the moral imperative of the church to address social, economic, and political structures.  This was the kind of “meddling” for which many people criticized the World and National Councils of Churches.

The RCA’s Christian Action Committee (CAC) favored actions which upset both racists and solely individual-responsibility types opponents of racism.  The CAC, backed up by the General Synod of 1957, made the following statements:

1. It encouraged the RCA to confess its racism and related sins.
2. It  noted the lack of Biblical support for opposing interracial marriage.
3. It opposed racially restrictive housing covenants.

The second and third points proved especially controversial.  Concern over property values was a financial consideration, of course.  Sometimes it was more than that, obviously.  But few issues have demonstrated the power to stir up deep emotions in people more strongly than human sexuality.  What consenting adults do with each other has proven to be a cause of much moral concern–frequently with good cause–but who may marry whom has often functioned as an issue which has focused bigoted opinions people have learned from others.  Cultures have long imparted prejudices to their members.  Such was (and remains) the case with opposition to interracial marriage.

The RCA was of a divided mind on civil rights.  The 1960 General Synod even refused to support the National Urban League (NAL) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) for fear they might be Communist organizations.  And in 1969, the General Synod declined to request the U.S. Congress to improve working conditions for farm workers, especially migrants who picked grapes in California.  Was Cesar Chavez a radical?  Perhaps, but he was definitely a Roman Catholic committed to economic justice.

Both the RCA and the CRCNA addressed questions of Apartheid in South Africa.  Each denomination related more naturally to a different Dutch Reformed body in that country, the RCA with the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa (DRCSA) (albeit uncomfortably) and the CRCNA with the Reformed Churches in South Africa (RCSA).  The CRCNA Synod of 1960 approved an overture to ask said Synod to send a letter to the RCSA, which had not taken a position regarding Apartheid.  The CRCNA letter reminded the RCSA gently of its Christian duty

to avoid any semblance of an attitude leading to estrangement between races.

The RCA, in a 1968 letter to the DRCSA, which used the Bible to defend Apartheid, condemned that misuse (if not abuse) of Scripture.  These were laudable letters, but the CRCNA’s communication raised the question of hypocrisy, for that denomination, while condemning Apartheid and encouraging its sister church to oppose that official system, accused the World and National Councils of Churches of meddling in social, economic, and political matters.  Did the CRCNA want to have it both ways?  And, assuming that there was (and is) a distinction between theological issues on one hand and social, economic, and political matters on the other hand, where was (and is) it?

The CRCNA also struggled with that theological-social, economic, and political distinction regarding domestic civil rights.  In 1957 Classis Hackensack sent to the Synod an overture emphasizing human solidarity and quoting the Bible to declare that determining

the opportunities in society on the basis of race and color is contrary to the will of God.

The grounds for the overture were telling.  Verbatim:

1. The problem of race segregation is not confined to a single congregation or classis, but it is an issue on which many congregations in many places have need of guidance.
2. The material provides guidance on a vital issue involving the Christian conscience in a matter with direct and immediate bearing upon the life of the church.
3. This material also provides a witness from the Word of God to a world on a vital issue which has been disturbing the conscience of our society for many years.
4. It is the duty of the church to address itself to such issues as this with courage and conviction, clarity, and constancy from the Word of God.

The Synod removed the last two grounds and passed the overture.

Just two years later, however, the Synod adopted a statement which emphasized (1) human solidarity, (2) love for one’s neighbors, (3) church responsibility to scrutinize its teachings and attitudes as well as civil laws in the light of Scripture, (4) avoiding even the impression of racial discrimination in the church, and (5) rebutting the argument that the Bible contains any evidence for or against interracial marriage.  The grounds for the overture included:

In view of the racial tensions and the flagrant violation of the Scriptural principle of equality occurring in society and church, both in America and in the world, the church has a calling to register a clear and strong witness to her members and her world.

(Quote from Acts of Synod, 1959, page 84)

The CRCNA addressed racism at home in 1968 and 1969.  The Synod of 1968 approved in full an overture which included condemnation of a racial segregation at a CRCNA parochial school.  That Synod also designated July 14, 1968, as a day of prayer and fasting for the sins of racism so that God might renew U.S. society.  And the Synod of 1969 approved an overture which stated that churches had a responsibility to address, social, economic, and political issues related to racism.

War and Peace:  Vietnam

The Vietnam War divided U.S. society and became controversial in ecclesiastical circles, including within the RCA and the CRCNA.

The relatively liberal establishment of the RCA represented a diminishing power base in the East, for numerical and financial strength was growing in the Midwest and the West, where congregations tended to be more conservative and where many communities were less diverse and cosmopolitan than in the East.  The accompanying shift in ecclesiastical power became obvious in the 1960s.  Although the General Synod had questioned the morality of the draft and affirmed the principle of conscientious objection to war and military service earlier in the decade, the 1969 General Synod rejected a proposal to provide legal counsel to draft dodgers.  Part of Richard Nixon‘s “Silent Majority” was vocal within the RCA.

My research yielded little information about the CRCNA and the Vietnam War per se.  Nevertheless, I did notice that the Synod of 1969 reprinted verbatim the text of the denomination’s 1939 Testimony Regarding the Christian’s Attitude Toward War on pages 447-493 of Acts of Synod.  That Testimony condemned both militarism and pacifism while expressing support for both military personnel and selective conscientious objectors, those who objected to a particular war on moral grounds.  I do not assume that this position reflected unanimous opinion within the CRCNA, for I assume that there was no unanimous position regarding any issue within the CRCNA or any other denomination at any time.

Worldly Amusements

Some opposition to “worldly amusements” persisted in the RCA into the 1950s and 1960s.  The General Synod of 1911 had opposed the opening of a dance hall in Asbury Park, New Jersey, but the Christian Action Committee (CAC) , in response to an overture regarding to the 1963 General Synod, refused to condemn dancing at church colleges.

Social dancing can be good or evil….

the CAC replied.  And, despite the stringent Hays Code governing the censorship of Hollywood movies from 1934 to 1968, the 1940 General Synod condemned “unwholesome” movies and advocated for government censorship of such cinematic products prior to their export.  Nevertheless, certain denominational officers encouraged church members to attend some religiously themed films, a fact which seems to have troubled the Classis of Chicago in 1954.  The General Synod that year took no action regarding the overture from that classis.

The CRCNA, unlike the RCA, had forbidden its members to play cards, attend movies, or dance.  It had done this in 1928 and reaffirmed that position in 1951 in the context of the showing of Hollywood movies at Calvin College.  Then the denomination changed course in the middle 1960s.  An overture from Classis Eastern Ontario to the Synod of 1964 requested the appointment of a committee to study the issue.  That overture, which the Synod approved, noted the ubiquity of television, a post-1951 development.  It also reported survey data.  Of 615 CRCNA young people in that classis surveyed, 70.7% reported attending a movie theater at least once or twice annually, despite the denomination’s prohibition against doing so.  The most common reason for attending a movie theater was entertainment.  And the favorite movie was Ben-Hur (1959), with The Ten Commandments (1956) not far behind.  A traditionalist argument, then, entailed asserting that watching Bible-themed movies starring Charlton Heston was sinful.

Above:  The Crucifixion of Jesus, from Ben-Hur (1959)

Image Source = http://basementrejects.com/review/ben-hur-1959/

It was an argument the Synod of 1966 rejected.  The Film Arts Report cited Christian Liberty and stated that

the film arts as actualized in the cinema and television

were

a legitimate cultural medium to be used by the Christian in the fulfillment of the cultural mandate.

Furthermore,

Since the film arts is a cultural medium that can be used for good or evil, the products of the film industry must be judged on their merits in the light of Christian standards or excellence.

(Quotes from Agenda for Synod, 1966, pages 226-227)

Dancing was still forbidden, however.  This did not mean that no members of the CRCNA engaged in that activity, of course.

IV.  WORSHIP

Now that I have completed the process of laying the foundation I begin to construct the building proper.  Along the way I will refer to the foundation.

Opposition to and fear of change was not restricted to questions such as civil rights, “worldly amusements,” the Vietnam War, Bible translations, ecumenical activities, and Biblical inerrancy and infallibility.  They became evident also in liturgical matters.  For example, the CRCNA Synod of 1961 adopted an overture condemning the increasingly popular practice of “special youth services,” what my Episcopal parish calls “Children’s Church,” whereby children leave the main worship service for a time and have a service geared toward them.  The Synod reasoned that

parents and children should serve and worship together.

(Quote from Acts of Synod, 1961, page 514)

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper in the Christian Reformed Church in North America

The CRCNA was using English translations of traditional Dutch forms for Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.  That started to change in the 1950s and 1960s.

Revision of the Form for the Lord’s Supper came first.  The process started with a 1952 overture which noted the archaic language and awkward structure of the ritual.  Two successive committees went back and forth with the Synod, which, until the end of the decade, forbade changing the order of the rite.  The 1959 Synod approved proposed Forms for trial use through 1963.  At the end of that period the committee, responding to feedback from congregations, made some changes.  The 1963 Synod approved the revised Forms for trial use for one year.  The 1964 Synod adopted those Forms, placing them beside the traditional Form, which became Form Number One.  The two new Forms became Form Number Two and Form Number Three.

Form Number One had three parts:

1. The Preparatory Exhortation, which included 1 Corinthians 11:23-29;
2. The Formulary, which included a reminder of the purpose of the sacrament, followed by a penitential prayer; the Lord’s Prayer; the Apostles’ Creed; the breaking of the bread; the distribution of elements; and the devout singing of a Psalm or the reading of a Biblical chapter recalling the Passion of Jesus; and finally Psalm 103:1-4 and 8-13, Romans 8:32, and Romans 5:8-10; then
3. The Thanksgiving, a prayer followed by a repetition of the Lord’s Prayer.

Forms Two and Three retained that three-part structure, updated some of the language, and introduced noticeable differences.   In both the Preparatory Exhortation could come on either the communion Sunday or the preceding one.

Form Number Two:

1. Added a prayer for grace at the end of the Preparatory Exhortation;
2. Omitted the Lord’s Prayer;
3. Allowed for the singing of a hymn during the setting of the table; and
4. Provided for the singing of a hymn or the reading of Scripture during the distribution of the elements.

Form Number Three:

1. Provided for an alternative prayer at the end of the Preparatory Exhortation;
2. Quoted 1 Corinthians 11:23-29 in the Formulary;
3. Added a congregational prayer of thanksgiving in the Formulary;
4. Retained the Lord’s Prayer at the end of that prayer and prior to the Apostles’ Creed;
5. Added the Anglican Comfortable Words to the Formulary; and
6. Had the minister read Psalm 103:1-4, Revelation 4:11, and Psalm 145:21 after the completion of the communion.

The designated communion Sundays varied from congregation to congregation.  The Synods of 1948 and 1956 rejected overtures for the uniform celebration of the sacrament, despite the argument that the proposed practice would:

1. Express unity, and
2. Make the celebration of the sacrament easier for traveling CRCNA members.

Nevertheless, the Synods of 1948 and 1956 cited local prerogatives when rejecting these overtures.

The Synod of 1969 approved a proposed Form for the Baptism of Children for trial use.

Proper contextualization requires me to summarize the traditional Form for the Baptism of Infants, as found in the back of Psalter Hymnal (1959), first.  So here it is.  The old Form begins with a reminder that people are

conceived and born in sin, and therefore are children of wrath

who need spiritual regeneration, that

Holy baptism witnesses and seals unto us the washing away of our sins through Jesus Christ,

and that people of God are,

through baptism, admonished of and obliged unto new obedience, namely, that we cleave to this one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that we trust in Him, and love Him with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our mind, and with all our strength; that we forsake the world, crucify our old nature, and walk in a godly life….

It continues by stating that children partake in this sinful nature although they do not comprehend these matters and

so again are received unto grace in Christ Jesus….

The traditional Lutheran-Zwinglian Flood Prayer or a variant thereof follows.  (I covered the Flood Prayer in Part II of this series.)  Then the minister addresses the parents and asks them three questions:

First:  Do you acknowledge that our children, though conceived and born in sin and therefore subject to all manner of misery, yea, to condemnation itself, are sanctified in Christ, and therefore as members of the church ought to be baptized?

Second:  Do you acknowledge the doctrine which is contained in the Old and the New Testament, and in the articles of the Christian faith, and which is taught here in this Christian church, to be the true and complete doctrine of salvation?

Third:  Do you promise and intend to instruct these children, as soon as they are able to understand, in the aforesaid doctrine, and cause them to be instructed therein, to the utmost of your power?

The parents answer in the affirmative, the minister baptizes the children (using the traditional Trinitarian formula), and a prayer of thanksgiving concludes the sacrament.

The proposed Form of 1969, located on pages 336-339 of that year’s Acts of Synod, is quite different:

1. It contains no references to Original Sin and emphasizes the faithfulness of God.
2. It requires parents to answer two questions (not three) and to confess Christ as “Lord and Savior” and to promise to raise the children in the Christian faith.
3. The minister asks the congregation to support the family spiritually.
4. The Apostles’ Creed follows.
5. The baptism itself ensues, followed by a triumphant hymn and a prayer of thanksgiving.
6. The tone is more positive than in the traditional Form.

Here dangles a thread which I will continue in Part VI of this series.

Tradition and Flexibility in the Worship in the Christian Reformed Church in North America

The Synod of 1964, noting that choirs had become more common in CRCNA churches, created a permanent Liturgical Committee to renew forms and practices.  The committee performed its duties in a time of rapid change, liturgical and otherwise.  The mention of church choirs reminded people of one change, for opposition to choirs had been one justification for founding the CRCNA in 1857.

The Liturgical Committee’s report to the 1968 Synod contained sage advice:

Respect for tradition in liturgy is a fence against individualism and sectarianism.  It keeps us from trying to improve liturgy through gimmickry and novelty for the sake of novelty.  It will keep reminding us of what is essential and what is peripheral.  It is also the best teacher of the lesson of flexibility, for it is the history of liturgy that we observe the fluidities along with the underlying stability of the church’s liturgy.

(Quote from Acts of Synod, page 156)

That properly cautious note came in the midst of liturgical upheavals, including the widespread abandonment of tradition just because it was old.  In truth not all tradition was bad and not all change was good; the good and the bad existed in both categories.  The Liturgical Committee understood correctly that flexibility was part of the traditions of Christian worship but that outer boundaries were necessary.  The alternatives included chaos and the blurring of the line separating worship from entertainment.  Both alternatives have become reality, unfortunately.

Psalter Hymnal–Centennial Edition (1959)

The usual maximum lifespan of a Protestant denominational hymnal in the United States is about thirty years.  Psalter Hymnal (1934) lasted for a quarter of a century.  Work on Psalter Hymnal (1959) began in 1951.  One of the reasons for its creation was the improvement over the poetic and musical content of the 1934 volume.  The finished product, the Centennial Edition, reflected a preference for the Psalms (310 of 493 musical selections) and retained four-fifths of the content of Psalter Hymnal (1934).  The Bible translation was the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901, consistent with the denomination’s rejection of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) at the time.  The Doctrinal Standards and Liturgy were in the back of the volume.

Above:  The Centennial Logo of the Christian Reformed Church in North America

A scan by Kenneth Randolph Taylor

Among the new content of Psalter Hymnal (1959) was the CRCNA’s Centennial Hymn (1957), by Marie J. Post:

O Lord, beneath Thy guiding hand

Our fathers’ fathers formed our creed,

Brought prayer and psalm to this fair land

And were supplied every need.

+++++

Belief in Thy sustaining power

Restored their hearts in days of fear;

Thy grace and glory, hour by hour,

Gave hope and blessing through each year.

+++++

In every part of life the light

Of knowledge shines, at home, abroad.

May covenant children, taught the right,

Tell others of their sovereign God.

+++++

Thy Name, O Lord, still leads, still draws;

That Name we sing with ardent voice,

That thousands more may know Thy laws

And in Thy saving cross rejoice.

Psalter Hymnal (1959), republished with revised liturgical forms and translations of creeds in 1976, lasted until 1987, when a new Psalter Hymnal took its place.

The Hymnbook (1955)

The RCA, in true ecumenical form, joined with four other denominations to create The Hymnbook (1955).   Thus it shared an official hymnal with the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARPC), the United Presbyterian Church of North America (UPCNA), the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (PCUSA), and the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS), the last three of which had become one denomination by the middle of 1983.  The RCA’s Midwestern and Western constituencies had blocked a merger with the UPCNA in 1949, but the two denominations shared a hymnal for seventeen years.  (For three of the four Presbyterian denominations who authorized The Hymnbook in 1955 The Worshipbook–Services and Hymns became the next hymnal in the sequence in 1972.  On the other hand, the ARPC lists it as an approved hymnal in 2014.)  This being the RCA, however, official hymnal status meant little or nothing to many congregations.  Many Midwestern churches, for example, did not adopt it.

The Hymnbook (1955) is a conservative hymnal stylistically, for a small minority of hymns dated to later than 1920.  Two of these were “Morning Has Broken” (1931) and “Hope of the World” (1953.  Editor David Hugh Jones stated that the greatest innovation in the book was the placement of the hymn numbers on the outer edges of the pages.  The arrangement of hymns is also far from revolutionary, for it ordered some texts by church year and others by topics.

The Hymnbook (1955) contains more than hymns and service music (1600 selections).  In the front are Aids to Worship, Invocations, Prayers of Confession, Assurance of Pardon, Prayers of Thanksgiving, the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Apostles’ Creed.  In the back are Scripture Readings (some of them responsive) arranged in three categories:

1. The Christian Year,
2. The Christian Life, and
3. The Civil Year.

These readings come from the Authorized (King James) Version and the Revised Standard Version.

The Hymnbook (1955) had such staying power in the RCA that, in 1987, two years after the debut of the unpopular Rejoice in the Lord (1985), twenty-nine percent of RCA congregations still sang from it.  This volume was considerably more popular than its immediate predecessor in the RCA, The Hymnal of the Reformed Church (1920), which only eighty-four congregations (a minute percentage of RCA churches) had adopted by 1928.  Of those eighty-four congregations, fifty-seven were dissatisfied with it that year.  And no more than seven percent of RCA congregations adopted Rejoice in the Lord.  It sold well outside the denomination, however.  In fact, my copy bears the stamp of a congregation of the United Church of Christ.  Interestingly, many Presbyterian congregations found The Hymnbook unsatisfactory due to the inclusion of gospel songs.  They preferred the old Hymnal (1933), a stately worship resource of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.

The Liturgy and Psalms (1968)

Attempts to revise the Liturgy of 1906 had been in the works since 1932.  They had failed for various reasons:

1. Not enough of the Classes approved of proposed changes.
2. The proposed merger with the United Presbyterian Church of North America had delayed the process.
3. Finally, in 1950, the General Synod created a committee to revise the Liturgy of 1906.  That committee produced provisional liturgies, which congregations used from 1952 to 1955.  These forms, which returned to Protestant Reformation-era liturgies for inspiration, proved too “Romanist” for many people, so the requisite two-thirds of Classes did not approve the provisional forms by the Spring of 1956.

The RCA, back at Square One, published new provisional services again in 1958, authorizing them for trial use for five years.  These rites reached back not only to the Protestant Reformation for inspiration, but all the way back to the second century C.E.–the time of the early church.  The form of Holy Communion in the Didache emphasized redemption, not confession of sin.  A sufficient number of Classes approved the new forms in 1966, and the hardcover book, intended for the pews, debuted in 1968.

The Liturgy of 1968 was simultaneously ambitious, idealistic, conservative, innovative, and dated.  It called for the weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper, something still not a reality in most RCA congregations.  There were prayers for the harvest yet none regarding nuclear energy and war.  The pronouns were archaic, being “Thee,” Thy,” et cetera.  Old forms of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper were present, as were new ones.  Thus the new Liturgy contained conflicting theologies of those sacraments.  Was Baptism primarily about Christian initiation or church membership?  Whatever one thought about that issue, there was a ritual to affirm it.  And the book was generally not in the pews.

The Liturgy of 1968 lasted until 1987, when Worship the Lord replaced it.

Liturgical Variety in the Reformed Church in America

By the late 1960s liturgical variety in the RCA, long a reality evident in the multitude of hymnals congregations used, had increased.  Sunday evening services, a Reformed tradition, had become less common, especially in the East.  The Liturgy of 1968 met with widespread disregard.  And “seeker services” were becoming more plentiful.  The tradition was taking quite a beating, despite the best efforts of good liturgical scholars.  Worship was becoming more about the people and less about God in many churches.  Entertainment was replacing reverence, mystery, and awe frequently.  But at least the beat was good, right?

Dutch-Language Worship Resources

Many Dutch people relocated to Canada after World War II.  The RCA and the CRCNA competed with each other and other denominations for the allegiances of emigrants while ministering to them during the timeframe this post covers.  Most of these new Canadians were poor and knew little or no English when they arrived, so their initial worship resources were mostly in the Dutch language, of course.  The CRCNA, which had resisted Americanization for a long time, found itself in the ironic position of encouraging new arrivals to acculturate fairly rapidly.

V.  CONCLUSION

Change comes in two varieties–good and bad, yet both types make many people nervous.  Good change challenges our prejudices and keeps healthy traditions alive by replenishing the bone marrow in the skeleton of continuity.  Bad change abandons that which is laudatory and throws open the city gates for the barbarian forces of gimmickry, narcissism, and trendiness to enter and to commence the reign of schlock.

This has been an account of two parallel spiritual journeys, each of which contained elements laudatory and shameful.  Both the RCA and the CRCNA wrestled with change of both the good and the bad varieties from 1945 to 1969.  Although the CRCNA moved to its left and toward the theological center, the RCA moved all over the map.  Those journeys led to some interesting developments starting in the 1970s.

The saga will continue in Part VI.

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HARDCOPY SOURCES

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.  Third Edition.  Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996.

Bible.  American Standard Version, 1901, 1929.

__________.  Authorized Version, 1611.  Updated, 1769.

__________.  English Standard Version, 2001.

__________.  New International Version, 1973, 1978.  Updated, 1984 and 2011.

__________.  Revised Standard Version, 1946, 1952.  Apocrypha, 1957.  Catholic Edition, 1966.  Second Edition, 1971.  Expanded Apocrypha, 1977.  Second Catholic Edition, 2002.

The Book of Psalms for Worship.  Pittsburgh, PA:  Crown & Covenant Publications, 2010.

Brumm, James Hart, ed.  Liturgy Among the Thorns:  Essays on Worship in the Reformed Church in America.  Grand Rapids, MI:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007.  The Historical Series of the Reformed Church in America, No. 57.

Coalter, Milton J., et al.  Vital Signs:  The Promise of Mainstream Protestantism.  Second Edition.  Grand Haven, MI:  FaithWalk Publishing, 2002.

__________, eds.  The Confessional Mosaic:  Presbyterians and Twentieth-Century Theology.  Louisville, KY:  Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990.

The Encyclopedia Americana.  Volume 19.  New York, NY:  Americana Corporation, 1962.

Encyclopedia Britannica.  Volume 23.  Chicago, IL:  Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1968.

Hart, D. G.  Defending the Faith:  J. Gresham Machen and the Crisis of Conservative Protestantism in Modern America.  1994.  Reprint; Phillipsburg, N J:  P&R Publishing, 2003.

The Hymnal.  Philadelphia, PA:  Presbyterian Board of Christian Education, 1933.  Reprint, 1938.

The Hymnbook.  Edited by David Hugh Jones.  Richmond, VA:  John Knox Press, 1977.

Japinga, Lynn.  Loyalty and Loss:  The Reformed Church in America, 1945-1994.  Grand Rapids, MI:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2013.  The Historical Series of the Reformed Church in America, No. 77.

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

Psalter Hymnal.  Grand Rapids, MI:  CRC Publications, 1987.

Psalter Hymnal:  Doctrinal Standards and Liturgy of the Christian Reformed Church.  Centennial Edition.  Grand Rapids, MI:  Publication Committee of the Christian Reformed Church, 1959.

Psalter Hymnal:  Doctrinal Standards and Liturgy of the Christian Reformed Church.  Grand Rapids, MI:  Board of Publication of the Christian Reformed Church, 1976.

Rejoice in the Lord:  A Hymn Companion to Scripture.  Edited by Erik Routley.  Grand Rapids, MI:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985.

Rhodes, Arnold B.  The Mighty Acts of God.  Richmond, VA:  The CLC Press, 1964.

Schuppert, Mildred W.  A Digest and Index of the Minutes of the General Synod of the Reformed Church in America, 1906-1957.  Grand Rapids, MI:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982.  The Historical Series of the Reformed Church in America, No. 8.

__________.  A Digest and Index of the Minutes of the General Synod of the Reformed Church in America, 1958-1977.  Grand Rapids, MI:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979.  The Historical Series of the Reformed Church in America, No. 7.

Smidt, Corwin, et al.  Divided By a Common Heritage:  The Christian Reformed Church and the Reformed Church in America at the Beginning of the New Millennium.  Grand Rapids, MI:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006.  The Historical Series of the Reformed Church in America, No. 54.

Thompson, Ernest Trice.  Presbyterians in the South.  Volume Three.  1890-1972.  Richmond, VA:  John Knox Press, 1973.

__________.  Through the Ages:  A History of the Christian Church.  Richmond, VA:  The CLC Press, 1965.

Trinity Hymnal–Revised Edition.  Suwanee, GA:  Great Commission Publications, 1990.

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

Worship the Lord.  Edited by James R. Esther and Donald J. Bruggink.  Grand Rapids, MI:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987.

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

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

JUNE 9, 2014 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF CLARA LUPER, WITNESS FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

THE FEAST OF ROLAND ALLEN, ANGLICAN MISSIONARY

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

Above:  Gethsemane Lutheran Church, Austin, Texas, 1961

Image Created by the Historic American Buildings Survey

Image Source = Library of Congress

(http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/tx0357.photos.156340p/resource/)

Reproduction Number = HABS TEX,227-AUST,7–3

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

U.S. LUTHERAN LITURGY, PART IV

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

We would gladly behold the day when the One, Holy, Catholic, Christian Church shall use one Order of Service, and unite in one Confession of Faith.

–From the Preface to the Common Service (1888); Quoted in Common Service Book of the Lutheran Church (1917), page 308

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

The Lord is in His holy temple:  His throne is in heaven.  The Lord is night unto them that are of an humble and contrite spirit.  He heareth the supplications of the penitent and inclineth to their prayers.  Let us therefore draw near with boldness unto His throne of grace and confess our sins.

—The Hymnal and Order of Service (1925), page 587

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

I.  INTRODUCTION

In U.S. Lutheran Liturgy, Part I (https://blogatheologica.wordpress.com/2013/07/14/muhlenbergs-dream-the-road-to-the-common-service-1748-1888/), I wrote about the process which culminated in the unveiling of the Common Service in 1888.  I chose not to write about that liturgy because I had already entered twenty-four pages of writing from a composition book.  In U.S. Liturgy, Part II (https://blogatheologica.wordpress.com/2013/07/17/the-missing-canon-the-common-service-1888/), I focused on the Common Service.  In U.S. Liturgy, Part III (https://blogatheologica.wordpress.com/2013/07/17/truly-meet-right-and-salutary-the-common-service-in-the-united-lutheran-church-in-america-and-the-american-lutheran-church-1918-1930/), I wrote about it in The United Lutheran Church in America (1918-1962) and The American Lutheran Church (1930-1060).   Now, in Part IV, I focus on The Augustana Evangelical Lutheran Church (1860-1962).

I have been studying this material closely, trying to record information accurately as I have reviewed primary and secondary sources.  This has required a commitment of much time, for there are so many synods about which to read.  And, since I grew up United Methodist in southern Georgia, U.S.A., in the Baptist Belt, Lutherans were scarce, if present at all, when I was quite young.  My spiritual journey has taken me into The Episcopal Church.  Anglicanism and Lutheranism have many theological and liturgical similarities and considerable theological overlap, but my adopted vantage point is still one outside of Lutheranism.  If I have misstated anything, I can correct it.

The material is, by its nature, complicated.  I have tried to organize and format it for maximum ease of reading and learning, however.  So, without further ado, I invite you, O reader, to follow the proverbial bouncing balls with me.  Breaking up content into a series of posts should help in the process of digesting the material intelligently; that is my purpose and hope.

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

II.  SWEDISH-AMERICAN LITURGY

Many Scandinavians who had joined the Northern Illinois Synod, an affiliate of the General Synod, left in 1860.  They formed the body which, in time, called itself The Augustana Evangelical Lutheran Church, the full name I will use for it from its beginning, abbreviating the name as “Augustana.”  Augustana merged into the Lutheran Church in America (LCA) in 1962.  The LCA, in turn, helped to form the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) in 1987.

Augustana liturgies were initially those of the Church of Sweden or adapted from them.  (There were Church of Sweden liturgies over time.)  Worship in Swedish continued as worship in English became more popular.  So, naturally, English-language liturgies were initially translations of Swedish-language ones.  The Hymnal for Churches and Sunday-Schools of the Augustana Synod (1899) (http://archive.org/details/hymnalforchurche00evan) offered forty-one pages of rituals–for Sunday School, morning worship, Holy Communion, and evening worship–based on Swedish liturgies.  Some of the content appeared again in the Sunday School Book Containing Liturgy and Hymns for the Sunday School (1903) (http://archive.org/details/sundayschoolbook00unse).

The first official English-language Augustana hymnal to get to the pews was the Hymnal and Order of Service for Churches and Sunday-Schools (1901) (http://archive.org/details/orderser00evan).  This volume, intended to be an interim hymnal, lasted for twenty-four years.  It provided not only hymns but various liturgies:

• Morning Service;
• Holy Communion;
• Evening Service;
• Litany;
• Burial of the Dead; and
• Order for the Service of the Sunday School.

Most of these were repeated from the 1899 Hymnal for Churches and Sunday-Schools.

The Hymnal and Order of Service (1925), keyed to the American Standard Version of the Bible (1901), offered some different (and some same) liturgies:

• Morning Service;
• Holy Communion;
• Matins on Christmas Day;
• Matins on Easter Day;
• Vespers;
• The Litany;
• General Morning and Evening Prayers;
• Order of Service for the Sunday School; and
• the Common Service.

The first Morning and Communion rituals were different from their counterparts in the 1901 book.

In 1928 Augustana published The Junior Hymnal Containing Sunday School and Luther League Liturgy and Hymns for the Sunday School and Other Gatherings (http://archive.org/details/juniorhymnalcont013244mbp).  After the hymns came the Order of Service for the Sunday School, Psalms and other responsive readings, and an Order of Worship for Luther League.

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

III.  CONCLUSION

I found a wonderful paragraph which is especially appropriate for this purpose:

During the first half of the twentieth century, Lutheran churches in America were divided into a confusing assortment of districts, synods, and general or national church bodies.  From colonial times the immigrant church had perpetuated its original linguistic, ethnic, cultural, and theological differences into separate organizational structures from shore to shore.  The multiplicity of Lutheran groups and especially the alphabetical abbreviations by which they were known were largely incomprehensible not only to non-Lutherans but also to the vast majority of Lutheran pew sitters.

–Marilyn Kay Stulken, Hymnal Companion to the Lutheran Book of Worship (Philadelphia, PA:  Fortress Press, 1981), p. 108

Immigrants brought liturgies and attachments to the old countries with them.  Over time, however, ethnic populations enriched and assimilated into the broader culture.  The Common Service, which drew from a variety of sources, represented a multi-ethnic, history-based liturgy, one which Augustana accepted fully with the Service Book and Hymnal (1958), which included the Common Service but not any Swedish one.

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

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

JULY 17, 2013 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF BENNETT J. SIMS, EPISCOPAL BISHOP OF ATLANTA

THE FEAST OF THE MARTYRS OF COMPEIGNE

THE FEAST OF THE RIGHTEOUS GENTILES

THE FEAST OF WALTER CRONKITE, JOURNALIST

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

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

As much as possible I prefer to work with primary sources, although secondary sources frequently prove invaluable in making the best sense of those primary sources.  And I prefer to work with actual bound volumes as much as possible.  For this post, however, some of my sources have been electronic, and I have provided links to them.  So I consider those linked ones cited properly.  I did find certain bound volumes invaluable.  Those credits follow:

Commission on the Liturgy and Hymnal, The.  Service Book and Hymnal.  Music Edition.  Philadelphia, PA:  United Lutheran Publication House, 1958.

Common Service Book of the Lutheran Church.  Philadelphia, PA:  The Board of Publication of The United Lutheran Church in America, 1917, 1918.

Hymnal and Order of Service, The.  Lectionary Edition.  Rock Island, IL:  Augustana Book Concern, 1925.

Melton, J. Gordon.  Encyclopedia of American Religions.  4h. Ed.  Washington, DC:  Gale Research, Inc., 1993.

Pfatteicher, Philip H., and Carlos R. Messerli.  Manual on the Liturgy:  Lutheran Book of Worship.  Minneapolis, MN:  Augsburg Publishing House, 1979.

Reed, Luther D.  The Lutheran Liturgy:  A Study in the Common Service of the Lutheran Church in America.  Philadelphia, PA:  Muhlenberg Press, 1947.

__________.  The Lutheran Liturgy:  A Study in the Common Liturgy of the Lutheran Church in America.  2d. Ed.  Philadelphia, PA:  Fortress Press, 1959.

Stulken, Marilyn Kay.  Hymnal Companion to the Lutheran Book of Worship.  Philadelphia, PA:  Fortress Press, 1981.

Wentz, Abdel Ross.  The Lutheran Church in American History.  2d. Ed.  Philadelphia, PA:  The United Lutheran Publication House, 1933.

KRT

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