cbasset

Searching for a Name for the New Hymnal

/in

As people of the Word we know that, biblically speaking, names matter quite a lot. We are familiar with biblical names communicating something about the person carrying the name. We stand in awe of the mystery of God’s own name. We know about God putting his name on us in blessing. We cherish names like “Immanuel” and, of course, “Jesus.” God’s messengers always made it quite clear that such names really make a difference because they reflect the person being named.

The team that took up the task of proposing the name of the new hymnal was happy to take a similar approach to naming. For several years, dozens of people had been working to develop a suite of resources that would accomplish the overall mission of the project: to confess Jesus Christ and enable believers to receive the blessings of the means of grace in the faithful life of their local congregation. The new hymnal’s name needed to reflect the nature and purpose of that work and its published result.

I won’t belabor the details, but I can say that the team worked through a thorough exercise of answering questions about the name and, more broadly, the total identity of the hymnal. We considered the mission of the project, the Lutheran theological convictions embedded in the project, the faith-building benefits of the project that we anticipate under the Lord’s blessing, and the best ways to communicate all these things to the diverse range of people we pray will benefit from the project.

At the end of this process we weighed the naming options. We explored the possibility of selecting an entirely new name for the hymnal, but quickly realized that the best name for the new hymnal is to keep the same name. The proposal was fleshed out further and submitted to the Executive Committee for review and ultimately adoption. The new hymnal will share a name with its predecessor: Christian Worship.

This might seem like a fairly obvious decision. Indeed, that’s often a good sign that a solution is an elegant one. No doubt you can intuitively sense several of the benefits that come from retaining the Christian Worship name. Here are several that we consider worth mentioning.

Christian Worship is a name already well-known and well-respected among us. Someone observed that when the 1993 edition of Christian Worship was released our church body was, broadly speaking, quite ready to replace the hymnal’s predecessor, The Lutheran Hymnal. In the early 1990s, a new name made good sense as a way to communicate the newness of the project. It was after all, the first new hymnal from WELS. But in the case of the 2021 edition of Christian Worship, our church body has never quite felt as if the 1993 hymnal were in dire need of replacement. Yet this was by design. The goal of our synod since the 1993 hymnal was to not allow our hymnal to reach a point that worshipers were clamoring for a replacement. The new hymnal is a continuation of a long tradition of worship. The Christian Worship name means a lot, says a lot, and does a lot — it makes good sense to keep using it.

Christian Worship is a name versatile enough to match a versatile suite of resources. A practical problem we faced when reviewing the list of potential names for the hymnal was this: the new hymnal project was producing far more than just a hymnal. We have a hymnal, yes, but also a psalter, a service builder, a lectionary, a commentary, a musicians resource, and several volumes of support material. Words like “hymnal” and “service book” weren’t quite versatile enough for the scope of the project. The Christian Worship name, on the other hand, allows these various and versatile resources to be drawn together under a single name to communicate a unifying mission. Christian Worship: Hymnal works hand in hand with Christian Worship: Psalter and Christian Worship: Service Builder. All these publications give congregations rich resources to support the work of bringing the means of grace to the people of Christ.

Christian Worship is a name that reflects our continued tradition. The goal of the new hymnal project was never to create something new out of whole cloth. Christian Worship is a tradition, not a flash in the pan. The faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people is still handed down from one generation to the next. We believe that keeping the name Christian Worship reflects the continuity of tradition that we cherish as Lutheran worshipers. Yet there is still much that is revised, improved, and outright new in the hymnal. Such newness is easily seen in the new design of the hymnal and the updated version of the beloved chi-rho logo. We rely on those elements to communicate the welcome freshness, and we rely on the name to communicate the welcome continuity.

Christian Worship is a name that communicates the centrality of the gospel. Both the name and the logo of the 1993 hymnal were deliberately chosen to reflect the centrality of Christ in our worship. The goal of the new hymnal is the same as its predecessor: to reflect in everything the good news of God’s love and salvation in Jesus Christ. We were hard pressed to find a name that better communicated the centrality of Christ and his gospel than Christian Worship.

We in WELS are a relatively small part of Christ’s kingdom. Decades ago we set out to accomplish a task that many thought was improbable for a denomination of modest means. Yet, with God’s blessing, WELS produced a hymnal that not only replaced a cherished worship resource but also became as well-loved as its predecessor. We now have the opportunity to build on that achievement and solidify our legacy as a Lutheran church body that produces and values excellent, Christ-centered worship. 

The interest and expertise from dozens of musicians, scholars, pastors, teachers, students, and worshipers across the church body have combined with the availability of modern tools and technology to produce a set of well-curated resources that proclaim the gospel clearly and are readily accessible in a variety of formats.

All of this work, together with the support of our synod congregations, ensures that the valuable legacy of Christian worship is not only preserved but enhanced for generations to come. Christian Worship is the name we give to the resources that support this vital task.

jtiefel

A View from Two

/in

Sometimes you find yourself in the right place at the right time.

I was a sophomore at Northwestern College when LCMS published Worship Supplement in 1969. The college wasn’t much interested back then, but I was, especially in the new hymns which are well-known to us 50 years later. By the time I arrived at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary, copies of Worship Supplement were in the chapel pews, and Prof. Martin Albrecht, who also chaired the Commission on Worship, introduced some of the little book’s liturgical innovations. Assignment day in 1976 sent me to St. Paul, Saginaw, and hymnals were in the news. Lutheran Book of Worship (1978) was in publication mode, and LCMS conservatives were thundering opposition. The conservatives won, and Missouri published Lutheran Worship in 1982. I chaired a district committee instructed by the Commission on Worship to study the feasibility of using LW in WELS. That idea was pretty much a non-starter, but I got to know LBW and LW pretty well.

The Commission was ready to recommend to the 1983 synod convention that WELS produce its own hymnal. My associate at St. Paul, Forrest Bivens, was appointed to chair the floor committee that would study and propose the recommendation. Via lengthy phone calls, Kurt Eggert and Martin Albrecht prepared him for the convention, and he shared information with me.

The recommendation was approved, and Kurt Eggert was called as project director. One of his tasks was to form a committee. The Commission on Worship was seeking geographical representation, and I was appointed to represent the Michigan District. I didn’t represent my geography for long, however, but was called to succeed Martin Albrecht at the seminary in 1985. In 1987 I was appointed to the WELS Commission on Worship.

I was one of three “under-40” members of the 17-member hymnal committee. All the others had served long and faithfully in WELS schools and congregations. Despite differences in age, experience, and social connections, we got along with one another and worked together well; everyone contributed. The 17 members divided into four committees, so committees were small. We met as one subcommittee or another almost every month and always face-to-face or in written correspondence. We worked only on paper—lots of paper in coded colors.

By far the greatest challenge the Joint Hymnal Committee faced was preparing a hymnal for the 21st century that would replace a hymnal firmly planted in the 19th century. We needed to move forward without abandoning the heritage of The Lutheran Hymnal. We spent long hours working through language issues (thee or you), inclusive language (sons or saints), where and how to expand the hymn corpus (gospel hymns and spirituals). Field testing was a vital component of the work; so was answering criticism and responding to charges of heresy.

WELS was ready for a new hymnal. The introduction program was highly successful and was commended by several non-WELS denominations. Within a year or two, 98% of WELS congregations were using the new book, Christian Worship: A Lutheran Hymnal.

Back at the seminary, it was my job to help students and WELS members in general use the materials they were seeing in the book. Responsive psalmody, pastoral chant, and the full use of Morning Praise and Evening Prayer became common in the seminary chapel. The growing worship awareness stood behind the change from the black Geneva robe to alb and stole and prompted the use of alternate worship instruments. I contributed 136 pages to Christian Worship Manual (Worship in Theology and Practice). Working with others I prepared two video-enhanced worship education products and created the National Conference on Worship, Music, and the Arts. I was deeply involved with the Commission’s Schools of Worship Enrichment and Institute on Worship and Outreach.

At a certain point, I set creative hymnal work aside. I didn’t participate in the creation of Christian Worship: New Service Settings, Christian Worship Altar Book, or Christian Worship: Occasional Services although I introduced their materials at the seminary and at worship conferences. I passed on participating in Christian Worship: Supplement, although I was asked to review content and obliged. I turned 60 in 2009, and I was ready to step aside and let the younger men take over. I resigned from the Commission on Worship in 2013.

Michael Schultz was in my first seminary class in 1985. Since he was a Michigan boy and since his dad and I had become good friends, Mike and I also became friends during his student days and as he served in Arizona and Georgia. I wasn’t close enough to the Supplement effort to have noticed his good work, and he wasn’t my first choice to head up a new hymnal project. He took on the task, however, and soon called me with the question: “What would you like to do?” My reply was, “I think I should do something, but nothing that takes too much work.” He appointed me as a member-at-large on the Executive Committee and as advisor to the Rites Committee. So much for not-too-much-work!

So now, I’ve had an opportunity to be involved in a second hymnal project. The basic tasks are similar but the administration of the tasks is very, very different. Like in 1985, there is a decision-making committee, the Executive Committee (XC), composed of seven committee chairman, two members-at-large, and three administrators. Unlike in 1985, XC members have not divided themselves into small committees; each committee chairman works with his own committee composed of a half dozen or so men and women. More than 70 people were directly in planning. Only the XC gathers exclusively in face-to-face meetings. Other committees meet most often via digital video conferences. PDFs and Google Docs have replaced paper. Correspondence is by email and digital project management websites. And instead of being one of the young punks of the committee, I am now its old man! Despite differences in age, experience, and social connections, we get along with one another and work together well. Everyone contributes, no one lacks a voice, and most know how to use it!

So how do the two projects compare? I have told the brothers that this committee is more fun than the last committee—all but two were my students at the seminary and all sang in the Seminary Chorus. We have had fun before! I do believe that the era which has passed since the publication of the 1993 hymnal has enabled these men to gain knowledge and experience that is deeper and wider than the previous committee had. This group has an outreach spirit which the other group could not have had. Only a few on the XC have recollections of TLH but all have a respect for the historic legacy of liturgics and hymnody that was not as keen on the last committee. This group has not been afraid to move back from 1985 decisions that may have pushed the envelope too far. This sensitivity blends smoothly with the general acceptance of alternative instruments and the possibilities of digital resources. Their efforts provide an example of how the church builds on the experience of the past as it moves confidently into the future.

I mentioned all these factors as I gave a little speech at the XC’s last meeting in November. I finally said, “Now you have to sell it.” I wonder if this will not be the biggest challenge this project faces. Many WELS members consider the 1993 hymnal to be “the new hymnal” and wonder why we need a second new hymnal now. Some will suggest that digital resources make the purchase of books unnecessary—if you print everything in the bulletin why put books in the pews? Perhaps the most serious of these “sell” challenges will come because a growing number of WELS congregations have lost sight of or interest in the liturgical legacy of Lutheran worship. Claiming mission-mindedness (and ignoring the reality that the members of the hymnal committees have a mission-mindedness surely equal to theirs), too many pastors and congregations are abandoning the liturgical rite, confessional hymnody, and the church year and lectionary for a worship style they sense will appeal to the seeker on the street. In this, we dare say, they overlook the reality that genuine seekers are looking for the truth which they have not found in other churches, the truth that Lutheran worship so magnificently proclaims.