Archive for the ‘Philip H. Pfatteicher’ Tag

Little Less Than Divine   1 comment

Above:  Icon of the Holy Trinity, by Andrei Rublev

Image in the Public Domain

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

Blessed Lord, who caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning:

Grant us so to hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them,

that we may embrace and ever hold fast the blessed hope of life,

which you have given us in our Savior Jesus Christ,  who lives and reigns

with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.  Amen.

The Book of Common Prayer (1979), page 236

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

Genesis 1:1-2:4a

Psalm 8

2 Corinthians 13:11-13

Matthew 28:16-20

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

Trinity Sunday is the creation of Bishop Stephen of Liege (in office 903-920).  The feast, universal in Roman Catholicism since 1334 by the order of Pope John XXII, is, according to the eminent Lutheran liturgist Philip H. Pfatteicher, author of the Commentary on the Lutheran Book of Worship (1990), not so much about a doctrine but

the now completed mystery of salvation, which is the work of the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.

–page 301

Famously the word “Trinity” appears nowhere in the Bible, and no single verse or passage gives us that doctrine.  The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is the result of much debate, some fistfights, ecumenical councils, Roman imperial politics, and the pondering of various passages of scripture.  The conclusion of 2 Corinthians and Matthew are two of those passages.  Perhaps the best summary of that process in the fourth chapter in Karen Armstrong‘s A History of God (1994).

I, being aware that a set of heresies has its origin in pious attempts to explain the Trinity, refrain from engaging in any of those heresies or creating a new one.  No, I stand in awe of the mystery of God and affirm that the Trinity is as close to an explanation as we humans will have.  We cannot understand the Trinity, and God, I assume, is more than that.

The great myth in Genesis 1:1-2:4a, itself a modified version of the Enuma Elish, affirms, among other key theological concepts, (1) the goodness of creation and (2) the image of God in human beings.  We are not an afterthought.  No, we are the pinnacle of the created order.  These themes carry over into Psalm 8.  The standard English-language translation of one verse (which one it is depends on the versification in the translation one reads) is that God has created us slightly lower than the angels.  That is a mistranslation.  TANAKH:  The Holy Scriptures (1985) renders the germane passage as

little less than divine.

The Anchor Bible (1965) translation by Mitchell J. Dahood reads

a little less than the gods.

The Hebrew word is Elohim, originally a reference to the council of gods, and therefore a remnant of a time before Jews were monotheists.  An alternative translation is English is

a little lower than God,

which is better than

a little lower than the angels.

Studies of religious history should teach one that Elohim eventually became a synonym for YHWH.

“Little less than divine” seems like an optimistic evaluation of human nature when I consider the past and the present, especially when I think about environmental destruction and human behavior.  But what if Pfatteicher is correct?  What if the work of salvation is complete?  What if the image of God is a great portion of our nature than the actions of many of us might indicate?

In Christ we can have liberation to become the people we ought to be.  In Christ we can achieve our spiritual potential–for the glory of God and the benefit of others.

May we, by grace, let the image of God run loose.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

JULY 13, 2018 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF CLIFFORD BAX, POET, PLAYWRIGHT, AND HYMN WRITER

THE FEAST OF SAINT EUGENIUS OF CARTHAGE, ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP

THE FEAST OF JOHANNES RENATUS VERBEEK, MORAVIAN MINISTER AND COMPOSER

THE FEAST OF PETER RICKSEEKER, U.S. MORAVIAN MINISTER, MISSIONARY, MUSICIAN, MUSIC EDUCATOR, AND COMPOSER; STUDENT OF JOHANN CHRISTIAN BECHLER, MORAVIAN MINISTER , MUSICIAN, MUSIC EDUCATOR, AND COMPOSER; FATHER OF JULIUS THEODORE BECHLER, U.S. MORAVIAN MINISTER, MUSICIAN, EDUCATOR, AND COMPOSER

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

Adapted from this post:

https://ordinarytimedevotions.wordpress.com/2018/07/13/devotion-for-trinity-sunday-year-a-humes/

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

Advertisements

Declaring Independence: Moravians, 1849-1922   3 comments

Flag of the United States 1877

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

Image in the Public Domain

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

LITURGY IN THE MORAVIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA, PART III

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

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

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

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

I.  PREFACE AND INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

II.  ESTABLISHING AN AMERICAN MORAVIAN IDENTITY

 Context and Theoretical Approach

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Hymnals and Liturgies

Prior to 1851

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–page 13

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

III.  CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

FEBRUARY 19, 2015 COMMON ERA

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

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

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

THE FEAST OF MILES COVERDALE, BIBLE TRANSLATOR

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HARDCOPY SOURCES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First-Person Plural   1 comment

Credo

Above:  The Beginning of the Nicene Creed, from The Book of Common Prayer (1979), page 358

Scan Source = Kenneth Randolph Taylor

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

The Collect:

Holy God, heavenly Father, in the waters of the flood you saved the chosen,

and in the wilderness of temptation you protected your Son from sin.

Renew us in the gift of baptism.

May your holy angels be with us,

that the wicked foe may have no power over us,

through Jesus Christ, our Savior and Lord,

who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,

one God, now and forever.  Amen.

Evangelical Lutheran Worship (2006), page 27

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

The Assigned Readings:

Daniel 9:1-14 (Thursday)

Daniel 9:15-25a (Friday)

Psalm 25:1-10 (Both Days)

1 John 1:3-10 (Thursday)

2 Timothy 4:1-5 (Friday)

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

For your Name’s sake, O LORD,

forgive my sin, for it is great.

–Psalm 25:10, The Book of Common Prayer (1979)

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

Psalm 25 and 2 Timothy 4:1-5 employ the singular form of the first and second persons, but Daniel 9 and 1 John 1 use the plural form of the first person.

We have sinned….

If we say that we have no sin….

We declare to you….

If we confess our sins….

“We” excludes “Jesus and me,” an unwarranted invasion of hyper-individualism into a faith system with communitarian moral and ethical foundations.

We believe in one God….

The Book of Common Prayer (1979), page 358

The Nicene Creed uses the plural form of the first person in the translation of the Nicene Creed from the books of worship of The Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.  This is appropriate, for the plural form of the first person, in the context of the Nicene Creed, speaks of the faith of the Church.  Thus the rejection of the tradition of saying,

I believe in one God….,

constitutes not a heresy or an innovation but a return to original practice and an affirmation of a great truth.  The original Greek version of the Creed, a eucharistic prayer, begins with “We believe…..”  And, as U.S. Lutheran liturgist Philip H. Pfatteicher tells us:

The use of the singular pronoun has led to the explanation that in the Creed one professes one’s own faith.  While there is an element of personal involvement in the profession to be sure, what in fact one does in professing the Creed is to bind oneself to the faith of the church, and so “we believe” is altogether appropriate.

Commentary on the Lutheran Book of Worship:  Lutheran Liturgy in Its Ecumenical Context (Minneapolis, MN:  Augsburg Fortress, 1990), page 146

A healthy balance of the “me” and the “we” places individual faults and responsibilities within the context of one’s community.  We are responsible to and for each other, not just ourselves.  We are also accountable to God, just you (singular) and I are.  This ethic of dependence upon God, of interdependence within community, and of mutual responsibility contradicts cherished American notions of self-made people and rugged individualism, which are idols.  May we who need to overcome them do so by grace, and cease to deny or ignore that particular sin within us.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

DECEMBER 6, 2014 COMMON ERA

THE SEVENTH DAY OF ADVENT, YEAR B

THE FEAST OF SAINT NICETIUS OF TRIER, ROMAN CATHOLIC MONK, ABBOT, AND BISHOP; AND SAINT AREDIUS OF LIMOGES, ROMAN CATHOLIC MONK

THE FEAST OF SAINT ABRAHAM OF KRATIA, ROMAN CATHOLIC MONK, ABBOT, BISHOP, AND HERMIT

THE FEAST OF SAINT NICHOLAS OF MYRA, ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP

THE FEAST OF PHILIP BERRIGAN, SOCIAL ACTIVIST

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

Adapted from this post:

http://lenteaster.wordpress.com/2014/12/06/devotion-for-thursday-and-friday-before-the-first-sunday-in-lent-year-b-elca-daily-lectionary/

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

“Through the Church the Song Goes On”: The Reformed Church in America and the Christian Reformed Church in North America–Some Reflections   12 comments

Dutch Reformed Part VIII Cover Photo

Above:  My Copies of Some Books I Have I Have Discussed in This Series

Image Source = Kenneth Randolph Taylor

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

U.S. DUTCH REFORMED LITURGY, PART VIII

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

Lo, the apostolic train join your sacred name to hallow;

prophets swell the glad refrain, and the white-robed martyrs follow;

and from morn to set of sun through the church the song goes on.

–“Holy God, We Praise Your Name,” hymn #619, Rejoice in the Lord (1985)

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

I.  PREFACE AND INTRODUCTION

A few months ago I decided that I should spend part of this Summer researching and writing about U.S. Dutch Reformed liturgy.  The project would require much effort, concentration, and time, I knew, and I looked forward to it.  I had no idea, however, that I would wind up drafting some very long posts.  Part VII, for example, was 78 pages in longhand and required three days (off-and-on) to type.  These surprises were positive ones, for my brain had more fun than it would have otherwise.  My fingers, however, required rest along the way.

This process has lasted, with some breaks, for about two months.  I posted Part I of the series on May 16, Part II on May 18, and Part III on May 22.  Then posts became longer.  Part IV debuted on June 6, Part V on June 9, and Part VI on June 22.  I published Part VII, the longest post of the series, yesterday, July 5.  And so here I am, with with much of the content of these posts fresh in my mind, ready to offer a few broad conclusions.

II.  CHANGE AND CONTINUITY IN SOCIETY, THEOLOGY, AND WORSHIP

The “Others”

Among the constants in human society and theology is the impulse to label groups as “other.”  Often, in the name of righteousness, people have killed or committed other violence against the “others” or merely denied them civil rights and liberties or kept a “safe” distance from them.  The “others” have been people of different ethnic or racial backgrounds, national origins, people who have disagreed on certain points of theology, and people who have violated traditional concepts of gender.  Yet the “others” and those who have defined them as such have all carried the image of God and been more alike than many of them have known or suspected.  Jesus Christ came to, among other things, break down artificial barriers, which he did, making powerful enemies in the process.  We humans find the scandalous generosity of grace intolerable much of the time.

Definitions of identity–often of the “I’m not…” variety–appeal to many people.  Dutch identity used to work that way for many more people in North America than it does today.  Cultural assimilation over decades and centuries settled many arguments.  Among the most emotionally difficult related issues was the language of worship.  The Reformed Church in America (RCA) moved on from that matter long before the Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRCNA) did, but subsequent waves of Dutch emigration kept the question alive well into the twentieth century.

Among those of the CRCNA persuasion the purity of doctrine has long been a major concern–an obsession, really.  With that obsession has come not only the refusal to merge with other denominations but the splintering of the CRCNA during times of increasing openness–liberalization–on the official level.  Two denominations–the Orthodox Christian Reformed Churches (OCRC) in the 1980s and the United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA) in the 1990s–formed for this reason.  The former merged into the latter in 2008.  One example of liberalization in the CRCNA was the official opening of all church offices to women in the 1990s.

Homosexuals and their heterosexual allies remain very much the “others” in the Dutch Reformed denominations in North America.  Calls for compassionate treatment of homosexuals and for guarantees of their civil rights and liberties coexist with official denials of these civil rights and liberties and of a dearth of compassionate treatment.  Those heterosexual allies who act on their moral convictions risk conviction in ecclesiastical courts.  One day the nearly unanimous verdict of generations not yet born will be that all this was as morally offensive as using the Bible to justify chattel slavery.  That verdict has been becoming more commonplace during the last few years, fortunately.  “Homophobes ‘R Us” is an immoral identity for any denomination or congregation.

Liturgy

Some traditions, such as sexism and homophobia, are unequivocably bad.  Yet others are beautiful and reverent.  This does not mean, however, that one should make a fetish out of liturgy and preserve it in amber, as if it were an ancient insect.  And neither should one disregard liturgical tradition because it is old and chase after the latest fad(s).  No, as Lutheran liturgical expert Philip H. Pfatteicher wrote:

…the new is not always found in opposition to the old but arises from the old as its natural growth and development.  Stability and continuity are essential elements of catholic Christianity.

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

One does not learn that valuable lesson from PowerPoint presentations, overhead projection transparencies, and “seven-eleven” praise choruses in worship.  Entertainment is not the worship of God.  And we have much to learn from tradition in liturgy without treating it like an exhibit in a museum.

Thomas Day, author of Why Catholics Can’t Sing:  The Culture of Catholicism and the Triumph of Bad Taste (1990), recounts a story from the early 1970s.  An elderly lady in a grand old Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, parish was having difficulty adjusting to the revised liturgy.  So, during the passing of the peace, she fingered her rosary and murmured instead.  When a man extended his hand to her and wished her God’s peace, she replied, “I don’t believe in that s–t.”  Then she returned to her rosary.

Although I approve of the passing of the peace and participate in it on a regular basis in my Episcopal parish, something about the story resonates with me.  I have found myself becoming more of a liturgical traditionalist than I used to be while remaining left of the theological and political center on most issues.  Thus my opinion of contemporary worship is that elderly woman’s summary of the passing of the peace.

Therefore I have a major problem with Lift Up Your Hearts (2013), the new official hymnal of the RCA and the CRCNA.  The contemporary tilt of the majority of material is bad, but I object to more than that.  I note that the title is Lift Up Your Hearts, not Lift Up Your Minds or Lift Up Your Intellects.  American Evangelicalism contains a broad spectrum, part of which places too much emphasis on the emotions and too little on the intellect.  I am describing Pietism, push-back against stale doctrinal orthodoxy enamored of abstraction and removed from the realities of daily life.  Yet, just as two wrongs do not make a right, two extremes do not balance out into an equilibrium.  Lift Up Your Hearts contains little to stimulate my intellect, one of the major ways I relate to God.

What Lies Ahead?

One of the volumes most helpful to me during the process of preparing this series of posts has been Divided By a Common Heritage:  The Christian Reformed Church and the Reformed Church in America at the Beginning of the New Millennium (2006), which four college professors–two from each denomination–wrote.  They researched, wrote, and published before the RCA-CRCNA Reformed Collaborative became as intensive as it has in 2014, so some of their conclusions might not apply any longer.  Others, however, hold up well.

On pages 187-193 then professors analyze three possible scenarios for the future of the RCA and the CRCNA.  They are, with some material I have added:

  1. The two denominations, already aging and fading away, might remain separate and die slowly.  The RCA would not exist anymore if not for its Midwestern and Western synods, which have opposed plans for organic union with other denominations more than once.  And the CRCNA has explored union with other denominations, calling off plans for merger with the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA) and being disappointed when the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) nixed another possible union in the 1960s.  The CRCNA is too conservative some denominations and too liberal for others while remaining quite conservative.
  2. The RCA and the CRCNA might merge to the left and for survival, leaving many points of disagreement left unresolved under the banner of diversity.  This would result in an exodus to the right.  The URCNA, the OPC, the PCA, the rump Reformed Church in the United States (RCUS), the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC), ECO:  A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians, and other denominations on the conservative end of the Reformed spectrum would benefit in this scenario.
  3. The RCA and the CRCNA might merge to the right and for purity, prompting an exodus to the left and taking with it most of the Eastern part of the RCA.  In this scenario the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) [PC(USA)] and the United Church of Christ (UCC), historically the preferred merger partners in the RCA East, would benefit.

Lift Up Your Hearts is a milestone book for the RCA and the CRCNA in so far as it indicates that the CRCNA is no longer accusing the RCA of apostasy (as it did in the middle 1800s and later) and that the RCA has ceased to publish negative comments about the CRCNA.  Forgiveness and reconciliation are positive, but I wonder where the organic future of each denomination should lie–together, separately and intact, or separate from each other and joined with others.  I, as an outside observer, have no “dog in the fight,” but I hope for the path of which God approves.

III.  PARTING WORDS (FOR NOW)

The title of this post reflects the fact that the story of the RCA and the CRCNA is, like the saga of Dune, far from over.  I have reached conclusions based on the course of events from 1628 to the middle of 2014 (just a few weeks ago), but I anticipate extending this series.  Perhaps I will write about other details of services, comparing and contrasting the same element over time in a given post.  Now, however, I need to focus on other matters.  And, as developments continue to unfold, I might write more posts of a broad nature.  Time will tell.

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HARDCOPY SOURCES

Day, Thomas.  Why Catholics Can’t Sing:  The Culture of Catholicism and the Triumph of Bad Taste.  New York, NY:  Crossroad, 1990.

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

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.

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

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

JULY 6, 2014 COMMON ERA

PROPER 9–THE FOURTH SUNDAY AFTER PENTECOST

THE FEAST OF SAINTS VINCENTIA GEROSA AND BARTHOLOMEA CAPITANIO, COFOUNDERS OF THE SISTERS OF CHARITY OF LOVERE

THE FEAST OF ISAIAH, BIBLICAL PROPHET

THE FEAST OF JAN HUS, PROTO-PROTESTANT MARTYR

THE FEAST OF SAINT PALLADIUS, ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP

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

Mutuality in God   1 comment

lent-banner2013-940x470

Above:  A Lenten Logo

This image is available on various websites.  Examples include http://pielover16.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-season-of-lent.htmlhttp://genyhub.com/profiles/blogs/lent-and-the-battlefield, and http://svccgilroy.wordpress.com/tag/lent/.

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

The Collects:

Almighty and ever-living God, you hate nothing you have made,

and you forgive the sins of all who are penitent.

Create in us new and honest hearts, so that, truly repenting of all our sins,

we may receive from you, the God of all mercy, full pardon and forgiveness

through your Son, Jesus Christ, our Savior and Lord, who lives and reigns

with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever.  Amen.

or

Gracious God, out of your love and mercy you breathed into dust

the breath of life, creating us to serve you and our neighbors.

Call forth our prayers and acts of kindness, and strengthen us

to face our mortality with confidence in the mercy of your Son,

Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,

one God, now and forever.  Amen.

Evangelical Lutheran Worship (2006), page 26

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

The Assigned Readings:

Joel 2:1-2, 12-17 or Isaiah 58:1-12

Psalm 51:1-17

2 Corinthians 5:20b-6:10

Matthew 6:1-6, 16-21

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

Some Related Posts:

Joel 2:

http://adventchristmasepiphany.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/devotion-for-january-21-and-22-lcms-daily-lectionary/

http://lenteaster.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/first-day-of-lent-ash-wednesday/

Isaiah 58:

http://adventchristmasepiphany.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/fifth-sunday-after-the-epiphany-year-a/

http://adventchristmasepiphany.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/devotion-for-december-30-lcms-daily-lectionary/

http://lenteaster.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/first-day-of-lent-ash-wednesday/

http://lenteaster.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/third-day-of-lent/

http://lenteaster.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/fourth-day-of-lent/

2 Corinthians 5-6:

http://lenteaster.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/first-day-of-lent-ash-wednesday/

http://ordinarytimedevotions.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/week-of-proper-6-monday-year-1/

http://ordinarytimedevotions.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/proper-7-year-b/

http://ordinarytimedevotions.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/devotion-for-august-28-lcms-daily-lectionary/

Matthew 6:

http://lenteaster.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/first-day-of-lent-ash-wednesday/

http://ordinarytimedevotions.wordpress.com/2010/12/02/week-of-proper-6-wednesday-year-1/

http://ordinarytimedevotions.wordpress.com/2010/12/04/week-of-proper-6-friday-year-1/

http://ordinarytimedevotions.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/devotion-for-september-30-lcms-daily-lectionary/

http://ordinarytimedevotions.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/devotion-for-october-1-lcms-daily-lectionary/

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

Create in me a clean heart, O God,

and renew a right spirit within me.

–Psalm 51:10, Book of Common Worship (1993)

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

Philip H. Pfatteicher, the noted U.S. Lutheran liturgist, wrote:

The observance of Lent and Easter is characterized by the primacy of community, for baptism incorporates those who are washed in its life-giving water into the community of the faithful people of God.  Anciently, Ash Wednesday was not a time for confession but for excommunication, excluding sinners, for a time, from the community in this world so that they might return from their erring ways and not be excluded forever in the next world.  Later privatized notions led to the emphasis on the confession of one’s sins.

The name Ash Wednesday (dies cinerum) derives from the custom which seems to have originated in Gaul in the sixth century of sprinkling ashes on the heads of penitents.  In the tenth and eleventh centuries the custom was adopted voluntarily by the faithful as a sign of penitence and a reminder of their mortality.

Commentary on the Lutheran Book of Worship:  Lutheran Liturgy in Its Ecumenical Context (Minneapolis, MN:  Augsburg Fortress, 1990), pages 223-224

I detect elements of both the original and modified meanings of Ash Wednesday in the assigned readings.  There are both judgment and mercy in God, who expects certain behaviors from us.  Rituals and fasts–good and spiritually meritorious practices when one engages them with a proper attitude–prove ineffective as talismans to protect one from divine punishment for sins.  To read these passages as dismissive of rituals and fasts as “externals,” as does the Pietist tradition, is to miss the point.  ”Externals,” according to Pietism, are of minimal or no importance; the individual experience of God in oneself takes precedence, minimizing even sacraments.  Although the Pietists are not entirely wrong, their underdeveloped sacramental theology is a major weakness and error.

No, the union of ritual and proper attitude in faithful community is of the essence.  Thus one cares actively for and about others.  Therefore the faithful prove themselves to be

authentic servants of God

–2 Corinthians 6:4a, The New Jerusalem Bible,

even in distressing circumstances.  Thus the faithful people of God glorify God in their words and deeds.  And whatever rituals their tradition embraces function for spiritual edification–as those the Law of Moses specifies were meant to do.

The original practice of Lent came from an understanding that what one does affects others.  This sense of mutuality, present in the Old and New Testaments, receives too little attention in the overly individualistic global West.  Rugged individualism, a great lie, is foreign to biblical ethics.  My branch of Christianity teaches the primacy of Scripture.  We are not Sola Scriptura people; no we are the tribe of the three-legged stool–Scripture, tradition, and reason.  My reason requires me to take seriously the communitarian ethic in the Bible and much of Christianity.  Thus I consider how my deeds and words affect my community, my congregation, and the world.

I invite you, O reader, to apply the same ethic to your life every day and to seek to be especially mindful of it during Lent.  These forty days are a wonderful season during which to nurture a good spiritual habit.  But, regardless of the meritorious spiritual habit you choose to focus on, may you succeed for the glory of God and the benefit of your fellow human beings.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

NOVEMBER 6, 2013 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF WILLIAM TEMPLE, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

THE FEAST OF TE WHITI O RONGOMAI, MAORI PROPHET

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

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

Adapted from this post:

http://lenteaster.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/devotion-for-ash-wednesday-years-a-b-and-c-elca-daily-lectionary/

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

The Old and the New   1 comment

restless-weaver

Above:  The Copyright Information for “Restless Weaver,” an Excellent 1988 and 1993 Hymn, Number 658 in Chalice Hymnal (1995)

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

The Collect:

Holy God, our strength and our redeemer,

by your Spirit hold us forever, that through your grace we may

worship you and faithfully serve you,

follow you and joyfully find you,

through Jesus Christ, our Savior and Lord.  Amen.

Evangelical Lutheran Worship (2006), page 22

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

The Assigned Readings:

Isaiah 48:12-21

Psalm 40:6-17

Matthew 9:14-17

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

Some Related Posts:

Isaiah 48:

http://adventchristmasepiphany.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/thirteenth-day-of-advent/

Matthew 9:

http://lenteaster.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/third-day-of-lent/

http://ordinarytimedevotions.wordpress.com/2010/11/20/proper-5-year-a/

http://ordinarytimedevotions.wordpress.com/2010/12/18/week-of-proper-8-saturday-year-1/

http://ordinarytimedevotions.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/devotion-for-october-6-lcms-daily-lectionary/

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

Let all who seek you rejoice in you and be glad;

let those who love your salvation say always, “The Lord is great.”

–Psalm 40:17, The Book of Common Prayer (2004)

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

The words of a dying church, I have heard, are

We’ve never done it that way before.

The Bible speaks again and again of God doing new things and provides examples–the main one being the Incarnation and all that flowed from it.  The tension between the traditional and the innovative is an old story.  One can find both gold and dross among both the old and the new.  Yet how can one distinguish between the dross and the gold?

That is a difficult question, one worth wrestling with over time.  My study of the past tells me that hindsight proves useful.  Traditional interpretations of the Bible in the Antebellum U.S. South affirmed chattel slavery.  Thus, according to that standard, abolitionists were heretics.  Yet the alleged heretics were really the orthodox and the alleged orthodox were really the heretics.  The new was superior to the old.   Yet hindsight does not exist in the moment.  That is a problem.

Here is another example:  I like hymns with theologically deep words.  These hymns might be old or new.  Their value does not depend on their age.  But “seven-eleven songs”–songs with seven words one sings eleven times–are dross.  Thus I despise praise songs and choruses, heaping upon them a great amount of undying contempt for their shallowness.

Striking the proper balance between the old and the new can prove difficult.  I propose a standard from Philip H. Pfatteicher, an expert on Lutheran liturgy.  He wrote:

…the new is not always found in opposition to the old but arises from the old as its natural growth and development.  Stability and continuity are essential elements of catholic Christianity.

Commentary on the Lutheran Book of Worship:  Lutheran Liturgy in Its Ecumenical Context (Minneapolis, MN:  Augsburg Fortress, 1990), page 10

It is good to remember that our traditions began as innovations.  They became traditions only with the passage of time.  And neither theology nor liturgy should function as museums.  Yet neither ought the faddish displace the tried-and-true, as my studies of liturgical development have revealed.  (Some 1970-1972 liturgies have not aged well.)

Furthermore, some issues are questions purely of taste, with no right or wrong involved.  One ought to recall that also.

Isaiah 48:12-21 condemns the faithlessness of both Chaldea and Judah yet ends with the promise of the redemption of the latter.

If you had only listened to my commands,

verse 18a reads in The Revised English Bible (1989).  The commands of God are old sometimes and new on other occasions, from our temporal perspectives.  May we, by grace, identify these commands and follow them, separating the new and worthy from the new and faddish and the old and worthy from the old and erroneous.  So, with the worthy old and the worthy new, may we rejoice in the Lord.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

SEPTEMBER 5, 2013 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF MOTHER TERESA OF CALCUTTA, ROMAN CATHOLIC NUN

THE FEAST OF GREGORIO AGLIPAY, PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENT BISHOP

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

Adapted from this post:

http://adventchristmasepiphany.wordpress.com/2013/09/05/devotion-for-wednesday-after-the-second-sunday-after-epiphany-year-a-elca-daily-lectionary/

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

Ventures of Which We Cannot See the Ending: Reflections on U.S. Lutheran Liturgy   5 comments

Books about Worship

Above:  Six of My Books about Liturgy, July 27, 2013

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

U.S. LUTHERAN LITURGY, PART XXI

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

O God, you have called your servants to ventures of which we cannot see the ending, by paths as yet untrodden, through perils unknown.  Give us faith to go out with good courage, not knowing where we go, but only that your hand is leading us and your love supporting us; through Jesus Christ our Lord.  Amen.

Evangelical Lutheran Worship (2006), page 304

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

Father Peter C. Ingeman, the recently-retired Rector of Christ Episcopal Church, Valdosta, Georgia, has said that anyone who worships regularly at a church with predictable order of worship attends a liturgical church.  Some orders of worship are more intricate than others, but they are inherently liturgical, even if, as in some especially bad U.S. Lutheran services from the 1800s, the primary or only role for the congregation is to sing hymns.

I have had some unfortunate and unpleasant encounters with people who have mistaken the simplicity of worship for the purity thereof.  Most of these have been Southern Baptists, actually.  So I am glad to read in Christian Worship:  Its Theology and Practice, by Franklin M. Segler (1967), that the author, a Southern Baptist minister (deceased now) does not fall into the false dichotomy of simple worship vs. insincere ritualism.  Yet I recognize that he, especially in his last chapter, dismisses ritualism.

I am, however, an unapologetic ritualist.  Ritualism creates the worship environment in which I feel in my soul most deeply and ineffably the words of Psalm 84:

How lovely is your dwelling place,

O LORD of hosts!

My soul longs, yes, faints

for the courts of the LORD;

my heart and flesh sing for joy

to the living God.

Even the sparrow finds a home,

and the swallow a nest for herself,

where she may lay her young,

at your altars, O LORD of hosts,

my King and my God.

Blessed are those who dwell in your house,

ever singing your praise!

Revised Standard Version–Second Catholic Edition (2002)

Good ritual–especially in the context of ritualism–is a lovely spiritual practice.  This is especially true when the congregation has much to do, as in most rewritten U.S. Lutheran liturgies from about 1860 forward.  So most U.S. Lutheran denominations deserve much credit for this reality of their service books.

Uniformity need not be a goal of service books, Henry Melchior Muhlenberg’s dream of one church and one book not withstanding.  The Common Service, in its variations, one far superior to most of what preceded it.  But there is also much worth in other Lutheran liturgies old and new.  Perhaps it is time for U.S. Lutheran scholars to begin to develop a Revised Common Service to take its place beside the 1888 liturgies and their variations.  There are certainly many meritorious rituals from which to draw inspiration and texts.

Liturgy is a product of theology, hence arguments about the contents of Creeds, for example.  Did Jesus descend into hell or merely to the dead?  Is the Church “Christian,” “Catholic,” or “catholic” in the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds?  And how often should the congregation take Communion?  Also germane to these matters are folkways, which influence opinions regarding the language of worship and order of its elements.

Thus much arguing over words and orders of worship ensues.  A tradition is neither inherently good nor bad because it is old, just as innovation is neither inherently good nor bad because it is new.  Elements of liturgy now quite old used to be new.  Faddish language in late 1960s and early 1970s liturgies did not age well, but addressing God with the familiar “you” instead of “Thee” is consistent with the spirit of the development of language.  In English, for example, everybody used to be “Thee,” so to address God as “you” these days constitutes a return to previous practice.  And, as Philip H. Pfatteicher writes:

The church needed by trial and occasional error to come to understand that the new is not always found in opposition to the old as its natural growth and development.  Stability and continuity are essential elements of catholic Christianity.

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

Thus U.S. Lutheran denominations have mixed the old with the new.  Even ultra-conservative Lutheran synods which make The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS) look like a pack of wild-eyed liberals have published hymnals-service books in contemporary English, as have the LCMS and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), which ultra conservative synods think is really a pack of wild-eyed liberals.

Unfortunately, one tendency which crosses liberal-conservative lines is bad contemporary worship.  Last year, during an ecumenical visit to an ELCA congregation, I noticed an announcement on a bulletin board.  The church was planning to add a praise band to one service.  And, about nine years ago, when I thought that I might attend the University of Florida, I looked up websites for Episcopal congregations in Gainesville.  I knew that I would never attend the one which, on its service roster, listed the person in charge of overhead transparencies.  The probability that people were posting the words to “I Bind Unto Myself Today the Strong Name of the Trinity,” which takes three pages in the Episcopal Hymnal 1982, were very low.  “Seven-eleven songs,” which, as the critique tells us, have seven words which people sing eleven times, are theological tide pools.  Karl Marx’s analysis of religion as the opiate of the masses is an overgeneralization, one which applies well to some aspects of religion, such as praise choruses, and not at all in many others.

The real meat and potatoes of good liturgy and worship is found in excellent history-based form and practice updated occasionally.  The best U.S. Lutheran liturgies of today strike and maintain that balance well.

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

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

JULY 28, 2013 COMMON ERA

PROPER 12–THE TENTH SUNDAY AFTER PENTECOST, YEAR C

THE FEAST OF THE PIONEERING FEMALE EPISCOPAL PRIESTS, 1974 AND 1975

THE FEAST OF ANTONIO VIVALDI, COMPOSER

THE FEAST OF JOHANN SEBASTIAN BACH, COMPOSER

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

COMPREHENSIVE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS FOR THIS SERIES

Books:

Ambassador Hymnal for Lutheran Worship.  Minneapolis, MN:  Association of Free Lutheran Congregations, 1994.

Bible.  Revised Standard Version–Second Catholic Edition.  2002.

Book of Common Prayer, The.  New York:  Oxford University Press, 1979.  Reprint, 2007.

Book of Common Worship.  Louisville, KY:  Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993.

Book of Common Worship, The.  Philadelphia, PA:  Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath-School Work, 1906.

Book of Common Worship, The.  Philadelphia, PA:  Board of Christian Education of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, 1946.

Book of Common Worship (Revised), The.  Philadelphia, PA:  Presbyterian Board of Christian Education, 1932.

Book of Hymns.  Milwaukee, WI:  Northwestern Publishing House, 1917.  Reprint, 1932.

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

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.

Concordia:  A Collection of Hymns and Spiritual Songs.  Minneapolis, MN:  Augsburg Publishing House, 1917.

Concordia:  The Lutheran Confessions–A Reader’s Edition of the Book of Concord.  2d. Ed.  Paul Timothy McCain, General Editor.  St. Louis, MO:  Concordia Publishing House, 2006.

Concordia Hymnal, The:  A Hymnal for Church, School and Home.  Minneapolis, MN:  Augsburg Publishing House, 1932.

Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), The.  Part I.  Book of Confessions.  Louisville, KY:  Office of the General Assembly, 1996.

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

Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference of North America, The.  The Lutheran Hymnal.  St. Louis, MO:  Concordia Publishing House, 1941.

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

Fevold, Eugene L.  The Lutheran Free Church:  A Fellowship of American Lutheran Congregations, 1897-1963.  Minneapolis, MN:  Augsburg Publishing House, 1969.

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

Hymnal for Church and Home.  3d. Ed.  Blair, NE:  Danish Lutheran Publishing House, 1938.

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

Inter-Lutheran Commission on Worship.  Lutheran Book of Worship.  Ministers Desk Edition.  Philadelphia, PA:  Board of Publication, Lutheran Church in America, 1978.

__________.  Lutheran Book of Worship.  Pew Edition.  Philadelphia, PA:  Board of Publication, Lutheran Church in America, 1978.

Inter-Lutheran Commission on Worship for Provisional Use.  Contemporary Worship 2:  Services–The Holy Communion.  Philadelphia, PA:  Board of Education, Lutheran Church in America, 1970.

Jones, Cheslyn, et al, eds.  The Study of Liturgy.  Revised Edition.  New York:  Oxford University Press, 1992.

Lutheran Hymnary Including the Symbols of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, The.  Minneapolis, MN:  Augsburg Publishing House, 1935.

Lutheran Intersynodical Hymnal Committee.  American Lutheran Hymnal.  Music Edition.  Columbus, OH:  The Lutheran Book Concern, 1930.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Segler, Franklin M.  Christian Worship:  Its Theology and Practice.  Nashville, TN:  Broadman Press, 1967.

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

United Methodist Hymnal, The:  Book of United Methodist Worship.  Nashville, TN:  The United Methodist Publishing House, 1989.

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

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

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

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

PDFs:

“Ambassador Hymnal for Lutheran Worship.”  Hymnal Sales, Minneapolis, MN.  This is a document designed to convince congregations to purchase the 1994 hymnal.

Association Free Lutheran Bible School, Plymouth, MN.  AFLBS Student Life Guidelines 2009-2010.

__________.  AFLBS Student Life Handbook 2012-2013.

Christian Worship:  Supplement Introductory Resources.  Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, 2008.

DeGarmeaux, Bruce.  ”O Come, Let Us Worship!  A Study of Lutheran Liturgy and Hymnody.”  1995.

Erickson, Anne.  ”God Wants to Help Parents Help Their Kids.”  Pages 8-9 in The Lutheran Ambassador (April 10, 2001).

Faugstad, Peter.  ”Centennial of The Lutheran Hymnary.”  In Lutheran Sentinel, May-June 2013, page 14.

Schalk, Carl.  ”A Brief History of LCMS Hymnals (before LSB).”  Based on a 1997 document; updated to 2006.  Copyrighted by The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod.

Stuckwisch, D. Richard.  ”The Missouri Synod and the Inter-Lutheran Commission on Worship.”  Lutheran Forum, Volume 37, Number 3 (Fall 2003), pages 43-51.

Walker, Larry J., Ed.  ”Standing Fast in Freedom.”  2d.  Ed.  Association of Free Lutheran Congregations, 2000.

Zabell, Jon F.  ”The Formation of Function of WELS Hymnals:  Further Conversation.”  For the National Conference of Worship, Music, and the Arts, July 2008.

KRT

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