Sola Scriptura

[Steven Tibbetts]

We have shaken hands at Churchwide Assemblies.

Indeed.  Though I'm pretty sure the senior pastor preached that morning in Placentia.

Pax, Steven+

[Don Whitbeck]

Confessional,

No, I don't think it accurate to state that the LCMS wrote "new" liturgies; at least not in the sense that anything was created ex nihilo without reference to our previous tradition.  We wrote new musical settings.  We brought forward the tradition of the German Mass (Divine Service V).  We used the Lutheran tradition of metrical paraphrases for the ordinary (Divine Service IV - which also relies heavily upon the Swedish 1531 Petri rite in the Eucharistia).  We retained the Common Service (Divine Service III) and we retained the two revisions of the Divine Service that are deeply indebted to the liturgical renewal of the 20th century (Divine Services I, II).  But if you look beneath the surface, you will discover the standard Western Mass.  They share the same shaping, and at core that is a Preparation, Service of the Word (with introductory praise moving to reading of Scripture according to ancient precedent, with sermon and Creed, offering and hymnody), Service of the Sacrament (with Preface, Sanctus, Our Father, Verba, Pax, Agnus and Distribution, Post-communion canticle and collect, and Benediction).  It sure doesn't take a liturgical scholar to realize that in all these we have the  same liturgy (ordered action), utilitizing varied musical settings and both prose and rimed translations of the traditional texts. 

Brian,

I am not sure how to respond as the subject seems ever to change.

We wrote new musical settings

Then they should go back and try again.  Impossible to sing too.  How one can compair it to Setting Three, and then call in acceptable, sure blows my mine!

[Don Whitbeck]

The changes to the liturgy at the time of the Reformation were needed because of theological flaws that had found their way into the order of the Mass. Lutheran theology demanded such changes. This is in no way parallel to the changes proposed under the banner of contemporary worship in the past few decades. Lutherans did not find the traditional Lutheran liturgies heterodox and thus in need of change. Rather, Lutherans failed to find the popular Evangelical liturgies heterodox, but did find them more aesthetically appealing to the unchurched.

Seems like we did the same as the ELCA did!

[Kurt Weinelt]

We wrote new musical settings

Then they should go back and try again.  Impossible to sing too.  How one can compare it to Setting Three, and then call in acceptable, sure blows my mind!

I was raised in the ULCA/LCA with the 1958 Service Book and Hymnal. While in the Texas Lutheran College Choir, we went around to local churches and sang through the new green LBW liturgies and "new" hymns to help congregations learn the new hymnal (I was the first cantor to chant an LBW liturgy at the TLC chapel). Then later my wife and I as music directors went through the ELW training seminar. Now (post-2009) we are in an LCMS congregation participating in two of the choirs. Personally, DS III is my favorite and DS IV is my least favorite, but I don't dislike any of them.

All that to say that all the new liturgical settings are VERY singable. If you want something  unsingable and woefully unmemorable, check out ELW settings I and II.

As far as new hymns, adding to Lutheran hymnody is as old as the Lutheran church, though personally I prefer the older ones. Try out St Patrick's Breastplate for Holy Trinity Sunday (though MOST Lutherans turn it into a dirge); it encapsulates the doctrine of the Trinity in no uncertain terms, yet it is really, really Irish, and really, really old. (My wife and I sang it last year with my son playing Irish fiddle accompaniment in a traditional service; it blended well with the Trinitarian theme of the day.) In the present day, African and Latin American Lutherans are contributing much to the life of the Lutheran Church, and their music is part of that.

IOW, though it sounds counterintuitive, one might say it is the more traditional Lutheran who adds doctrinally sound new hymns and liturgical settings into congregational use.

Kurt

[Don Whitbeck]

We wrote new musical settings

Then they should go back and try again.  Impossible to sing too.  How one can compare it to Setting Three, and then call in acceptable, sure blows my mind!

I was raised in the ULCA/LCA with the 1958 Service Book and Hymnal. While in the Texas Lutheran College Choir, we went around to local churches and sang through the new green LBW liturgies and "new" hymns to help congregations learn the new hymnal (I was the first cantor to chant an LBW liturgy at the TLC chapel). Then later my wife and I as music directors went through the ELW training seminar. Now (post-2009) we are in an LCMS congregation participating in two of the choirs. Personally, DS III is my favorite and DS IV is my least favorite, but I don't dislike any of them.

All that to say that all the new liturgical settings are VERY singable. If you want something  unsingable and woefully unmemorable, check out ELW settings I and II.

As far as new hymns, adding to Lutheran hymnody is as old as the Lutheran church, though personally I prefer the older ones. Try out St Patrick's Breastplate for Holy Trinity Sunday (though MOST Lutherans turn it into a dirge); it encapsulates the doctrine of the Trinity in no uncertain terms, yet it is really, really Irish, and really, really old. (My wife and I sang it last year with my son playing Irish fiddle accompaniment in a traditional service; it blended well with the Trinitarian theme of the day.) In the present day, African and Latin American Lutherans are contributing much to the life of the Lutheran Church, and their music is part of that.

IOW, though it sounds counterintuitive, one might say it is the more traditional Lutheran who adds doctrinally sound new hymns and liturgical settings into congregational use.

Kurt

Thank you Kurt for your post!