• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

LEX ORANDI LEX CREDENDI TWO MEMOIRS OF MAKING THE LUTHERAN BOOK OF WORSHIP Philip H. Pfatteicher, Gracia Grindal COOPERATIVE VENTURES IN LITURGY and the Common Service Book (1917–1918) laid the ground- work for the merger that produced the United Lutheran Church in America, and the work on the Service Book and Philip H. Pfatteicher Hymnal prepared the way for the mergers that produced the American Lutheran Church and the Lutheran Church hortly after his election as Bishop of Rome, John XXIII, in America. A new, common liturgical book, it was hoped Swho at age seventy-seven was expected to be a merely by many, could prepare for a yet more inclusive Lutheran transitional pontiff, announced his intention to convoke a unity. It was a heady and exciting time.3 Council of the Roman Church to renew it by “opening the The work of the Second Vatican Council had brought windows to let in some fresh air,” as he put it. The Second into focus the liturgical scholarship of the earlier decades Vatican Council began its work in 1962; the first document of the twentieth century, the changing needs and practices it produced was the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, of the culture, and a broadening view of the world. What promulgated by Pope Paul VI on December 4, 1963. A the Roman church declared in the documents of Vatican half-century later, its fiftieth anniversary was the occasion II reflected what many Christians outside Rome were also of a number of observances and publications evaluating learning and teaching. the legacy of the Constitution on the Liturgy. Part of that The work of the Second Vatican Council had its effect legacy is the Lutheran Book of Worship of 1978. on the Anglican world as well. As Lutherans began work The first and most important observation to be made on their book, Episcopalians were working on a revision about the LBW is that it was a cooperative venture, and that of the American Book of Common Prayer, continuing its dis- fact immensely enriched the book. The LBW was the joint tinctive traditions and making use of the emerging work work of the principal Lutheran bodies in North America.1 of the Roman church. There was therefore a remarkable The initial invitation to begin the work was, as a result of convergence of the effort of three Christian bodies, and necessary political maneuvers,2 issued by the Lutheran the Lutherans were the beneficiaries of the work of the Church–Missouri Synod in 1965 to five other Lutheran Roman Catholics as well as of the Episcopalians. Luther- bodies to join work on a common liturgical book and hym- ans were moving out of the confines of their own tradi- nal: the American Lutheran Church, the Lutheran Church tions and learning to open their eyes to other traditions and in America, the Synod of Evangelical Lutheran Churches, practices to the enrichment of their own life and worship. the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, and the Evan- Indeed, one Lutheran pastor, having examined the 1976 gelical Lutheran Synod. Even though the lcmS withdrew Proposed Book of Common Prayer, which was identical to the from the process just before its completion, the work of final form approved in 1979, exclaimed, “Why don’t we its representatives was invaluable throughout the entire save ourselves further work and just adopt this?” process. The Inter-Lutheran Commission on Worship was for- The Service Book and Hymnal, itself the product of eight mally organized in November 1966. The IlcW created cooperating Lutheran churches, was only seven years old four working committees: a Liturgical Text Committee (of at the time work on the new hymnal began. One might which I was a member), a Liturgical Music Committee, a therefore argue that the new one was premature, but Hymn Text Committee, and a Hymn Music Committee. developments in the world of liturgy and music were mov- The four committees met separately two, sometimes three ing quickly. Many Lutherans cherished Henry Melchior times a year for the ten years it took to draft the new book, Muhlenberg’s hope for one people using one book, and the and individual studies and work continued throughout the invitation from the Missouri Synod was too promising to year. The LBW was the product of a long and careful pro- pass up. Moreover, the work on the Common Service (1888) cess of creation. 22 SUMMER 2015 The eventual inclusion of Canadian Catholics was quickly accepted and mover in this effort) are identified by Lutheran representatives enriched adapted by Anglicans and Lutherans an asterisk in the index of first lines our perspective. Americans had to and eventually by other denomina- in the LBW. Unfortunately, the LBW was think carefully about references to the tions as well. As we worked on the text the only hymnal to employ the recom- national government; there were two of the liturgy, we found ourselves con- mendations. countries to be considered, with two stantly looking over the shoulders of Although the ecumenical conver- different forms of rule. A classic and our Roman and Anglican colleagues gence was exciting, it was not a prom- instructive example of the use of lan- to see what they were doing, how they ising time for the English language. guage comes to my mind. One Ameri- were handling difficult issues, which Nearly everyone by the time of the can representative, in the interest of texts they were altering. The work was publication of the LBW had turned straightforward language, suggested thoroughly cooperative and, indeed, from the Tudor forms such as “beseech replacing “purificator” with “napkin.” generally congenial. thee” to contemporary usage like “ask The Canadian member of the com- Lutherans expect their service you.” But it was also a time of relaxing mittee responded, “Why would you book to be two books in one: a litur- standards of speech as well as dress ever want to do that?” “For clarity gical book and a hymnal. When the and manners. Elegance of language, and simplicity.” “But,” the Canadian Missouri Synod proposed a joint which includes precision, clarity, and continued, “a napkin is what you call rhythm, was losing its appeal. The a ‘diaper’; it’s a ‘nappie’ for a baby or A basic principle for makers of the Service Book and Hymnal a ‘sanitary napkin’ for a menstruating could agree that their goal in the col- woman.” “Oh,” said the American. the liturgical work lection of hymns was to make “not “What then do you call what Ameri- simply the finest Lutheran hymnal but cans call a ‘napkin’?” “Serviette.” So was that the new the finest English-language hymnal.”4 the word remained “purificator.” Such an expectation and hope of A basic principle for the liturgi- book should be no excellence was not on the horizon for cal work, enunciated by Hans Boeh- the drafters of the LBW. Jean-François ringer of the lcmS, was that the new less inclusive than the Lyotard, in The Postmodern Condition book should be no less inclusive than (1984), lamented that our “epoch is the previous books. So the Athana- previous books. one of slackening.” sian Creed, although not often used, With the changing language came was included, as it had been in The effort, the invitation was to work on also a changing sensitivity to the Lutheran Hymnal of the lcmS. Some a common liturgy and at least a com- emerging issues in society and cul- wanted to exclude Matins, Vespers, mon core of hymns. It was assumed ture. In the third stanza of hymn 519, and the Litany because they were that Lutherans could agree on the lit- the description of God as “father” in seldom employed in congregational urgy without much controversy. After The Lutheran Hymnal’s translation was practice any more, but the principle all, the Common Service of 1888 replaced with “mother,” an interest- held: they had been in all the prede- had been adopted by most of the ing but awkward step toward inclu- cessor Lutheran books, and so they Lutheran bodies in North America. siveness, especially since the pronoun were retained. In addition, the daily But it was assumed that we probably following was “his,” but “mother,” offices were enriched by the emerging could not agree on a common collec- present in the original German (Mut- revisions of the Roman and Episcopal tion of hymns, perhaps because of the terhänden) of hymn 285 in the Common churches. various ethnic traditions represented Service Book of 1917–1918 and accu- The desire for cooperation and in American Lutheranism: German, rately translated by Frances Elizabeth furthering unity also influenced the Scandinavian, Slovak, English. The Cox, was removed in the adaptation inclusion of the entire Psalter (in the work on the hymn collection took into of Cox’s translation of that hymn (LBW Ministers Desk Edition) in the transla- account a proposal by the Consulta- 542). Some of the changes and rewrit- tion of the American Book of Common tion on Ecumenical Hymnody re- ings were clear triumphs. The trans- Prayer (with just one word changed, commending 150 hymns and tunes to lation of Bartholomäus Ringwaldt’s in Psalm 8:1, from “Govern-or” to serve as a common core of hymnals “The Day Is Surely Drawing Near” “Lord”), and the borrowing of the of the various denominations. Eighty (321) is a distinct improvement on the two-year daily lectionary from the BCP additional hymns and tunes were previous English translation in The with only minor alterations and addi- also recommended. These hymns Lutheran Hymnal: “And hungry flames tions to provide alternative readings recommended by the Ecumenical shall ravage earth/As Scripture long for those who did not use the Apoc- Consultation (Mandus Egge, Execu- has warned us,” for example, power- rypha.

Load more

  6

Copy Link