Author Topic: Review of Evangelical Lutheran Worship  (Read 37132 times)

Richard Johnson

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10700
  • Create in me a clean heart, O God.
    • View Profile
Re: Review of Evangelical Lutheran Worship
« Reply #90 on: September 13, 2006, 01:22:11 PM »
You will note that Harvey is responding to a message that does not appear on the board. That's because I removed it, after complaints about his intemperate language from other readers.  I also warned the original poster that if he doesn't want to play nice, he should find another sandbox.
The Rev. Richard O. Johnson, STS

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 45268
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Review of Evangelical Lutheran Worship
« Reply #91 on: September 13, 2006, 01:37:59 PM »
there is no Introduction, a weakness IMO, but the RW one may have been dropped because there was no male/female husband/wife distinction which allowed a reading for something less than tradtional couples.

There is an opening comment that is printed in the book:

Marriage is a gift of God, intended for the joy and mutual strength of those who enter it and for the well-being of the whole human family. God created humankind male and female and blessed them with the gifts of companionship, the capacity to love, and the care and nurture of children. Jesus affirmed the covenant of marriage and revealed God's own self-giving love on the cross. The Holy Spirit helps those who are united in marriage to be living signs of Godís grace, love, and faithfulness.

Marriage is also a human estate, with vows publicly witnessed. The church in worship surrounds these promises with the gathering of Godís people, the witness of the word of God, and prayers of blessing and intercession.


I'm sure that if a minister wanted, s/he could read this as the introduction -- if the assembly is using the hymnals, they could read it themselves.

Quote
in the Declaration of Intention, living together was to be in HOLY marriage and in ELW in the COVENANT of marriage, perhaps HOLY sounded too sacramental to some...† (now it sounds Proty to me)

LBW had no Declaration of Intent. Covenant is a very appropriate description of marriage -- and a good biblical concept. I'm not sure how a "Holy" marriage might be different from a regular marriage?

Quote
the assembly is asked to support (not however everything IN YOUR POWER... maybe an overstatment) but there is no request of specifically, the Family... some realistic understanding that Families are not always, and maybe too often not involved in the marriage of a couple today???

I was surprised not to see the family and children options in ELW. Perhaps these will be listed in the minister's edition.

Quote
Prayer of the Day is not the LBW one (as offered by RW) but a new one that does not mention the Cana Affair but more generically what Christ did to reveal divine love to all people... perhaps an acknowledgement that many in the assembly will not have the foggest what Cana is all about... there could have been an explanatory clause... e.g. at Cana, where your Son made water into wine, or something like that???

The rubrics state: "The presiding minister leads the following or another prayer of the day." A minister is certainly free to use the Cana prayer, and could even insert, "where Jesus turned water into wine," if s/he wanted.

Quote
No hand holding in ELW as there was in RW (altho, people will do whatever they want to with their hands and tissues, breath mints, rabbits feet, flowers and the like....

The rubric under vows says: "The couple may join hands."

Quote
No ring blessing cause some Lutherans bless pizza but not things in church...

I wish they would have kept the blessing. Perhaps their will be a comment about that in the minister's edition.

Quote
In the Acclamation, the husband and wife BIND themselves in RW and in ELW we are afraiid of BONDAGE (in a confessional sense, sic) and so they JOIN themsleves.† Also the the warning is not to ASUNDER them in RW and ELW makes the deed one of SEPARATION....

Yes, but the acclamation is immediately followed with: "Those whom God has joined together let no one separate." "Joined" is a more biblical word. Both "join" and "separate" are the words used in the NRSV and TNIV translations (Mt 19:6 ; Mk 10:9)

Quote
the RW's NUPTIAL Blessing becomes a more contemporary MARRIAGE Blessing... the paragraphs are shortened and made less wordy, Mary is introduced as a mother but not the BVM.† There is no epiclisis... SEND your Holy Spirit, as in RW, but rather BY THE POWER of the Holy Spirit pour...

It is much more of a blessing than in LBW. The rubrics allow the minister to use "similar words". My guess is that there will other options in a minister's book. I liked the option in RW of offering a blessing for children (to be born or those already in the family).

I have a bit of a struggle of how appropriate is it to involve children of the bride and/or groom in the wedding ceremony. While the wedding is the religious and civil joining of a husband and wife and that should be the emphasis. However, the wedding also creates a family that involves the children. RW had a question that could be addresed to the bride and groom about parenting the child/ren, and one to the child/ren about helping the parents in their marriage? I've seen weddings where a step-parent made a vow and gave a gift to the step-child. I've seen a wedding where there were five smaller candles -- one for the bride and groom and three for the bride's children. All participated in lighting the unity candle. Is that appropriate in a wedding?

Quote
The RW Intercessions (for better or worse) are reduced to a rubric indicating that they take place (I believe that is true also in the Funeral Rite.† It seems to me that might be done to allow for a variety of prayers, when the book is used (tho I will not use the things in pews) it does give a Asssembly with many non-Lutherans in attendance the chance to see and perhaps use a well-written prayer...

It is usually true when there are intercessions that just the responses are given. They, the sermon, and announcements are about the only thing that I do not include in our worship bulletin. I think that I would rather have nothing printed in the book, rather than having a series of petitions printed, and the minister use other petitions. While the LBW had intercessions for the Burial of the Dead liturgy, there was a second set in the ministers book that I would sometimes use. My hunch is that there will be examples of intercessions in a ministers edition. If a pastor wants, they could be included in a bulletin.

Quote
ELW is a stronger in its rubric indicating A SERVICE OF HC CONTINUES WITH...† rather than RW's WHEN HC IS CELEBRATED...† though I take it as weakness that a post communion prayer is not indicated in the text of the ELW as it was in RW.

I think RW was a provisional liturgy in which different options were printed for use and critique. That is not quite the same as printing a hymnal which is for the assembly (not necessarily the worship leaders). With LBW there was a minimum of rubrics and options printed in the book. A fuller range of options and rubrics were in the minister's desk edition (and there was the Manual, which explained options even more fully). At times, e.g., for synod assembly worship, the worship folders include even less than in the hymnals, e.g., not including the entire Prayer of Thanksgiving, but only cue lines for the assembly's responses. Thus a post-communion prayer for weddings may be included in a ministers book.

Quote
in the ELW there is no music rubric at the end of the rite...

There's nothing in the Holy Communion liturgy about music before or after the liturgy. Perhaps correctly since preludes and postludes are not really part of the liturgy.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2006, 01:49:59 PM by Brian Stoffregen »
"The church Ö had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Richard Johnson

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10700
  • Create in me a clean heart, O God.
    • View Profile
Re: Review of Evangelical Lutheran Worship
« Reply #92 on: September 13, 2006, 02:30:20 PM »
I'm going to weigh in with Brian on this one. I think the RW marriage rite is a great improvement over the LBW, which always seemed clunky and weird to me. I wish they had included a blessing of the rings, but then LBW didn't have that either, and it is easy enough to add (I do it routinely).

And perhaps I might add here a comment Frank Senn made on another forum: What we have now, or will soon, is the book itself, as it is. Not as some proposed it. It is not fair to critique in terms of "what I'm sure they were thinking when they wrote it this way." You don't know what they were thinking, and even if you did, what "they" were thinking, or what "their" motivation was, or even how some of "them" interpret the text as we have it, is all irrelevant. The only question for us is, can these liturgies (and hymns), in their present form, be used faithfully by pastors and congregations who hold to a standard of orthodoxy? Frank mentioned, interestingly, the Reformation era conflicts over the Book of Common Prayer, which often could be interpreted in diverse ways by diverse readers--and usually, the text itself didn't really demand either interpretation. Texts are what they are; the fact that the author may have meant something unsavory, or that some user of the text may use it in an unsavory way, is not really the issue.

(Frank was not arguing for or against use of ELW; he was simply stating the principles on which the book needs to be interpreted and critiqued.)           
The Rev. Richard O. Johnson, STS

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 45268
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Review of Evangelical Lutheran Worship
« Reply #93 on: September 13, 2006, 08:21:11 PM »
I'm going to weigh in with Brian on this one.

Unfortunately, I think that the balance scale would be tilted in my direction.

Quote
And perhaps I might add here a comment Frank Senn made on another forum: What we have now, or will soon, is the book itself, as it is.

Frank often says or writes wise things. Even though I have and will continue to defend the book, there are options I don't like and probably won't use and that's the benefit of having options. (I haver used setting 3 in LBW, but I know pastors and congregations who enjoy it.) ELW is a worship book that I can use -- and use worshipfully and orthodoxially with the people under my care. What will matter to the people in the pews is how I (and our worship committee and worship leaders) make use of this resource, not what we think someone may have been thinking in Chicago.

My hunch is that there are things in ELW that every member in the ELCA will find to like -- and things they will dislike (and their lists of likes and dislikes will differ). Personally, I find more likeable stuff than the other.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2006, 08:22:56 PM by Brian Stoffregen »
"The church Ö had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Steven Tibbetts

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10213
  • Big tents are for circuses.
    • View Profile
Re: Review of Evangelical Lutheran Worship
« Reply #94 on: September 13, 2006, 10:49:03 PM »
Even though I have and will continue to defend the book, there are options I don't like and probably won't use and that's the benefit of having options. (I haver used setting 3 in LBW, but I know pastors and congregations who enjoy it.)

You know, Brian, options in musical settings -- something the Church has been doing since the Mass was set to music -- is not the same kind of "option" as altered liturgical texts.† So while you regularly use this comparison, I find it demeaning of the entire (attempt at) dialogue.

 :( spt+
« Last Edit: September 13, 2006, 10:51:05 PM by Steven P. Tibbetts »
The Rev. Steven Paul Tibbetts, STS
Pastor Zip's Blog

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 45268
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Review of Evangelical Lutheran Worship
« Reply #95 on: September 14, 2006, 12:12:06 AM »
You know, Brian, options in musical settings -- something the Church has been doing since the Mass was set to music -- is not the same kind of "option" as altered liturgical texts.† So while you regularly use this comparison, I find it demeaning of the entire (attempt at) dialogue.

Although I used the example of a musical setting, I was primarily referring to options in the texts. Within the Confession and Forgiveness rite there are two beginning statements; two prayers of prepration, two confessions of sins, two absolutions. In addition, one could use the seasonal rites in Sundays and Seasons and have even more options (what I presently do). Some I will like and use. Some I may not like and not use.

There are three optional prayers after "setting the table." I will probably use all three at different times. There are 10 options for the Great Thanksgiving (plus just saying the Words of Institution). Some of those I like better than others and will probably use. Others I may never introduce to the congregation. While there are only two "invitations to the meal," I am likely to use more than those that are printed. I will probably use all three of the prayers after communion, plus those in Sundays and Seasons. I will probably use all three benedictions.

Once the congregation has the books, (if we purchase them,) they become the property of the congregation for us to use as we think best for our congregation. This does not mean that we have to use all the options of texts available. We may never use Morning & Evening Prayer -- I've never used them from LBW in a congregation. They may be some hymns that we never sing.

If there are options of texts or music or lyrics that a minister doesn't like, don't use them. If a minister doesn't like the translation of the psalms in ELW, don't use them. I almost never used the psalms in LBW. Other translations can be used -- what I usually do. GIA has ten volumes of musical settings of Psalms for the Church Year -- I've used some of these. John Ylvisaker has paraphrased psalm-songs, I believe for every Sunday in the lectionary -- I've used some of them. Somewhere I've got a book of metrical psalms that can be sung to familiar hymn-tunes -- haven't used that.

It was stressed in the introductions to LBW that it was a worship resource. It did not have to be the only worship resource that a congregation used. I'm sure that you, like me, have many other worship resources that we can pull from for creating liturgies that we think work best with our congregations as we lead them in worship.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2006, 12:26:42 AM by Brian Stoffregen »
"The church Ö had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Steven Tibbetts

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10213
  • Big tents are for circuses.
    • View Profile
Re: Review of Evangelical Lutheran Worship
« Reply #96 on: September 15, 2006, 12:07:38 AM »
Clearly, Brian, you are not comprehending what I am writing.†

I believe that this seemingly infinite variety that has suddenly become the ELCA's liturgical modus operandi ("suddenly" in the sense of being a 180% reversal of attitude in only one generation -- LBW was not, at least for us in the LCA and for those who bore the appelation "liturgist," one option among many, but the church's liturgy) is detrimental to the practice of the Christian Faith, particularly in a Lutheran context.

Listing all the possible options, counting the number of times "Father" can be used, admitting that some of the possible options are ones that you would never use, noting that some "thees and thous" have been restored in old hymns, etc. simply do not address what I have been saying.† It's a passing strange use of "dialogue" you practice here, and (for the moment at least) I've grown weary of your dancing.†

spt+
The Rev. Steven Paul Tibbetts, STS
Pastor Zip's Blog

Harvey_Mozolak

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4857
    • View Profile
    • line and letter lettuce
Re: Review of Evangelical Lutheran Worship
« Reply #97 on: September 15, 2006, 07:15:02 AM »
† It's a passing strange use of "dialogue" you practice here, and (for the moment at least) I've grown weary of your dancing.†

sometimes I think, Steve, that it would be interesting, perhaps even helpful, if we met each other apart from our computer super egos and keyboard ids... (I say the following about myself as well as others)  maybe then we would be more thoughtful about how we respond rather than deal with each other, merely, on a point for point basis...  more the pastoral heart than the pastoral head...  each of us seems to have taken a position and we defend it and attack from it allowing no crack in the armor of our word processed personality...  I know such is the nature of most online conversations but it doesn't have to be that way...  my wife (who is a social worker) is frequently saying to mouthy-me, did you know you said that?  NO, I didn't say that (yes I did).  Did you hear that they said such and so and you didn't pick up on it and just kept.... NO WAY!! (really?  I guess so)  Of course, I hate both pathologically clinical clergy and pious prigs.  I want to think tho, that both sides (for instance) on ELW want to know something of the other view point.  Why are they objecting so vociferously?  Why are they asserting so vigilantly?  Does either side see any danger to their OWN position?  And perhaps most importantly, at least to me, what will be happening if it is used or banned-- three, five and ten years from now.  Can a way be found to use some and publically oppose other portions of the book in way that goes beyond merely a parish pick and choose and has some national impact for third editions and general useage.  For instance, at our Synod Assembly this summer, I heard for the first time, someone publically redo portions of an LBW liturgy to avoid the use of the word LORD.  From my perspective, I was not happy.  Will the other side be upset when I as a leader (next year for example) rearrange a prayer, psalm or whatever, to reinclude LORD or FATHER or whateve when an ELW liturgy is usedr?  Should there be some public challenge or groundswelling movement to nicely force AF to send all owners of ELW a sticky-backed Athanasian Creed to paste into one of the cover pages.  Maybe it is beyond, who gave the right to change and remove and has moved now to how can some things be restored.  I wonder for instance, if I use portions of ELW through online AF Sundays and Seasons and say I print in my bulletin the GLORIA, will I be able legally to change GOD'S ONLY SON to HIS ONLY SON and will they give me such a TIFF file so I don't have to cut and paste?  Will, can someone, provide an editorial sheet that highlights areas of concern in ELW where one might wish to change, not use, explain, study the end product (maybe the other side wants the same, where the book did not go far enough).    A few years ago, AF published a pre-marital manual for couples to use and I liked much of it except that one page on sexuality discussed preganancy in such a way that while it did not recomend or laud abortion, it certainly allowed for it without what I considered any real restraint, much less opposition to abortion.  I ended up making a label disclaimer and pasting it in all the copies I give out.  In the new AKALOO materials (high school material)... I still find it strange that in these days when we all want at least a modicum of modernity in our language we insert a Greek word that has no English cognate, hmmmm... there is this page, again in a  sexuality section (coincidence I suppose) that speaks about the fact that Jesus' conception was little diffeent and goes on to say (I think) that early Chritistians thought he was soooo special that they decided to say that his was a virgin birth.  Evidently the Holy Spirit cannot conceive of inspiration or biological truth-telling to the biblical writers but can MAYBE conceive in a womb that maybe is marginally virginal. I hope I read the thing wrong.  So how do you use such a book.  More Avery labels?  Avoid useage?  How do you tell the church.  That is what confronts our pastoral heads and hearts.     Harvey Mozolak
Harvey S. Mozolak
my poetry blog is listed below:

http://lineandletterlettuce.blogspot.com

Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Re: Review of Evangelical Lutheran Worship
« Reply #98 on: September 15, 2006, 10:34:38 AM »
There has - perhaps sadly - never been a time when Lutheranism had "one" liturgy. Consider the differences in post-Reformation continental Europe and Scandinavia. Perhaps we came close in this country with the 1918 Common Service book, but the usage of that book varied widely. Ditto for the 1958 SBH, although I recall the hooh-hah that attended that publication, especially from some midwesterners who considered it too "Romanist."

Actually as I traveled around in the late 1980s and early 1990s, I found more "commonality" if not uniformity in liturgies at synod conventions and in parishes than I had experienced earlier.

I am among those who strongly lament the impact that "entertainment evangelism," "seekers' services," and related developments have had on the classic liturgy of the Church and I have resisted doing such things in my own ministry. Pastors who head those directions, alas, will do so no matter what the "basic resource" is for our worship.

Now it seems to me that ELW provides us with some interesting and creative alternatives which can be applied to the "orthodox" liturgy without destroying its catholicity. The departure from that catholicity is quite a different problem and in my opinion is not related to the publication of this worship resource.

(And while we are talking "publication," allow me to add a gentle plea to online posters: Please remember what your eighth grade English teacher told your about paragraphs and punctuation. It's hard enough reading small print online without the whole screen being a gray mass of letters. And paragraphing will help you organize your thoughts.)

CMA
Once-an-English-major-always-an-English-major
« Last Edit: September 15, 2006, 10:39:04 AM by Charles_Austin »

Kurt Strause

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile
Re: Review of Evangelical Lutheran Worship
« Reply #99 on: September 15, 2006, 11:22:32 AM »
Charles wrote:
....although I recall the hooh-hah that attended that publication(the SBH), especially from some midwesterners who considered it too "Romanist."


I notice that ELW includes the option of the Verba alone for the eucharist. I understand the tortured history for that decision, going back to Luther. I also know that some pastors of my vintage and earlier refrain from using a eucharistic prayer for theological reasons. My question really is this: are there any graduates of our Lutheran seminaries (ELCA or LCMS) who are being taught today that the use of a eucharistic prayer is theologically improper?

Kurt

ELCA pastor, Lancaster, PA

Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Re: Review of Evangelical Lutheran Worship
« Reply #100 on: September 15, 2006, 11:52:20 AM »
Kurt Straus writes:
My question really is this: are there any graduates of our Lutheran seminaries (ELCA or LCMS) who are being taught today that the use of a eucharistic prayer is theologically improper?

I respond:
I hope not because it is not.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 45268
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Review of Evangelical Lutheran Worship
« Reply #101 on: September 15, 2006, 12:51:10 PM »
Clearly, Brian, you are not comprehending what I am writing.

I'm sorry. Perhaps I shouldn't be trying to understand and respond to notes after midnight.

Quote
I believe that this seemingly infinite variety that has suddenly become the ELCA's liturgical modus operandi ("suddenly" in the sense of being a 180% reversal of attitude in only one generation -- LBW was not, at least for us in the LCA and for those who bore the appelation "liturgist," one option among many, but the church's liturgy) is detrimental to the practice of the Christian Faith, particularly in a Lutheran context.

Yes there has been changes in our understanding of a "church's liturgy". I remember when I began the ordained ministry, ALC constitutions said something about using only approved liturgies of the church, which was the SBH. At the same time, congregations were encouraged to use the Contemporary Worship Series -- not yet approved by the Church. Isn't that sending a mixed message?

However, prior to that, I was on gospel singing teams that went into Lutheran congregations and led worship, often without using one bit of SBH's liturgy. At an LCMS college, there were all kinds of experimental liturgies floating around. Norman Habel, prior to John Ylvisaker, used all kinds of folk tunes and paraphrased texts for different parts of the liturgy, e.g., paraphrased Words of Institution to "Blowin' in the Wind." Many congregations, even prior to LBW, did not abide by their constitutional statement about using only approved liturgies.

Within LBW is the "Chorale Service of Holy Communion" that follows the tradition of Luther's German Mass in which parts of the liturgy are replaced with hymns (metrical paraphrases). This suggests that even the "church's liturgy" allowed for paraphrases to be used. However, it raises the issue if this "Chorale Service" is presented as an unchangeable liturgical setting (only the hymns listed in the liturgy should be used or a model of creating a hymn-based liturgy where other paraphrases could be inserted? (WOV certainly took it as a model with its setting 6 (pp. 42-45).

How do you view the Chorale Service of Holy Communion? (It is essentially the model that I've used for over a decade -- replacing parts of the liturgy with appropriate hymns.)

What parts of LBW do you consider "the church's liturgy" that should be part of the worship in every Lutheran congregation? WOV's "The Shape of the Rite" (pp. 8-9) distinguishes between "central elements of the Holy Communion liturgy" and "other elements". If we look at the central elements, few contain texts that do not change in LBW or WOV:

The Greeting
Within the Great Thanksgiving some elements did not change: Sursum Corda, Sanctus, "Amen".
The Lord's Prayer (although two translations are offered)
Blessing (although two options are offered)

Sundays and Seasons offered seasonal rites where options for the Greeting, the Prayer of Thanksgiving, and Blessing were offered, thus making the Lord's Prayer and some elements in the Great Thanksgiving the only texts that didn't change among these central elements of the Holy Communion liturgy. In addition, the Chorale Service replaces the Sanctus with a hymn paraphrase.

Most of the other central elements change from week to week:

Prayer of the Day
First Reading
Gospel
Sermon
Hymn of the Day
The Prayers

Quote
Listing all the possible options, counting the number of times "Father" can be used, admitting that some of the possible options are ones that you would never use, noting that some "thees and thous" have been restored in old hymns, etc. simply do not address what I have been saying. †It's a passing strange use of "dialogue" you practice here, and (for the moment at least) I've grown weary of your dancing.


You seem to be saying that you don't see ELW as being the "church's liturgy". If so, what is it about ELW (as opposed to LBW) makes it not the church's liturgy?
"The church Ö had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 45268
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Review of Evangelical Lutheran Worship
« Reply #102 on: September 15, 2006, 12:58:16 PM »
I notice that ELW includes the option of the Verba alone for the eucharist. I understand the tortured history for that decision, going back to Luther. I also know that some pastors of my vintage and earlier refrain from using a eucharistic prayer for theological reasons. My question really is this: are there any graduates of our Lutheran seminaries (ELCA or LCMS) who are being taught today that the use of a eucharistic prayer is theologically improper?

Gracia Grindal's introduction to Reclaim: Lutheran Hymnal for Church and Home (introductory edition) writes, in part (emphasis added): "... we have chosen to update the language and music fo the Common Service for those Lutherans who desire a faithful evangelical order of service. Thus Reclaim's version of the Lord's Supper, or Holy Communion, is cleansed of the eucharistic prayer, as well as any notion of the paschal mystery in which we participate in the death of Christ -- and therefore in the atonement."

My hunch is that she is teaching this at the seminary.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2006, 01:37:29 AM by Brian Stoffregen »
"The church Ö had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Kurt Strause

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile
Re: Review of Evangelical Lutheran Worship
« Reply #103 on: September 15, 2006, 02:47:03 PM »
Gracia Grindal's introduction to Reclaim: Lutheran for Church and Home (introductory edition) writes, in part

What is "Reclaim: Lutheran for Church and Home?" I never heard of it.

Kurt
ELCA pastor, Lancaster, PA

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 20036
    • View Profile
Re: Review of Evangelical Lutheran Worship
« Reply #104 on: September 15, 2006, 04:14:19 PM »
We do communion sans eucharistic prayer, a la TLH and LW. It is not a minor point to consider. We make a pretty deal about baptism being something God does toward us, not something the one being baptised does toward God (except possibly in part as a response). The same logic applies to communion. Would you do a baptism as part of a larger prayer, or would you, amid prayers, see to it that the actual baptism was separate from those prayers? I understand that there is a lot more theological substance to the debate over the eucharistic prayer within Lutheranism, but there are perfectly legitimate reasons and not just anti-popery for keeping the Verba distinct from the prayers. It ensures that the Sacrament is something God gives to us, and not something we perform toward Him.