Author Topic: ELW at one year: responses from the field  (Read 52784 times)

Pr. Jerry Kliner

  • Guest
Re: ELW at one year: responses from the field
« Reply #510 on: August 02, 2008, 11:21:58 PM »
The information might be interesting, and I suspect it will be "healthier" than some here want it to be, but still...
What would it mean?
The ELW exists and will continue to exist. Some congregations will use it, some will not. So what does that mean in the grand scheme of things?


As shocking as it seems, I actually agree with Charles on this one...  ELW is here, ELW is completed (meaning that it is beyond the "revision" phase...), and ELW will not be "undone."  SO, I would not bother to protest or try and influence the trajectory of the ELW or its progeny any further.  Whether it was a triumph or a defeat and for whom is not really relevant, the ELW has been accomplished.

That being said, now the issue is whether it will be accepted, used, and by how much of the Church.  We were told to "butt out" of the formation of this book, but now we can use the power of purchasing to vote on the book and its virtues (or lack there of...).

I, for one, will not counsel my parish to purchase it.  I would purchase LSB before I would purchase and use the ELW.  The musing over the sales figures is that it seems that I am not alone or even in the minority, as Erik would desire.  I stand by my guess that acceptance of the ELW is around 33% right now and I don't see it going much higher.  That's a guess, but I think its a good one.  Now there could be several reasons why the number is so low, but whatever the reason, the new book seems to not be living up to its promise to be the "primary worship resource" for the ELCA...

But as to having to put up and deal with it, that's true...  ELW is here to stay and we will have to deal with it, in one fashion or another, for the next many years...

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44630
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: ELW at one year: responses from the field
« Reply #511 on: August 02, 2008, 11:55:10 PM »
Here are a few reasons why I think why ELW sales are worth tracking:

1) Empirical Evidence of Disconnect? Some assert there is a big disconnect between Higgins Road and the rest of the Church. Sales of the ELW might be an indicator of how "on board" pastors and congregations are with the national church.  There were far fewer committees that had input on this hymnal than the LBW. Though the committee did seek feedback on the ELW, I don't think awareness was as high before its publication as it was on the LBW (Those longer in tooth can weigh in on this assertion).  The hymnal was approved sight-unseen by the national assembly (it wasn't done yet).  All these factors point to less of an investment in the prospect of a new hymnal by the broader church, which may explain why sales are what they are.  Since I don't recall any forecast or goal for sales by AF or the ELCA, it is difficult to measure what "success" is.

If awareness wasn't as high, I don't think that it was the fault of the planners. I believe that I bought more Renewing Worship booklets than the number of Contemporary Worship booklets that preceded LBW. I know that the RW ones were certainly thicker.

LBW was also approved "sight-unseen" by the national assemblies.

I would argue that besides some theological differences about ELW, sales are not as high because:

(1) fewer churches are using any hymnals -- the church I am now at had them before I came, but I print everything in the bulletin. People are wondering why we bought the hymnals.

(2) many churches do "their own thing" in regards to worship. I use the text from ELW in our bulletins. At one service the musical setting comes from ELW, but at the other service, none of the liturgical music (Gospel Acclamation, Table Hymn, Sanctus, Agnus Dei) come from ELW.

(3) LBW was a large leap from SBH. The differences between ELW and LBW aren't as large.

Quote
2) Yet more variety in how Lutherans worship.  Before ELW, we already knew there is a lot of variety in how worship is done in the ELCA.  If a lesser percentage of congregations purchase the hymnal, then there will be even more variety in worship in our congregations. Some may say this is a good thing, others may not agree, time will tell.  But it does drive another wedge in the whole question of what unites us as Lutherans. In our transient society, Lutherans who relocate to another city will be more likely to find worship a foriegn experience, thus making retention of those families even more of a challenge.
Not necessarily. Many may not purchase the hymna, but use it in bulletins or projection.

Quote
3) The Viability of Augsburg Publishing. I am among the many who appreciate Beth Lewis' leadership at Augsburg Publishing. Still, questions linger about how effective Augsburg is as the publishing wing of the ELCA. The numbers don't always look very good.  Can they deliver the goods? The greater church has asked them to make this new hymnal available in a variety of formats.  Is Augsburg able to respond and/or anticipate customer needs? If I have a question or concern about ELW, can I call the tollfree number and get timely and helpful advice? The jury is still out, frankly.
   
I don't know how much you have kept up with what AF is publishing. There is a guitar edition of ELW. There is a simplified accompaniment edition to go with the guitar edition. There are now ten volumes of Introductions and Alternative Accompaniments for the hymns in ELW (five for piano and five for organ). Eventually there will be introductions and alternative accompaniments for every hymn in ELW.

I know that there is a lot available online. I don't make use of that resource.

Quote
4) Language Issues.   Words matter in worship. Much of the agenda driving the changes made from LBW to ELW has to do with words: words in the liturgy, words in the Psalms, words to hymns.  It is among the hottest topics that can be raised on this forum. Sales of the ELW might tell us whether those who are lamenting the word changes are simply squeky wheels or indicative of a broader concern.
Not necessarily. I imagine that there are congregations where most wouldn't say much of anything about the language issue; but if the pastor is ag'in all those changes, they are not likely to buy the book. The biggest concern I had about the language change was "descended to the dead" in the Apostles Creed. For the first few months we used it, I included a footnote stating that it is a more accurate translation of the Greek Hades and the Hebrew understanding of Sheol. I have not heard one complaint. At the "contemporary" service I use the ecumenical version of the Lord's Prayer. At the traditional service I use the traditional wording. I haven't heard one complaint.

Quote
As we discuss and debate the state of the ELCA, some say "the sky is falling" and other say "pish posh". Sales of the ELW do factor into this discussion.
Sales do factor in, but it is nearly impossible to accurate interpret what it means.
"The church 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]

Lutheran_Lay_Leader

  • Guest
Re: ELW at one year: responses from the field
« Reply #512 on: August 03, 2008, 09:30:38 PM »
2) Yet more variety in how Lutherans worship.  Before ELW, we already knew there is a lot of variety in how worship is done in the ELCA.  If a lesser percentage of congregations purchase the hymnal, then there will be even more variety in worship in our congregations. Some may say this is a good thing, others may not agree, time will tell.  But it does drive another wedge in the whole question of what unites us as Lutherans. In our transient society, Lutherans who relocate to another city will be more likely to find worship a foriegn experience, thus making retention of those families even more of a challenge.

As a Lutheran who recently relocated to another city, I've been fortunate that all three of the ELCA churches I worshipped at before settling in at one had the entire liturgy in the bulletins. I was very familiar with the LBW and WOV liturgies, as well as a wide variety of Contemporary liturgies cobbled together from various worship resources. Encountering alternate texts for liturgy elements or unfamiliar tunes wasn't a problem for me. But not having to do the "Lutheran Shuffle" was a major blessing. It was difficult enough to attempt to juggle an SBH or LBW while constantly flipping from one page to another and/or going through the bulletin to find hymns, the Prayer of the Day, and the readings in the Celebrate or back of the bulletin. In ELW it can be even worse. For some settings one must flip from page to page for almost all elements of the liturgy.

As costly as preparing a complete bulletin liturgy is, investing in a complete set of pew copies of any hymnal becomes a serious consideration. As much as I favor the concept of a "standard" Lutheran liturgy that unites all congregations in each synod, I find making the liturgy appropriate for each local congregation a better practice. It's better for Lutherans in their home congregations, it's better for Lutherans visiting other Lutheran congregations, and most of all, it's better for visitors to Lutheran congregations who are not yet Lutherans. One of the most important things we need to do is to be welcoming to Christians whose denominational identity is defined by which "brand name" of church they stay home from most Sundays.

One side note, saying we should avoid using paper to "save the forests" is like saying we should avoid eating bread to "save the wheat fields". Wood pulp trees are a crop that is planted, grown, harvested and replanted -- just like wheat. While it's never good to be wasteful, it's OK to put renewable resources to good use. And, the tree farmers have to earn a living, too.

Quote
There is a guitar edition of ELW. There is a simplified accompaniment edition to go with the guitar edition. There are now ten volumes of Introductions and Alternative Accompaniments for the hymns in ELW (five for piano and five for organ). Eventually there will be introductions and alternative accompaniments for every hymn in ELW.

If memory serves, the guitar edition of the ELW only has chords for the hymns. One must purchase another edition to obtain guitar parts for the liturgy.



GoCubs

  • Guest
Re: ELW at one year: responses from the field
« Reply #513 on: August 03, 2008, 09:42:47 PM »
I am still waiting for an answer from AFP...

But on to another topic related to the ELW:  I have noticed that the propers (today is the 12th Sunday after Pentecost or Proper 13) have been replace by the designation "Lectionary 13".  Does anyone here know the rationale for such a change?  What do those here think of abandoning Propers for "Lectionary __".  Curious to know the origin or thinking behind this shift...

GoCubs

  • Guest
Re: ELW at one year: responses from the field
« Reply #514 on: August 03, 2008, 09:58:28 PM »
Here are a few reasons why I think why ELW sales are worth tracking:

1) Empirical Evidence of Disconnect? Some assert there is a big disconnect between Higgins Road and the rest of the Church. Sales of the ELW might be an indicator of how "on board" pastors and congregations are with the national church.  There were far fewer committees that had input on this hymnal than the LBW. Though the committee did seek feedback on the ELW, I don't think awareness was as high before its publication as it was on the LBW (Those longer in tooth can weigh in on this assertion).  The hymnal was approved sight-unseen by the national assembly (it wasn't done yet).  All these factors point to less of an investment in the prospect of a new hymnal by the broader church, which may explain why sales are what they are.  Since I don't recall any forecast or goal for sales by AF or the ELCA, it is difficult to measure what "success" is.

If awareness wasn't as high, I don't think that it was the fault of the planners. I believe that I bought more Renewing Worship booklets than the number of Contemporary Worship booklets that preceded LBW. I know that the RW ones were certainly thicker.

LBW was also approved "sight-unseen" by the national assemblies.

I would argue that besides some theological differences about ELW, sales are not as high because:

(1) fewer churches are using any hymnals -- the church I am now at had them before I came, but I print everything in the bulletin. People are wondering why we bought the hymnals.

(2) many churches do "their own thing" in regards to worship. I use the text from ELW in our bulletins. At one service the musical setting comes from ELW, but at the other service, none of the liturgical music (Gospel Acclamation, Table Hymn, Sanctus, Agnus Dei) come from ELW.

(3) LBW was a large leap from SBH. The differences between ELW and LBW aren't as large.

Quote
2) Yet more variety in how Lutherans worship.  Before ELW, we already knew there is a lot of variety in how worship is done in the ELCA.  If a lesser percentage of congregations purchase the hymnal, then there will be even more variety in worship in our congregations. Some may say this is a good thing, others may not agree, time will tell.  But it does drive another wedge in the whole question of what unites us as Lutherans. In our transient society, Lutherans who relocate to another city will be more likely to find worship a foriegn experience, thus making retention of those families even more of a challenge.
Not necessarily. Many may not purchase the hymna, but use it in bulletins or projection.

Quote
3) The Viability of Augsburg Publishing. I am among the many who appreciate Beth Lewis' leadership at Augsburg Publishing. Still, questions linger about how effective Augsburg is as the publishing wing of the ELCA. The numbers don't always look very good.  Can they deliver the goods? The greater church has asked them to make this new hymnal available in a variety of formats.  Is Augsburg able to respond and/or anticipate customer needs? If I have a question or concern about ELW, can I call the tollfree number and get timely and helpful advice? The jury is still out, frankly.
   
I don't know how much you have kept up with what AF is publishing. There is a guitar edition of ELW. There is a simplified accompaniment edition to go with the guitar edition. There are now ten volumes of Introductions and Alternative Accompaniments for the hymns in ELW (five for piano and five for organ). Eventually there will be introductions and alternative accompaniments for every hymn in ELW.

I know that there is a lot available online. I don't make use of that resource.

Quote
4) Language Issues.   Words matter in worship. Much of the agenda driving the changes made from LBW to ELW has to do with words: words in the liturgy, words in the Psalms, words to hymns.  It is among the hottest topics that can be raised on this forum. Sales of the ELW might tell us whether those who are lamenting the word changes are simply squeky wheels or indicative of a broader concern.
Not necessarily. I imagine that there are congregations where most wouldn't say much of anything about the language issue; but if the pastor is ag'in all those changes, they are not likely to buy the book. The biggest concern I had about the language change was "descended to the dead" in the Apostles Creed. For the first few months we used it, I included a footnote stating that it is a more accurate translation of the Greek Hades and the Hebrew understanding of Sheol. I have not heard one complaint. At the "contemporary" service I use the ecumenical version of the Lord's Prayer. At the traditional service I use the traditional wording. I haven't heard one complaint.

Quote
As we discuss and debate the state of the ELCA, some say "the sky is falling" and other say "pish posh". Sales of the ELW do factor into this discussion.
Sales do factor in, but it is nearly impossible to accurate interpret what it means.

1) The leaps between SBH and LBW were smaller, IMO, than the ones from LBW to ELW.  I guess it may be a perspective issue.  The "sight unseen" issue as Brian describes it is not quite the story.  As I understand it the LBW was reviewed by pastors in something close to its completed form.  The assembly may not have seen it but it was "seen" by people who could assess it.  Pehaps those who were pastors in 1978 should shed more light on what actually happpened with LBW.

2)  Again from my perspective AFP has not been good at putting out confessionally faithful resources.  I find myself often seeking other sources for materials to use in Sun. School, etc.

3) My people noticed the language issues of the ELW right away and it is the major reason we have not purchased ELW.  I imagine (if Brian imagined why can't I) that many congregations have rejected the ELW over concerns about the language shift present in it.  (This is also one of the major shifts that relates to my opinion about the ELW being a larger jump away from LBW--see # 1.)

4)  I will give Brian credit though.  It is very hard to interpret much from sales figures.  But then again, some look at the sales of ELW and make claims that it has "been widely accepted throughout the ELCA". :o ??? ::) :P  The number of congregations that have purchased the ELW would be interesting to know if for no other reason than to spark debate and dialogue here.  And isn't dialogue a good thing. ;)

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44630
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: ELW at one year: responses from the field
« Reply #515 on: August 03, 2008, 11:37:50 PM »
1) The leaps between SBH and LBW were smaller, IMO, than the ones from LBW to ELW. I guess it may be a perspective issue.
I guess it is a different of perspective. As a workshop leader introducing LBW said, "We have liturgical music that people can whistle." One of the issues with LBW was that the music was too joyful!

Quote
The "sight unseen" issue as Brian describes it is not quite the story.  As I understand it the LBW was reviewed by pastors in something close to its completed form.  The assembly may not have seen it but it was "seen" by people who could assess it.  Pehaps those who were pastors in 1978 should shed more light on what actually happpened with LBW.
I was a pastor in 1978. I had all the preliminary "Contemporary Worship" [CW] booklets. We used setting 4 of the communion book once a month on internship -- Ylvisaker's setting. I had not seen the "green" book until it was published. Setting 4 was not included. There were other changes from the CW liturgies.

I'm certain that all of the liturgies were tested in congregations. Changes were made in both Martinson's and Haugen's setting because they were tested in congregations. In Setting 8, "This Is the Feast" comes from Ylvisaker's setting prior to LBW. The Kyrie comes from Dakota Road's setting which was used widely (at least in and around South Dakota). I had used it at a synod event about 10 years ago when Dakota Road were guest musicians. My hunch is that the same for the other liturgical pieces in that setting.

Also remember that the LCMS was involved with LBW so there were many more congregations available to test it -- (and probably some pastors who insisted on reviewing it).

Quote
3) My people noticed the language issues of the ELW right away and it is the major reason we have not purchased ELW.  I imagine (if Brian imagined why can't I) that many congregations have rejected the ELW over concerns about the language shift present in it.  (This is also one of the major shifts that relates to my opinion about the ELW being a larger jump away from LBW--see # 1.)
In another discussion on this issue, I did a count. The word "Father" for God can be used more times in an ELW liturgy than in LBW liiturgies. If one objects to the "Psalms for Singing" in ELW, don't use them. I'm not using that translation, but it has nothing to do with the gender language issue.

Quote
4)  I will give Brian credit though.  It is very hard to interpret much from sales figures.  But then again, some look at the sales of ELW and make claims that it has "been widely accepted throughout the ELCA". :o ??? ::) :P  The number of congregations that have purchased the ELW would be interesting to know if for no other reason than to spark debate and dialogue here.  And isn't dialogue a good thing. ;)
One might also look at how many congregations have subscribed to the online services -- or who have purchased licenses to reprint ELW liturgies. (We have the license, but don't use the online resources.)
"The church 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]

Dadoo

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3055
    • View Profile
Re: ELW at one year: responses from the field
« Reply #516 on: August 04, 2008, 08:16:51 AM »
An ELW question

Setting 1.  It is the setting that came to us sight unseen without review.  I have tried to use it but my folks find it awkward and really do not want to use it again (FTR: they are not stuck on any other settings; enjoy variety in settings, etc- we have not bought hardcopy but use the online thingy).  What has been your experience?

 
Peter Kruse

Diversity and tolerance are very complex concepts. Rigid conformity is needed to ensure their full realization. - Mike Adams

Kurt Strause

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile
Re: ELW at one year: responses from the field
« Reply #517 on: August 04, 2008, 08:52:06 AM »
An ELW question
Setting 1.  It is the setting that came to us sight unseen without review.  I have tried to use it but my folks find it awkward and really do not want to use it again (FTR: they are not stuck on any other settings; enjoy variety in settings, etc- we have not bought hardcopy but use the online thingy).  What has been your experience?

Our congregation began using ELW setting 1. It seems to be the most singable of the new settings, and I think is being received well.

Since we publish the liturgy in a seasonal booklet its very easy to edit the texts, using pieces from LBW like the creeds and eucharistic prayers. I have some contention with the way some of the hymns were edited in ELW, but the Sundays and Seasons license allows us to print the LBW versions when desired.

Since we get the lectionary inserts from AF the ELW psalms were being used before we got the book. I like having the psalm published on the insert, but the psalm translations are annoying. It would be a lot of cutting and pasting to create our own lesson sheet with LBW psalms, but it may come to that.

Kurt Strause
ELCA pastor, Lancaster, PA

Kurt Strause

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile
Re: ELW at one year: responses from the field
« Reply #518 on: August 04, 2008, 09:04:14 AM »
I would argue that besides some theological differences about ELW, sales are not as high because:

an additional reason (I'm sure already mentioned, but worth repeating)

The ELW is not riding the anticipatory wave of increased Lutheran unity as did LBW, which was the result of cooperation between the LCA, ALC, ELCofC, and the LC-MS.

Kurt Strause
ELCA pastor, Lancaster, PA

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44630
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: ELW at one year: responses from the field
« Reply #519 on: August 04, 2008, 11:16:00 AM »
But on to another topic related to the ELW:  I have noticed that the propers (today is the 12th Sunday after Pentecost or Proper 13) have been replace by the designation "Lectionary 13".  Does anyone here know the rationale for such a change?  What do those here think of abandoning Propers for "Lectionary __".  Curious to know the origin or thinking behind this shift...

There are three different numbering systems for the "green" Sundays.

The Roman Lectionary for Mass of 1969 was the basis for the three-year lectionaries in LBW, the Episcopal Church, and the Common Lectionary of 1983.

The Roman church lumped all the "green" Sundays together as "## Sunday in Ordinary Time." There was not a distinction between those Sundays that occured during Epiphany with those during Pentecost. The number for those Sundays was continuous (and the gospel readings are semi-continuous.) The lessons for the "8th Sunday in Ordinary Time" could occur at the end of a long Epiphany Season or at the beginning of a long Pentecost Season.

The Lutherans had a tradition of "## Sunday after the Epiphany" and "## Sunday after Pentecost," as two separate seasons, with the numbering starting over in Pentecost. We kept that numbering system when we adapted the Roman readings for LBW. Becauses the seasons of Epiphany and Pentecost vary in length, lessons assigned at the end of the season were lopped off when the season was short. The lessons for the 5th-8th Sundays after Epiphany and those for the 24th-27th Sundays after Pentecost might not be used.

The Common Lectionary in their adaptation of the Roman lectionary kept the green seasons separate using "## Sunday after the Epiphany," but then used "Proper ##" as the designation for the Sundays after Trinity Sunday. The "Proper" numbers started over with Proper 1" being the same lessons as the 6th Sunday after the Epiphany, if it should be used after Trinity Sunday. The Common Lectionary, like the Roman, and unlike the Lutherans, lopped of the extra lessons during the Pentecost seasons, from the front of assigned readings.  Each Proper was assigned a week of dates and was used on the Sunday within that week. Thus the lessons at the end of the Propers (25-29 -- Oct 23-Nov 26) are used every year, but those at the beginning (Proper 3-7 -- May 24-Jun 25) may not be used.

The Presbyterians, for one, (I don't know if there were others,) while using the Common Lectionary, kept the numbering in the Roman system and used the continuous numbering for the Sundays in Ordinary Time.

I was in an ecumenical pericope study group at this time. Since both the LBW and Common Lectionary were based on the Roman one, the readings were often the same, but were usually assigned to different weeks. Their lessons were one to four weeks earlier than ours.

The Revised Common Lectionary in 1992 included Lutherans and Episcopalians in the discussions. When the ELCA originally adopted the RCL, we used the "Proper" numbering and dates for assigning the lessons to a Sunday; and we continued to use "## Sunday after Pentecost," which had no relation to the assigned lessons. E.g., the "2nd Sunday after Pentecost" could uses the lessons from Proper 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 depending on the date.

Renewing Worship tried new terminology. I think we were committed to using the Roman, continuous numbering during the green seasons, but didn't like calling Sundays "ordinary". So they were called "Sunday ## -- Time after Epiphany (or Time after Pentecost)."

Now we're at ELW: "Lectionary ##," using the continuous numbering from the Romans, is now the term. "Lectionary 1 is the lesson for the Baptism of Our Lord -- the First Sunday after the Epiphany. The numbers continue through Lectionary 34 -- the Last Sunday after Pentecost. We also use "XX Sunday after Epiphany" and "XX Sunday after Pentecost."

During the Pentecost Season, our Lectionary numbers (and the Ordinary Time numbers) will be five more than the Proper numbers. E.g., Lectionary 19 is the same as Proper 14. This year, we also call it the "13th Sunday after Pentecost."

(This is probably more than anyone wants to know.)
« Last Edit: August 04, 2008, 11:17:57 AM by Brian Stoffregen »
"The church 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: 44630
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: ELW at one year: responses from the field
« Reply #520 on: August 04, 2008, 11:26:12 AM »
Setting 1.  It is the setting that came to us sight unseen without review.  I have tried to use it but my folks find it awkward and really do not want to use it again (FTR: they are not stuck on any other settings; enjoy variety in settings, etc- we have not bought hardcopy but use the online thingy).  What has been your experience?
Setting 1 did not have the congregational testing as Haugen and Martinson's settings. I would guess that each composer tried out the music in their own congregations. It is the setting we are using for our "traditional" service, although, during the summer we are not using the Kyrie or Canticle of Praise. I think that it's the second easiest to learn. The first being Setting 10.
"The church 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]

GoCubs

  • Guest
Re: ELW at one year: responses from the field
« Reply #521 on: August 04, 2008, 12:10:40 PM »

In another discussion on this issue, I did a count. The word "Father" for God can be used more times in an ELW liturgy than in LBW liiturgies. If one objects to the "Psalms for Singing" in ELW, don't use them. I'm not using that translation, but it has nothing to do with the gender language issue.

You will have to offer proof that one can use "Father" more in the ELW than in the LBW.  By my count its a wash or LBW comes out ahead by one or two occurences.  But even granting you "Father" can be used more...That isn't the only issue with ELW.  It also removes masculine prounouns in places where those pronouns would make more grammatical sense and it deletes references to "Lord" as well.  The issue for some with the ELW is not whether or not the language was changed in places, but that it was changed throughout.  This change done without the forthright courtesy of admitting that LBW settings one and two would be included, but signiificantly changed.  Those who thought they could pick up ELW and use it without too much hassle were in for a surprise. :'(

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44630
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: ELW at one year: responses from the field
« Reply #522 on: August 04, 2008, 03:10:41 PM »
If memory serves, the guitar edition of the ELW only has chords for the hymns. One must purchase another edition to obtain guitar parts for the liturgy.
Yes, it is just for the hymns. The regular accompaniment edition for the liturgies contains chords for some of the settings. I don't believe that a separate guitar edition for the liturgies is planned.
"The church 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]

TravisW

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
    • View Profile
Re: ELW at one year: responses from the field
« Reply #523 on: August 04, 2008, 10:21:51 PM »
If memory serves, the guitar edition of the ELW only has chords for the hymns. One must purchase another edition to obtain guitar parts for the liturgy.
Yes, it is just for the hymns. The regular accompaniment edition for the liturgies contains chords for some of the settings. I don't believe that a separate guitar edition for the liturgies is planned.

Q.  How do you get a guitar player to stop playing? 

A.  Put sheet music in front of him. 

Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread. 

TravisW (guitar player for the past two decades)

Steven Tibbetts

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10213
  • Big tents are for circuses.
    • View Profile
Re: ELW at one year: responses from the field
« Reply #524 on: August 05, 2008, 03:41:57 AM »

Would you share why you have such positive reaction to LSB?


When I was attending seminary, whenever we used LBW in worship, a significant contingent routinely pronounced words like "Lord," "he," or "his" as "GOD" or "GOD's" -- and yes, I deliberately capitalize in order indicate that the pronunciations were emphasized.  It wasn't actually shouted, but the emphasis was audible not only by the sound of the pronunciation, but the volume of the voices.

I (and a few of my classmates) kind of sneered at such behavior.  Then, when our Synod started using the WOV alterations to the LBW liturgy, and especially when we started using the liturgies of Renewing Worship and, now, ELW, I find myself having to resist shouting the older, more accurate translations.  But, frankly, I don't believe that to be any more spiritually healthy for me than it was for them.

My experiences using LSB and ELW in public worship have been mostly in the Prayer Offices.  In ELW I find myself gritting my teeth over canticles and psalms rewritten, often heavily, in the light of feminist scruples.  The Gloria Patri, the use of which LBW discouraged in psalmody (for, I believe, a faulty understanding of how Christians sign/speak the Psalms), has now also been truncated from most canticles.   

Both LSB and ELW have (for the most part either mildly or subtly) altered the familiar LBW texts in the Holy Communion liturgy, ELW favoring feminist concerns, LSB favoring LCMS theological concerns.  Many Collects in ELW are either new or heavily rewritten.  Again, my own use of them has been rare, but nearly every time I find my mind asking (as I'm praying it!), "Didn't anybody try praying this in front of an actual congregations before be published it?"  The effect of word usage can be quite different depending on whether one is reading silently, out loud to oneself, or out loud before a congregation -- and I am simply astounded that ELW (accelerating LBW's impulse) has abandoned elegant, succinct, beautiful prayers that flow off the tongue for new, wordy ones that regularly trip up the tongue or sound banal.

And then there's the music.  Granted, there's going to be some subjectivity there.  But there's a certain dignity to the LSB settings of the Offices (having been raised on SBH Setting 1, I nearly wept for joy the first time we sang LSB Matins at a Fort Wayne event -- and I like the LBW setting!), while ELW has dumbed down from the LBW settings.

Any worship book/hymnal is going to have compromises and things that not everyone will like.  When it comes to worship, I'm naturally a bit suspicious about changes from what I am familiar with.  My experience with the changes found in LSB is that, while I don't agree with all of them, I see and feel an attempt to be faithful to a Lutheran (with a German accent) use of the Western rites.  What I've discovered is that I can trust the decisions of the LSB, even when I would have done something another way.  With our ELW, well, I first learned to mistrust via the subtle alterations found in WOV.  And that mistrust is only strengthened every time I use ELW.  Yes, it offers some very clear improvement over LBW rites like marriage and baptism.  But for Sunday after Sunday or day after day use, I'm a lex orandi, lex credendi kind of guy.  I'm glad I was raised on SBH.  I fear what will happen with those raised on ELW.  I don't have that fear for those being raised on LSB.

Thanks for asking, Fr. Will.

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