Liturgy, unity, and disunity: the context and legacy of LBW.
Planting in ground cracked by controversy
Given the past century of controversies, this common undertaking was miraculous. When immigrant Lutherans came from Germany--fleeing the governmentally enforced "union" of Lutherans and Reformed--they found Pennsylvania Lutherans cooperating with German Reformed and even with Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists in revivals. They followed the advice to "go west" and settled in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Missouri. The subsequent split between these confessionalists, all supported by Wilhelm Loehe of Neuendettelsau, came over the doctrine of the ministry. S. S. Schmucker's preparation of the American Recension of the Augsburg Confession, gutting the Lutheran view of the sacraments, only confirmed the Midwestern Lutherans' suspicions of the Easterners, even though the General Synod rejected this revision. In the 1860s a controversy over predestination among Midwestern Lutherans caused further splits that lasted well into the twentieth century. This controversy spread to Norwegian-Americans, who later added a controversy over absolution. The fundamentalist-modernist controversy over the inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture that began in late nineteenth-century Protestantism finally made its way into Lutheranism in the early twentieth century. All of these somewhat unresolved controversies were to dog the steps of the ILCW in its work, even as other controversies and tensions arose.
The amazing thing is that in the midst of this most divisive period of Lutheran history in America, the Common Service was developed by the Eastern synods that had been split by the Civil War and by theological controversy over the Lutheran confessions. By the early twentieth century, the Common Service was adopted as the liturgical text by virtually all Lutherans in North America. Mergers along ethnic lines had begun, but no significant mergers crossed the borders of national origin.
The stated purpose of the ILCW was to prepare a "new, common liturgy and hymnal." This was to succeed The Lutheran Hymnal (TLH) of 1941 used by LCMS and the 1958 Service Book and Hymnal (SBH) used by most other Lutherans. The first step was to prepare provisional and experimental supplements to existing worship materials. The series of ten paperbacks was called "Contemporary Worship" (CW). In 1969 the LCMS Worship Supplement--authorized and worked on since the 1950s--and CW-1: Hymns were published. Of CW-1's eighteen new hymns, thirteen survived in The Lutheran Book of Worship (LBW) and four in the LCMS service book Lutheran Worship (LW) of 1982. In 1970 a new communion liturgy with four musical settings (contemporary, hymnic, chant, and folk) was published as CW-2. What was new to Lutherans is that the rite began without an opening order of confession. Rather, an Act of Reconciliation (after the sermon and creed) simply confessed "that we have sinned . . ." (p. 9), not referencing the "corrupted-nature" language of Luther and the Formula of Concord. TLH (p. 6) and SBH (p. 1) mirror that confessional language in the prayer "we poor sinners confess unto thee that we are by nature sinful and unclean and that we have sinned.... " TLH in the Communion liturgy (p. 16) uses "poor, miserable sinner," and SBH's preparatory rite (p. 251) uses "by nature a most unworthy sinner." The omission was undoubtedly influenced by critiques caricaturing this as "worm theology," but the point of the older liturgies was to acknowledge not only that we have sinned but that we are sinners. The passing of the Peace completed the Act of Reconciliation and, in its early years, probably caused more consternation than any other part of the liturgy for many shy lay people.
The flowering of the sacraments
The eucharistic prayer caused the most consternation to many pastors and theologians, especially because CW-2 did not allow for just the words of institution; rather these words (verba) were encased in a prayer of thanksgiving. Criticism of this was immediate and varied: "too Calvinist--mere symbolic memorialism" or "too Catholic--turning God's gift to us into our sacrifice to God." The battle lasted until just before publication when a compromise was fatally reached.
Another change that brought criticism was the revision of the SBH's language ... with thy Word and Holy Spirit to bless us thy servants and these thine own gifts of bread and wine.... " The proposal was "Send the power of your Holy Spirit upon us [Rubric: He (sic) extends his hands over the bread and wine] and upon this bread...." (CW-2, 17). Critics objected to borrowing the epiclesis from the Eastern Orthodox liturgy, some arguing that it changed the consecration from the verba to the epiclesis. The rubric probably fueled the critics' charge; thus in LBW the focus of the invocation of the Spirit is shifted away from the elements to the people (LBW: Minister's Desk Edition [MDE], 221-27).
The publication of CW-4: Hymns for Baptism and Holy Communion (1972) reflected the ILCW's concern to highlight these two sacraments for the life and worship of the church. (Out of the twenty hymns, fifteen made it into LBW and six into LW.) The first revision of the baptismal rite came in CW-7 (1974). Criticism focused on the addition of "nonessential" ritual acts: (1) an epiclesis on the child, "Pour out your Holy Spirit...." with the laying on of hands; (2) anointing with oil as "sealing" and marking the child with the sign of the cross; (3) giving a white garment symbolizing being clothed in Christ's righteousness (this was relegated to a permissive rubric in the MDE, 31, #15); and (4) giving a lighted candle with the words, "Let your light so shine ..." (CW-7, 28). These additions, which ILCW regarded as simply ritual enacting of Lutheran baptismal doctrine, made it through the review process into the LBW. There had been serious discussion in the Liturgical Text Committee (LTC) concerning the renunciation-whether or not to name "the devil." The compromise, "... all the forces of evil, the devil and all his empty promises" (CW-7, 25), was incorporated into LBW.
Like public confession and absolution, "Confirmation," by that hallowed name, suffered in CW-8 and became Affirmation of the Baptismal Covenant. Such affirmation was to be done (1) in the baptismal rite, (2) "in the context of the teaching/ learning life of the congregation," i.e., catechetical or adult membership classes, or (3) "in the context of the varied personal experiences of the believers," e.g., membership transfer, inactives returning to church, taking a new job or office in the church, at marriage or retirement. The rejection of Confirmation as a separate rite was based on the Report of the Joint Commission on the Theology and Practice of Confirmation, 1970 (CW-8, 6-10). The blessing "The Father in heaven, for Jesus' sake, strengthen in you the gift of the Holy Spirit ..." was to be given to all who would make this affirmation. When, in the next years, the churches decided to retain the practice of confirmation, this blessing with the laying on of hands was retained only for the confirmands (LBW, p. 201). Moreover, the language was changed in LBW from a benedictory bestowal formula (SBH, p. 246) to an epicletic prayer formula as in Baptism where the Spirit's gifts are also named: "the spirit of wisdom and understanding ..." (LBW, p. 124; cf. SBH, p. 245; CW-8, p. 24). The attempt to improve on the gifts listed in Isaiah 11:2 adds, in CW-8, "the spirit of wonder and awe in your presence" and is reduced to sevenfold gifts in LBW's "spirit of joy in your presence."
In contrast to what has been said about the deflowering of the preparatory offices or orders for public confession in CW-2 and even in LBW, their permissive detachability may have undercut an important instrument of pastoral care. In the Apology XIII, Melanchthon designates Absolution as a sacrament and Luther lists it with the means of grace in Smalcald Articles III, 4; both exhort that absolution should not fall into neglect. However, the Reformers were speaking about private confession. Not only is LBWs "Corporate Confession and Forgiveness" (LBW, pp. 193-95) a fine rite with its provision for individual absolution, but the LTC subcommittee on Penitential Rites has done the churches a great service with the rite for "Individual Confession and Forgiveness" with its clear absolution: "By the command of our Lord Jesus Christ, I ... forgive you your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (LBW, p. 196).
The mutual confession and absolution in Compline (CW-9, 52; LBW, p. 155) made its way to the LBW with its powerful expression of the "mutual conversation and consolation" in the royal priesthood of all believers. The proposed assurance is turned into a continued plea: "The almighty and merciful Lord grant me pardon ..." (emphasis mine). This approaches self-absolution and reminds me of my favorite corollary to the proverb, "To err is human," to wit: "to forgive yourself is habit-forming."
Services of the Word (CW-5, 1972) totally lack the absolution. Since part of the rationale of "preaching services" was as an alternative to using the communion rite without communion (sometimes called a "half-mass")--a common practice in SBH days--an order of confession and forgiveness seems all the more important. A case can be made for omitting confession in a service when forgiveness is also proclaimed in Baptism and Eucharist, but most of the weight of gospel proclamation rests on the sermon in these Services of the Word. On the other hand, if used in evangelistic or "seeker" services, the confession and assurance of forgiveness might well come after the sermon, as in CW-2.
So how does one do weddings--if there are to be weddings--after the sexual revolution of the 1960s? The Marriage Service (CW-3) was a creative attempt, and some of it survived in the LBW, e.g., the opening prayer and the description of the reality of married life, as well as the declaration of intentions and the new description of what constitutes marriage: "... if it is your intention to share with each other your joys and sorrows and all that the years will bring, with your promises bind yourself to each other as husband and wife" [emphasis mine] (CW-3, pp. 15, 22; LBW, pp. 202f.).
The italicized words define marriage differently from the legal declaration common in marriage rites: "I now pronounce you man and wife." Many pastors and others attempted unsuccessfully to defend the latter on theological grounds.
However, the vows were successfully attacked on biblical grounds, concerning the promise to be faithful "as he [God] gives us life together." Interestingly, the subcommittee's first draft had retained "until death parts us" and "I pronounce them man and wife." The former was retained until the eighth and final draft before publication in 1972; the latter was dropped in the second draft in 1970. The issue in lifelong vows was not just traditional language but how seriously the NT's prohibitions of divorce, except for adultery and desertion, were to be taken.
... and dispatched
The other much-revised but ultimately less criticized rite was CW-10, The Burial of the Dead. The rite went through eight revisions before it was finally published in 1976. Numerous questions were raised about prayers for the dead. Eugene Brand responded: "We say what we would have said at the moment of death, had we been present. Prayer that God will give the deceased eternal life ... should be understood neither as doubt that God will indeed grant such blessings nor as an attempt to 'change the judgment of God upon the deceased.' Rather such prayers express the faith and hope of the community." (1)
So the prayer reads: "Acknowledge, we humbly beseech you, a sheep of your own fold ... a sinner of your own redeeming. Receive him/her into the arms of your mercy ... and into the glorious company of the saints in light" (CW-10, p. 13; LBW, p. 213).
In the committal rite, the brother or sister is commended to God and the body to earth or its resting place, and then the benediction is spoken about the dead: "The Lord bless him/her and keep him/her...." And before the final benediction on the mourners, this prayer from the Roman Catholic Requiem is prayed: "Rest eternal grant him/her, O Lord; and let light perpetual shine upon "him/her." (2)
Scriptures and saints
Another biblical issue involved the lectionary. Lessons from the Old Testament had been added to the traditional Lutheran one-year lectionary by SBH, and Nesper's Biblical Texts had long provided alternates to the standard pericopes. Roman Catholic, Episcopal, and Presbyterian churches had recently published three-year lectionaries. ILCW decided both to revise the one-year lectionary in light of recent German and Scandinavian revisions and to prepare a three-year lectionary, using the above ecumenical models. The Gospel was to be the criterion for selection, from the exodus to redemption in Christ. Classic themes of Christian faith and life, as well as Lutheran theology and piety, are treated by the interlocking of lessons to "let Scripture interpret Scripture." In its work revising the one-year lectionary the subcommittee stated that some selections were rejected as "no longer exegetically defensible" or open to misunderstanding as anti-Semitic (CW-6, 16f.). (3) The now-familiar pattern of each of the Synoptic Gospels having its year was established, supplementing Mark with John, giving that Fourth Gospel about as much usage as Luke. The semicontinuous reading of epistles in Epiphany and Pentecost seasons meant that there was often interlocking only between the lesson and the Gospel. In one-sixth of the cases, CW-6 differed from the Roman ordo; some of these came where the ordo had readings from the Apocrypha. Following the Presbyterians in such cases, ILCW states that the decision was "made on pastoral rather than confessional grounds" (CW-6, 23), presumably so that concerns over giving equal status to apocryphal books did not torpedo the project. LBW followed the same pattern, although current revisions of the lectionary give apocryphal alternatives to some OT readings. The CW-6 lectionary received positive reception, with few questions and no significant controversy.
Causing considerable controversy was the greatly expanded CW-6 list of post-biblical saints from every century, continent, and Christian group. Challenges were raised concerning Fox, Hammerskjold, Schweitzer, Kagawa, and King .a On the other hand, many worthy heroes of the faith are absent. LW "solved" the problem by commemorating only St. Lawrence (a third-century martyr), Martin Luther, and C. F. W. Walther!
To pray or not to pray (together)
Now consistency may be, in some circumstances (like perhaps theology), "the hobgoblin of weak minds"; but in corporate prayer consistency helps, if one wants to pray together. In the past it has been hard to get Lutherans to say "Amen" at the end of prayers--especially since they could never be quite sure when the prayer had ended. CW-6 and LBW brought great consistency to the collects by utilizing the trinitarian ending, "One God, now and forever"--modified from "world without end." Even when the trinitarian ascription of praise is not used, "forever" ends prayers. The alternative is the christological ending "through Jesus Christ (your Son) our Lord"--or at least "Lord." Even shy Lutherans seem able to voice an Amen with such clear cues! The only exceptions I have found to those endings are the Tuesday of Holy Week (LBW, p. 19), the commemoration for pastors and bishops (LBW, p. 38) and the prayer for the 23rd Psalm (LBW: MDE, 353). In the miscellaneous prayers of "Petitions, etc." (LBW, pp. 42-53) taken from various sources, about a dozen prayers have alternate endings. (The whole prayer can, of course, be printed for unison recitation or to cue the closing words.)
Minimalists and "maximalists"
As reactions to the music of the CW-2 communion liturgies poured in, the ground under the text began to harden and crack all the more. Oliver Olson from the ALC saw in the work of Odo Casel and Gregory Dix anti-Lutheran theories used to pervert the sacramental into a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead. (5) Eugene Brand of ILCW and Robert Jenson, both students of Peter Brunner, argued that the eucharistic sacrifice in the Communion was a sacrifice of thanksgiving, not atonement. Lowell Green joined Olson, adding the charge of "crypto-Calvinist evasions of the Real Presence" and the Reformed hallmark, "the breaking of bread from a loaf." (6) Frank Senn supported the eucharistic prayer and offered a friendly critique of "liturgical actions and gestures."(7) Arthur Carl Piepkorn from the LCMS was supportive of the eucharistic prayer with the epiclesis but had numerous suggestions about the structure of the rite. (8)
The controversy went public when Olson published an article in the Lutheran Standard in June 1972 titled "The Mix Makes a Muddle" accusing ILCW of importing "pagan Greek mystery cults and denying the grace of the gospel." Even offertory processions, bringing forward bread and wine with the offering plates, mix God's gifts and our sacrifices. (9) Gordon Lathrop's lecture at Valparaiso argued, against Olson, that the Berakah (the Jewish meal-prayer) constitutes "the New Testament shape of the liturgy ... and the vehicle of religious promise." (10)
Meanwhile, responses from congregations were collected, compared, and analyzed as musicians critiqued the settings of CW-2. Taking a different tack, the Minneapolis Worship Conference of June 1973 was keynoted by Joseph Sittler who proposed that praise (doxa) illumines and enriches faith (dogma), so "dogma bears forth doxa." Yet worship is public action for Christians, not the action of a cult." (11) Sittler's creative approach sheds light on the theological controversies that were raging over the dreaded victory of lex orandi over lex credendi, i.e., liturgy over doctrine. Jaroslav Pelikan addressed that Western theme of lex orandi and its Eastern Orthodox counterpart: worship ties "yesterday with tomorrow" by a "unity in the truth of the church's doctrine," or, more poetically, "the rhythm of past and future" is "the melody of theology." (12) Brand had earlier argued that "a liturgical act must be theologically defensible" but not shaped or governed by a particular theology, which, I think he would agree, is different from the doctrine or dogma of the church catholic. (13) In spring 1975, Brand--named Project Director the previous January--was to write: "It is useless to argue, as some do, whether liturgy embodies theological concepts or whether they emerge from liturgy.... No true liturgy can be atheological; no true theology can be aliturgical." (14)
In October 1973, a theological symposium was held, called for by Luther Seminary (where Olson was currently teaching) and supported by the Philadelphia and Southern seminaries, to review as a "blue-ribbon commission" the work of ILCW. Olson's lecture stated his charges with even greater intensity: that SBH and CW-2 imply "that worship is primarily man's sacrifice to God and, further, that man cooperates in his own salvation by participating in sacrifice of Calvary" (emphasis mine). (15) Olson "upped the ante" by adding synergism to the heresies he addressed. Ronald Hals and Herbert Lindemann added their support for the anamnesis and epiclesis that Olson had again attacked. Three discussion groups reported back that most were not persuaded by Olson's arguments, though some in one group were "in almost total agreement with Olson's theology." (16)
The climax of the theological debate over the eucharistic prayer came in Frank Senn's picking up Olson's challenge to relate contemporary Lutheran liturgiology to classical Lutheran theology. (17) The terse summary by Paul Rorem captured Olson's position well: the words of institution are Christ's testament "to be proclaimed to the people and not to be prayed to God.""
Robert Jenson's response was that eucharistic prayer is "neither prayer nor proclamation only, but a third thing, encompassing both," i.e., an "embodied prayer word" that thanks--not propitiates--God (emphasis his).(19) Gerhard Forde, newly appointed to the ALC Review Group, entered the debate, raising the question of authority for liturgical changes, seemingly appealing to a consensus of all Christians, at all times, in all places: i.e., "sound theological principles espoused by the whole Church." (20) Jenson points to the exegetical work of Joachim Jeremias and the Formula of Concord (SD VIII.83f.). Forde ends by proposing that the eucharistic prayers end with an "Amen" so that the verba can be clearly proclaimed. This was to become one of the three options in LBW.
CW-2 revisited and revised
The Holy Communion for Trial Use was distributed for field-testing in October 1975. The Act of Reconciliation had been restored as an optional opening order for the service. It included the following assurance of pardon: "God grants us forgiveness." After the greeting, psalmody took the place of the Introit and the later Gradual. The Kyrie was also restored. Western gospel acclamations replaced CW-2's language borrowed from Eastern liturgies: "We praise you, Christ, our Lord and God." The Hymn of the Day could come before or after the sermon. The Creed was to be after the sermon and Hymn of the Day. The fraction of the bread was optional. The question of the verba alone was discussed as an option but unresolved.
The final draft--thus the penultimate version--of the Holy Communion was printed in fall 1976. Musical settings by Richard Hillert and Ronald Nelson and an adaptation and expansion of SBH Setting II were sent to congregations for field-testing. The text of Holy Communion along with revisions of the other Contemporary Worship series liturgies were sent to all pastors in a booklet titled "Liturgical Texts." Reactions from earlier field tests and review committees led to the following changes in this 1976 draft:
1. In the optional Brief Order for Confession, the Anglican prayer, "Almighty God to whom all hearts are open ..." (SBH, p. 251) was restored. It was followed by the exhortation to confess from 1 John 1:8f. There were two forms of confession: one borrowed from the Episcopal proposal," which had no mention of us as "sinners" but simply confession of sins. The traditional assurance of pardon (TLH, p. 6; SBH, p. 1) and a first-person absolution (cf. TLH, p. 16) were proposed. The alternative was the mutual confession and forgiveness which was eventually dropped and transferred to LBW Compline (p. 155).
2. There was no psalmody after the opening greeting: the psalm was placed after the first lesson. After the Creed came the following rubic: "When there is no communion, the service continues on page 00." This proposal, handwritten in Liturgical Texts, was an ILCW concession to those who wanted to be able to use the first portion of Holy Communion rite (the "Ante-Communion" or "half-mass") even when there was no Eucharist.
3. The eucharistic prayer was in two forms: one from CW-2 (pp. 15-17) and the other modified from SBH (p. 11) by taking the verba out of the middle and placing it after the Amen--as Olson and Forde had argued and the ALC Review Group requested.
4. The trinitarian and Aaronic benedictions were made options. (22)
Debate becomes debacle
Lowell Green picked up the earlier polemic of Olson in 1975 arguing that Brand, and implicitly ILCW, had "Romanized and Calvinized" the Sacrament as something "offered to God, either as a merit or as proof of one's salvation." The central error was "withdrawing [the Sacrament] from the Lutheran categories of Law and Gospel," (23) thereby losing the Sacrament as a means of grace and endangering the doctrine of justification. This article, like Rorem's in The Cresset, appeared in publications largely read by Missouri Synod audiences. In 1975 the Consultation on Lutheran Unity was dissolved, and in 1976 the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches was founded, thus "resolving" the LCMS Seminex controversy. In 1976, articles on ILCW's proposals increased significantly in LCMS publications. One such example: Arnold Krugler picks up theories set forth by Olson and Green: "To embed Christ's Words of Promise into Eucharistic Prayer is to destroy their character as Gospel to the congregation." (24) Bailey and Klein in their Forum Letter tried to moderate such criticisms and explain ILCW's work to LCMS and ALC audiences, but they betray a Missourian understanding of the verba as consecration. (25)
With the publication of eight sample eucharistic prayers in CW-01, LCA theologian Clarence Lee and Missourians David Scaer and Gottfried Krodel joined in the attacks on the Great Thanksgiving. Krodel's focus on the consecration further suggests that this issue divided Missourians from other critics of the Great Thanksgiving. (26) Lee's critique, by contrast, was of ILCW's attempt to make the Great Thanksgiving, rather than the bare verba, normative. He also argued that to describe the meal fellowship as "the actualizing of our act of thanksgiving" makes human activity the essence of the Sacrament. (27)
In 1977, "Judicius" [=Douglas Judisch] stated the decision facing LCMS in the Concordia Theological Quarterly by applauding the LCMS South Wisconsin District whose resolution "indeed, has said what really must be said; ... withdraw from plans for an inter-Lutheran hymnal and ... concentrate on developing a new hymnal for our synod." Judicius concluded that the LCMS constitution mandates the "exclusive use of doctrinally pure agenda [and] hymnbooks" and the "products of the ILCW are doctrinally impure in every case." Examples of the "impurity" included: presupposing the validity of higher criticism and "the so-called ecumenical movement"; rejecting "narrowly defined orthodoxy" and exegetically indefensible or "socially hazardous" pericopes; and commemorating enthusiasts and Unitarians. All of these charges were directed at CW-6. (28) Theo Delaney, the LCMS worship executive working with ILCW, produced a line-by-line response to Judisch's charges, counter charging "libel" against the LCMS Commission on Worship. Regarding the eucharistic prayer, Delaney gave a telling defense, which had not been much emphasized before: "Scripture refers the proclamation to the eating and drinking, rather than to the Verba [1 Cor 11:26].... Scripture does not prescribe how the word is to be proclaimed (i.e. whether as nuda verba or in the 'framework of the eucharistic prayers')." (29) An editorial in the Bride of Christ attempts a "confessional high churchman" critique of the work of ILCW, "destined to create havoc wherever it is used." LBW is "musically absurd." TLH's Scottish chant in the Gloria is "the tune that history has wedded to the text"--dropped "for the sake of Joy, Joy and more Joy," in the sense that "multiplied musical settings equal multiplied joy." And should "Grandma Schmidt" object to tunes or text, "we'll just have to tell her to shut up and mind her own business." Beware, "Grandma will vote with her feet"! (30)
Paul Foelber in defending the LCMS work in ILCW asks: "If Eucharistic prayer is unorthodox, one wonders why objection was not raised years ago since the [LCMS] Worship Supplement which includes Eucharistic prayers has been in print over eight years and is being used extensively in our schools and churches." (31)
Wayne Schmidt argued for an advanced distribution of LBW like that suggested for the 1941 TLH--a suggestion already mentioned by LCMS president J. A. O. Preus. Schmidt argues that the supposed unity of Lutherans in the 1960s is a sham that glossed over "really serious doctrinal disunity." Arguing that the 1977 LCMS convention should reject LBW, Schmidt cites the adiaphoristic controversy of the sixteenth-century Formula of Concord X, which forbids concessions on nonessentials (adiaphora), like liturgical ritual, when under persecution. Although he admits the current "pressure" is not persecution, he argues that the recommended worship practices will offend "the weak in faith." For the hymnal is "a layman's book of doctrine and guides the thinking of pastors as well," and hence "a shaper of theology." (32) So lex orandi had its supporters in LCMS as well. Like the LCMS stand on closed communion, "a worship book can be a testimony of unity, it does not create it." (33)
The May 1977 Lutheran Witness had articles supporting and opposing approval of LBW. The positive argument stressed contemporary hymns for LCMS congregations and standardizing hymns and liturgies for all Lutherans. The responsiveness of ILCW to LCMS concerns was also documented." (34) The negative argument stressed TLH hymns that LBW did not include. Furthermore, it was stated, doctrinal differences are deemphasized in order to improve Lutheran unity; thus approval of the LBW would serve consciously to sanction its ambiguity without "precise agreement in the Gospel" as demanded by Augsburg Confession VII. One of the evidences of "this tendency of impurity" is the rewriting of sexist language from the Bible, the creeds, and the hymns. Therefore the dearth of hymns on the ministry (TLH had a dozen, and LBW had only four) was related to the fact that ALC and LCA now ordained women. The article closes with the warning that approval of LBW would violate the LCMS constitution. (35) A final mediating article attempts to assure congregations that neither LBW nor synodical decisions can be forced on congregations. Moreover, delegates to synodical conventions are not knowledgeable enough to judge doctrinal issues.(36) So the positions of moderate ecumenists, conservative critics, and canon lawyers were all represented in the Lutheran Witness.
As project director, Eugene Brand sent out a confidential Position Paper on Liturgical Matters in March 1976 suggesting "... the diversity of theological positions and liturgical practices, always just below the surface of apparent confessional unity, has now surfaced, though it remains to be recognized openly. Myths of the Lutheran position and the Lutheran way of worship remain" (emphasis in original). (37)
However, he continues that a new book could be a catalyst for needed vitality and common endeavor, but "important differences in theology and practice ... cannot be resolved by publication." Indifference after publication "creates the vacuum into which new books [and in retrospect, I would add, worship wars] are launched." Brand goes on to recommend the following compromises: (1) the "I forgive you" formulation as an alternative absolution in the Brief Order of Confession, because it is "firmly embedded Missouri Synod practice"; (2) "he descended into hell" as a permissive footnote; (3) the use of the term Confirmation for the Affirmation rite; and, most painful of all, (4) three options in Holy Communion: a full Eucharistic prayer, a prayer with an "Amen" followed by the verba, and the verba alone. He concluded with two questions: (1) Even with these compromises, can other controversies be resolved by the set publication dale of Advent 1978? Even more shocking, (2) "Has the kairos for a new book passed and should we therefore withdraw the plan for a new hymnal and service book?" (38)
In April 1976, LTC approved the LCMS reviewers' request of changing the descensus clause back to "hell." ALC and LCA objections to the new translation of the Lord's Prayer led to the compromise of printing both texts. (Roman Catholics had decided not to use the new translation at all.) The Nelson setting from CW-2 was chosen for LBW. In November, ILCW approved the addition of the verba alone as a third option, which the ALC Review Group had virtually demanded. LTC suggested that the second (prayer plus verba) and third (verba alone) options be combined by rubrics or design. Like the ALC, the ELCC Review Group protested the absence of reference to "original sin" in the opening confession. LTC's compromise proposal was: "Most merciful God, we confess that we cannot free ourselves from bondage to sin." Ultimately, it was the ALC proposal that emerged in LBW. The LCA proposed a revision of the traditional declaration of pardon ("Almighty God ... hath had mercy upon us and hath given his only Son") to "In the mercy of Almighty God, Jesus Christ was given...." LCA and ALC review groups both opposed the LCMS "I forgive you" and preferred "I declare ... forgiveness." ALC also preferred "I declare" in the service of "Individual Confession," but this was declined (LBW, p. 197).
The Episcopal Psalter was chosen over other translations with permission for limited editing, e.g., Psalm 8: "O Lord, our Governor." Why 28 of the psalms are not included has been the subject of many creative theories that have little to do with what actually happened. When the number of hymns escalated from a "core hymnal" of 200 to 510 in 1976 and then, by popular outcry (15,000 letters to ALC, to 569, there was not enough room for all 150 psalms. The publishers had warned that the back would soon break with a book that large. Those psalms assigned for liturgical use were retained.
"Final" changes were approved or made at the last meeting of the full ILCW commission in May 1977. However, some fourteen pages of changes were made afterward by the Editorial Group. Many of them had to do with sexist language--e.g., in nine prayers "Father" was changed to "Lord." In the LBW "Affirmation" prayer (p. 201), the liberation of "sons and daughters" of the "Father" (CW-8, 35) and the reference to regeneration (SBH, p. 246) into the Father's family are lost by such cleaning-up of language. Similarly in the Burial rite (LBW, p. 206), the opening blessing (2 Cor 1:3) is altered: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the source of all mercy and God of all consolation" (emphasis mine). Not only is the poetic structure ruined by substituting "source" for "Father," but the personal and parental relationship is omitted at a time when it is most needed. Current emphasis on expansive rather than merely inclusive language seems much more helpful.
Blue-ing away LBW
The Executive Committee met in September 1977 to act on final details of publication. Responses from the churches on changes made were positive except for the LCMS, whose May convention had set up a "blue ribbon committee" (=Special Hymn Review Committee [SHRC]) to do a further, final review of LBW. President Preus's report to the Synod had recommended a delay of publication, as well as declaring a state of "fellowship in protest" with ALC for "doctrinal aberrations." (39) A bylaw disallowing any group, except the Synod in convention, from authorizing a hymnal was also proposed, and the Commission on Worship was directed to "gather materials for a new hymnal." All of these actions were passed. Theo Delaney submitted his resignation after the convention, predicting that the rest of LCMS's Commission on Worship would also do so by the end of the summer. (40)
The SHRC failed to meet ILCW's January 1978 deadline for final changes, insisting that their review was not yet complete. Paul Foelber, an LCMS representative to ILCW, thereupon resigned from the SHRC. The moderate journal Missouri in Perspective reported that the "Missouri Synod's 'blue-ribbon' panel ... has declined to give assurances that it will give final approval to the new book--even if every change requested by the panel is made." (41) The chair of the SHRC, LCMS vice-president Robert Sauer, stated that it was quite unlikely that LBW would be recommended. Missouri in Perspective opined that "some conservatives will reject the joint hymnal on the grounds that it may give the impression that Synod is in formal fellowship with other participating Lutherans." (42) President Preus attended the November meeting of the SHRC, calling for a new Commission on Worship and a plan for publishing "at the earliest possible time ... a new book of worship-including reasons why some of the contents of the proposed Book of Worship are unacceptable." (43) Such a charge from the president of LCMS would serve to undercut any objectivity in the committee's recommendation. The resignation statement of the LCMS Commission on Worship members, many of whom served on ILCW, stated their well-founded fear that the SHRC "process has served to delay a decision on the LBW until after the other church bodies have proceeded with publication...." (44)
The committee's dutiful attempt to fulfill President Preus's charge to find "reasons" why LBW is "unacceptable" produced some interesting results. Examples of their critique: the collects were also mined for heresies and even the International Consultation on English Texts (ICET) translation of the creeds. (45) One pastor objected to the SHRC's challenge to "catholic" simply because it was different from Luther's Small Catechism. He said the SHRC's preference of Christian "seemed to be based on the German versions of those creeds while giving no hint of the original Greek [or Latin] texts." (46) LCMS professor David Scaer defended the ICET translation of the Nicene Creed, "eternally begotten." He writes: "The new translation is much stronger in its confession of the Son's deity, because his begottenness or birth from the Father is, in fact, 'an ongoing process,' something which the committee finds objectionable." On the other hand, "'begotten of his Father before all worlds' would lend itself more easily to the Arian understanding" (47)--or that of Unitarians or Jehovah's Witnesses!
Of the 569 hymns in LBW, the blue-ribbon committee recommended 504, although only 337 finally made it into LW. "Breathe on me, Breath of God" was criticized for its mysticism and perfectionism: it "could well be accepted and used by enthusiasts and Unitarians." (48) The "modernizations" in LBW #498 are critiqued for changing the language of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, yet this modernization made it into LW #384 unaltered. Similarly, the criticisms of the LBW translation of "A Lamb Goes Uncomplaining Forth" (#105) for changing "My Son" to "my child" in stanza 2 are met with the response: "Who wants a synod so orthodox that they will not allow Paul Gerhardt to say ... 'mein Kind' ... but insists that Gerhardt be corrected to say 'mein Sohn'." (49) Others charged "nit-picking" by a committee with a "foreordained goal." Ultimately the failure of LCMS to give any assurances of future approval of LBW and the refusal of ILCW to extend the deadline of publication constituted the de facto withdrawal of the Missourians from the project their synod had initiated.
The controversies over eucharistic prayer, etc., that emerged during the development of the LBW were tempests in teapots as compared with the tempests that began brewing in the 1970s with the ordination of women and the heresy investigations within LCMS leading to the formation in 1974 of Christ Seminary-Seminex by the majority of the Concordia Seminary--St. Louis students and faculty. Support for Seminex by ALC and LCA seminaries heightened tensions with LCMS, especially for ALC. Its president, David Preus (the cousin of J. A. O. Preus of LCMS), tried to mollify LCMS by stating that such seminary support was "not official ALC policy." Nonetheless, "fellowship" was strained, and LCMS designated the situation "fellowship in protest." LCMS leadership sensed that the dialogues with the Episcopal and Reformed churches were heading toward intercommunion. LCMS was participating in all the ecumenical dialogues, but intercommunion without full doctrinal agreement was regarded as "unionism"--not legitimate ecumenism.
New approaches to the understanding of Communion and its practices had been building in other Lutheran churches since 1960 with the United Lutheran Church's statement: The Sacrament of the Altar and Its Implications. The Sacrament is set in the context of the doctrines of the Church and the Word and focuses on mystery, memorial, eschatological expectation, and evangelical proclamation. The categories of eucharistic sacrifice used by Brilioth and Aulen are not developed, although Aulen's influence is otherwise evident. (50) The 1964 LCA statement (after the 1962 merger with Swedish-American Augustana Synod) is an adaptation of the 1960 United Lutheran Church in America document, with emphasis on self-examination, confession and absolution. (51)
Regarding intercommunion, the LCA Statement's warning against implying "a unity which is not a reality in other realms of faith and order" comes as a bit of a surprise from non-Missourians! (52) But the following statement raised an issue that would become a part of the LCMS objection to eucharistic prayers: "The 'words of institution' are not in themselves a formula of consecration, for there is no precise moment of consecration." (53)
The ALC Statement on Communion Practices of 1968 was a giant step in the direction that ILCW would be moving in the next decade. The influence of Brand on the document was palpable and emphasized (1) anamnesis, (2) community with Christ and his body, the church, (3) eucharistic sacrifice, and (4) the foretaste of the Messianic banquet. Dix's four-action shape of the meal was also evident. In its liturgical experimentations this "basic shape ... must be maintained." (54) In contrast to the LCMS position and the 1964 LCA Statement, the sole criterion for intercommunion in the 1968 ALC Statement was "whether the proclamation of the gospel is compromised or enhanced." This is expanded and expounded on in the 1978 joint statement by ALC and LCA.
In the 1976 draft of this document, the LCA convention objected to the statement: "Corporate confession ... is not required as a part of every service of Holy Communion." The 1978 joint statement as adopted reads: "Corporate confession ... is the normal preparation for the celebration of Holy Communion." (55) This stands in tension with the LBW, which was to appear in Advent 1978, where the use of the Brief Order of Confession was made permissive (LBW, p. 57). The other controversial statement grew out of the decision that pastor, child, and parents shared the decision about when to admit to communion. The implication drawn was: "Thus infant communion is precluded" (the "precluding" was reversed by the 1997 ELCA document, "The Use of the Means of Grace"). On many levels the 1978 statement can be seen as moderating the ILCW's original vision--and, at points, in tension with the LBW. This is even more true of the negative reactions of many ALC leaders to the Pfatteicher and Messerli Manual on The Liturgy (1979), which some saw as a "high church" attempt at taking over the interpretation and practice of LBW.
On the issue of intercommunion, the 1978 ALC/LCA Statement seems to "open" Lutheran altars even more than previous statements. But there are still some cautions: "For Lutheran clergy to be involved as presiding or assisting ministers in the celebrations of Holy Communion in other churches, a reciprocal relationship between the congregations and clergy should prevail." (56) This may be more like what has been called "close communion," but in a way it set the guidelines for what in 1982 became "interim eucharistic sharing" with the Episcopal Church and in ALC's 1986 limited intercommunion with the Presbyterian and Reformed churches. (57) The difference from "close communion" is that reciprocal intercommunion was with other denominations and not just local congregations and clergy. If fellowship with the ALC had not already been broken by the Missouri Synod in 1981, these ecumenical moves would surely have brought that break. From the point of view of the leadership of LCMS, the worst fears of most nineteenth-century confessionalists and some German-American Lutherans into the twenty-first century were realized: the "unionism" they left Germany to escape and the "American Lutheranism" they encountered in the east had finally triumphed in contemporary Lutheranism. It was the General Council, at the urging of the Iowa Synod (currently at war with Missouri Synod over predestination), that passed the infamous Galesburg Rule: (1875), "Lu-theran pulpits for Lutheran pastors only; Lutheran altars for Lutheran communicants only." (58) Ironically, only Missouri and Wisconsin Synod Lutherans follow this procedure: the former would allow some exceptions, and the latter would add Wisconsin Synod to "pastors" and "communicants." The "full communion" with Reformed and Episcopal churches in the 1990s made the intra-Lutheran situation worse.
The LBW project began "in the context of unity" with high hopes that a unity, greater and more ecumenical than what the 1888 Common Service brought, could finally be achieved. Deeper divisions than were imagined or hoped surfaced within LCMS and were dealt with by President Jacob Preus. Part of his strategy seems to have been to distance and ultimately separate LCMS from the LBW. When LW appeared, it was no surprise that the cover was not green. Even the blue book in the pew racks would reassure the faithful that they were within the fellowship of the book. There was to be no confusing of LCMS hymnals with those of other Lutherans--even though early on significant numbers of LCMS congregations purchased LBW.
In spite of the protests and safeguards that Augsburg and Fortress executives tried to build in, because the LCMS also owned the copyright they were able to use--and change--any materials ILCW prepared. And change they did. For example, in LW Divine Service II (pp. 158ff.) they use a mix of TLH and LBW language in their confession and retain their absolution, "I ... forgive you"; in the Nicene Creed they also retained "begotten of his Father before all worlds," "for us men," and "Christian" for catholic (also in the Apostles' Creed). They altered the ICET translation of the Lord's Prayer by retaining "Lead us not into temptation" and placed the Lord's Prayer between the eucharistic prayer and the verba. LW's Divine Service I combines some of the texts of TLH services with or without communion. It also has a brief eucharistic prayer.
On the other hand, two of the ILCW musical settings are used in LW (pp. 158ff. and 178ff.) retaining the Kyrie litany and "This is the Feast"--perhaps the most creative and important addition ILCW made to the sung parts of the liturgy. "Let the Vineyards" and "What Shall I Render"--real offertories, as opposed to "Create in Me"--are retained, as is "Thank the Lord" as a post-communion canticle. Like LBW, it also allows the rite to be used without Communion but makes that a secondary use. Moreover, LW uses a three year lectionary.
My point is that, almost in spite of themselves, through the joint work on ILCW, Lutherans in America have come closer to one another in liturgies and their music, as well as hymns. In spite of ongoing grumblings from some ELCA folk about having been "stuck" with all those LCMS hymns, I am convinced that LBW is a better book for the LCMS contributions, including hymns. One of the premier hymnologists in America, the witty Welshman Erik Routley, was commissioned in 1967 to evaluate TLH and SBH. (59) After LBW was published he did a review of its hymns, calling them "an enormous advance" over TLH and SBH, noting the problems of blending German and Scandinavian traditions into a new hymnal. (60) He also commended ILCW "for declining to abridge texts ruthlessly"--contrary to the protests of "too many stanzas!" (61) He concludes: "Considered as a Lutheran manifesto ... it is an impressive piece of work." (62)
In relation to the high hopes not only for church unity but also for renewal that most of us on ILCW's committees shared, Pfatteicher sounded a realistic note already in 1971. He acknowledged the "nagging suspicion, unacknowledged and usually unspoken.... Surely liturgical revision--no matter how skillful or exciting--is not alone going to revitalize the Church in the 20th century." (63) In the decade from 1978 to 1988, when ELCA was budding or aborning, multiple disappointments over LBW--from the absence of Ylvisaker's folk setting to this or that hymn--gave rise to rumors and realities of "worship wars." Indeed, the desire for and shift to "contemporary" or "alternative" liturgies and hymns was well underway in congregations across the land. GIA with its 1991 Hymnal Supplement was supplying the liturgies of Marty Haugen for Catholic and Lutheran congregations. Many congregations were turning elsewhere for liturgies bearing little resemblance to the Western rite, the Common Service, or the LBW. Until With One Voice (1995), This Far by Faith (1999), and Worship and Praise (1999) appeared, Augsburg Fortress had provided few significant supplements to LBW. Eugene Brand had expressed the hope that the next worship book after LBW would be ecumenical. The near-bloody history of worship wars, the struggle for a Lutheran Christian identity, the decline of mainline churches due to their failures in evangelism--all these seem to have postponed Brand's dream, and "renewing worship" is underway again. Whether we have learned from the development and use of LBW is yet to be seen.
(1) ILCW Worship-brief, No. 6 (March 1977): 1f.
(2) LBW, p. 214; cf. Apology XXIV.94-96.
(3) One principle of selection/exclusion became an issue in the LCMS debate that grew in 1976-1977. It concerned the rejection of some traditional lessons as "no longer exegetically defensible." Paul Foelber wrote to Brand Feb. 7, 1977 asking which selections were meant. John Reumann, chair of the LTC Lectionary Subcommittee, responded to Foelber Feb. 18, 1977, citing the allegory in Gal 4:21-31, the end of Mark (16:14-20), 1 John 5:7f., and for Trinity IV, Num 6:22-27.
(4) Cf. Philip H. Pfatteicher, Festivals and Commemorations: Handbook to the Calendar in Lutheran Book of Worship (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1980), 16-18.
(5) Oliver K. Olson, "Luther's Catholic Minimum," Response XI, 1 & 2 (Pentecost 1970), 17-31.
(6) Lowell C. Green, "The New Holy Communion Rite--II: Historical and Practical Questions," Lutheran Forum 5:4 (April 1971), 12f.
(7) Frank Senn, "Open Forum," Lutheran Forum 5:8 (October 1971), 20.
(8) Arthur Carl Piepkorn, "The Rite, I," Church Music 71:2 (1971), 36f.
(9) Oliver K. Olson, "The Mix Makes a Muddle," Lutheran Standard 12 (June 12, 1972): 11.
(10) Gordon W. Lathrop, "On Bringing the Ark from Ashdod to Jerusalem: Reflections on the Use of the Eucharistic Prayer in Lutheran Celebrations," Response XIII, 2 (Pentecost 1973),6.
(11) Worship: Good News in Action, ed. Mandus A. Egge (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1973), 17-22.
(12) Worship: Good News, 57-61.
(13) Eugene Brand, "Responses," Response X, 3 & 4 (1971), 97f.
(14) Eugene Brand, "The ILCW: Dimensions of its Task," Dialog 14 (Spring 1975): 94.
(15) Oliver K. Olson, "Contemporary Trends in Liturgy Viewed from the Perspective of Classical Lutheran Theology," Lutheran Quarterly 26:2 (May 1974), 111.
(16) For further detail on this symposium see Ralph W. Quere, in the Context of Unity: A History of the Development of the Lutheran Book of Worship (Minneapolis: Kirk House, in press), 48-52.
(17) Frank C. Senn, "Contemporary Liturgical Theology," Response XIII, 1 (1974), 10-12.
(18) Paul Rorem, "Luther's objection to a Eucharistic Prayer," The Cresset 38 (March 1975): 5, 12.
(19) Robert W. Jenson, "Eucharist: Its Relative Necessity, Specific Warrant and Traditional Order," Dialog 14 (Spring 1975): 124-26.
(20) Gerhard Forde and Robert W. Jenson, "A 'Great Thanksgiving' for Lutherans?" (NY: ILCW, n.d.), 1. Cf. Response 15 (Fall 1975): 3 & 4, 49-52, and Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 5:80f., 259, 265; and 1:333-39.
(21) The Episcopal Church in the United States of America, The Draft Proposed Book of Common Prayer (New York: Church Hymnal Corp., 1976), 354.
(22) These proposals are contained in the undated booklet by ILCW titled "Liturgical Texts," pp. 1-8.
(23) Lowell C. Green, "Between Luther and the 'Now' Generation: Some Thoughts about 'Contemporary Worship' as Advanced by the Inter-Lutheran Commission on Worship," The Springfielder 39 (Dec. 1975): 81.
(24) Arnold F. Krugler, "The Words of Institution: Proclamation or Prayer?" Concordia Journal II (March 1976): 2, 57.
(25) See Forum Letters 2-5 (Feb. 1976-May 1995).
(26) Gottfried G. Krodel, "The Great Thanksgiving of the Inter-Lutheran Commission on Worship: It Is the Christians' Supper and Not the Lord's Supper," The Cresset, Occasional Paper I (1976): 19f.
(27) Clarence L. Lee, "The Great Thanksgiving: A Critical Review," The Mt. Airy Parish Practice Notebook, No. 10 (June 1976), 5-7.
(28) [D. Judisch], "The Deepening Liturgical Crisis," Concordia Theological Quarterly XLI, 1 (Jan. 1977): 50.
(29) E. Theo. DeLaney, "The Deepening Liturgical Crisis: A Response," unpublished document, Concordia Historical Institute file ETD 848, 7-9.
(30) Editorial, "Whatever Became of Common ['just plain old-fashioned horse'] Sense?" The Bride of Christ 1:2 (May 1977).
(31) Paul J. Foelber, "Lutheran Book of Worship," Concordia Journal 3 (May 1977): 3, 107-9.
(32) Wayne E. Schmidt, "Lutheran Book of Worship--A Perspective," Concordia Journal 3 (May 1977): 3, 102-5.
(33) Schmidt, "Lutheran Book of Worship," 105.
(34) David Held, "Issues at Dallas: The Proposed New Hymnal," The Lutheran Witness (May 22, 1977), 198f.
(35) Kenneth P. Kothe, "Issues at Dallas: The Proposed New Hymnal;" The Lutheran Witness (May 22, 1977), 199f.
(36) Richard T. Du Bran, "Issues at Dallas: The Proposed New Hymnal;" The Lutheran Witness (May 22, 1977), 200f.
(37) Eugene L. Brand, Position Paper on Liturgical Matters, Mar. 4, 1976 (Confidential), 1.
(38) Brand, Position Paper, 2f.
(39) Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod Convention Proceedings, 52nd Regular Convention, Dallas, Texas, July 15-22, 1977, 67, 125f.
(40) Ibid., 128.
(41) Missouri in Perspective (Oct. 24, 1977), 2.
(43) SHRC Min. of Nov. 18-19, 1977, 17. This document is in the LCMS Archives at Concordia Historical Institute in St. Louis.
(44) Missouri in Perspective (Dec. 5, 1977), 10.
(45) International Consultation on English Texts, Prayers We Have in Common (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 4-9.
(46) Letter from Rev. Philip Bohlken to SHRC, May 16, 1978.
(47) Letter from David Scaer to Lutheran Witness, May 10, 1978.
(48) LCMS, Report and Recommendations of the SHRC, n.d., 31-37.
(49) Letter from Winfred Schaller to SHRC, June 11, 1978.
(50) Liturgical Reconnaissance: Papers presented at the inter-Lutheran Consultation on Worship, Feb. 10-11, 1966, ed. Edgar S. Brown (Chicago and Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968), 34, para. 2.
(51) The Second Biennial Convention of the Lutheran Church in America, Pittsburgh, July 2-9, 1964, Minutes, 300.
(52) Ibid., 298.
(53) Ibid., 301.
(54) The American Lutheran Church, "Statement on Communion Practice," statement adopted by the Fourth General Convention of the ALC on Oct. 19, 1968, 2-4.
(55) The American Lutheran Church and the Lutheran Church in America, "Statement on Communion Practices," Advent 1978, adopted by the 1978 conventions, I:3.
(56) Ibid., 7.
(57) The American Lutheran Church, "Lutheran and Presbyterian-Reformed Agreement 1986: A Study Guide" (Minneapolis: Office of the Presiding Bishop, n.d.), 21: para. 3, "providing for occasional joint services of the Lord's Supper where appropriate and desirable, and in accord with the disciplines of our several churches." See also para. 6.
(58) R. C. Wolf, Documents of Lutheran Unity in America (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), 171; cf. 167-78.
(59) Quere, In the Context, 17-18.
(60) Erik Routley, "The New Lutheran Book of Worship: A Preview of Hymns," Worship 52 (Sept. 1978), 5, 403f.
(61) Ibid., 407.
(63) Philip H. Pfatteicher, "The New Holy Communion Rite--III: Seven clear achievements," Lutheran Forum 5, No. 4 (April 1971): 15.
Carlos R. Messerli Founding Director, Emeritus Lutheran Music Program
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Quere, Ralph W.|
|Publication:||Currents in Theology and Mission|
|Date:||Oct 1, 2003|
|Previous Article:||Lutheran Book of Worship: successes and failures--a review for pastors and musicians.|
|Next Article:||Some thoughts on the hymnody of Lutheran Book of Worship: context, issues, and legacy.|