ELW Daily Offices: A Criticism
Posted on September 14, 2007 by lutherpunk
Excellent criticism of the Daily Offices offered in Evangelical Lutheran Worship is available here. It also talks a bit about the offices in the new LSB. Reading this helps frame a little better why this Lutheran uses Anglican resources for daily prayer.
Tip of the biretta to Lee.
Filed under: Lutheran, Lutheranism, liturgica, prayer, theology, worship
Ok–you’ve *gotta* say more than that…
yeah, but have a squirmy and mobile 9 month old to contend with at the same time!
I know that story…
We wrapped up mass a bit ago. Nothing aids the maintenance of a contemplative silence like goldfish….
So why wasn’t that guy on the committee and if he wasn’t asked, why didn’t he comment anyway? I made a point of reading the whole example book that came out.
As to some statement about no real dissatisfaction with the LBW….HUH??? Lots of churches I’ve been in as a visitor were no longer using it very often, were using their “own” hymnals, the Blue Book, or “worship folders.”
Some of the grammatical problems he mentions may be correct. I don’t know who edits stuff like that, but Augsburg Pub. once offered me a job as an editor (long time ago) and I wasn’t exactly qualified.
PS - I don’t know why he wasn’t asked. He commented because he is a Lutheran and his church has provided a worship resource that he finds lacking. He actually did publish some of the support materials for the LBW (such as the Manual on the Liturgy). He also self-published a Lutheran “breviary”. The guy is more than qualified to comment on the offices portion of the ELW.
I do think he makes a couple of statements that are too general and too sweeping, much like the one you point out (I know quite a few folks who don’t like the LBW).
I commented over at Lee’s place that I don’t really buy into the conspiracy theory of the ELW, which is that is was solely to bail out Augsburg Fortress. And, truth be told, I haven’t read the rubrics close enough to notice any severe grammatical errors. I do think the critical mistake of the ELCA was to try and publish a resource that had something for everyone. The ELW falls flat on its face in that respect. Nothing will ever appeal to EVERYONE.
The worst part of the LBW IMHO is that it had friggin’ piano harmonies for many of its hymns. You can’t sing piano harmonies congregationally…
Pfatteicher’s essays both in the cited material and in the recent newsletter of the Association of Lutheran Church Musicians have a potential to be incredibly damaging to the institution of the church.
The people who worked so hard on the the ELW along with the assemblies which considered and approved its work would be shocked to think that they were somehow the financial tool of Augsburg Fortress. His suggestion that it was all a plot is ridiculous. Especially when one considers the relationship between the ELCA Worship staff and AFP ten years ago. At the time there were those on ECLA staff who felt that future materials should perhaps be published by a different company.
To suggest that the LBW was flawless and without detractors is also bizarre. There are congregations who went from one red book to the next, completely skipping LBW altogether.
There is never going to be a perfect worship book. Pfatteicher is wrong if he thinks that the church should have been satisfied with the LBW.
revhrod - I think you overestimate his influence. And I do agree that the statements you point out are not solid. I will say that he is certainly not the first to question if this might be the case (regarding AFP).
His criticism of the offices, however, is dead on.
I also agree with his statement where he says that it was a vocal minority in the church that was the driving force behind ELW. I do not remember there being a large group within Lutheran (ELCA) circles saying that we needed a new worship book. Bailing out AFP? I doubt it, but it didn’t hurt them either.
A number of commentaries were written by liturgists on the matter and affected Renewing Worship materials, the precursor to ELW, but not in every aspect. Some were quite theologically sharp and scathing. Pr. Pfatteicher may have indeed submitted commentary and it may have been “considered”. I know Grindal has also publicly raised concerns, and irrespective of her personality (some use to ignore her), shes a brilliant hymn translator and thoughtful liturgically. The reality is only one presently active seminary prof. of liturgy sat on the committee and one other committee member is a retired seminary prof. of liturgy. A lot of work went into ELW, but I think it heightens now the range among ELCA Lutherans. The LCMS LSB is to my mind quite interesting.
Well, C’s presiding and preaching at a congregation this weekend that still uses SBH for their English service and some older German order for their German service. He pointed out the noticable lightening of sin from SBH to the present ELW incarnation. It’s so heavy he said. To which I said, only in comparison to the latest rendition.
I know of a congregation that went from the “red” book to the “cranberry” book. Now that must be a shocker.
Note my first in a series of comparisons of LBW and ELW at my blog.
You’re right Luther Punk, I probably overstated Pfatteicher’s influence. And I admit it, I was angry. However a close friend from ALCM was very concerned about the impact on that group.
First of all, his claim about removing masculine language for God is crap. I’m looking at the Holy Communion liturgy and all over the place I see words like Father, Son, King, Lord. Last I heard those were all masculine.
The use of assembly in place of congregation allows the book to be used in various settings such as prisons, nursing homes, schools, etc. that would not consider themselves congregations in the sense that a gathering in a church would.
And for cryin’ out loud. Language does change. The usage of various words evolves. We’re not talking the way Shakespeare or Chaucer wrote and I’m certainly not pining for those days or that language. So if language and usage changes then updates need to be made. LBW was nearly 30 years old. It was a book for a generation but another generations can have its own book.
He might have a point about grammar in the rubrics but I think everyone knows what the rubrics are describing and saying. I’m wondering if he’s got a burr under his saddle because the people who developed ELW no longer worship at the shrine of the great Pfatteicher. I know an elderly pastor who says that we value tradition, we give our grandparents and greatgrandparents a say in what we do today, but not the whole say.
Pfatteicher sounds like a grumpy old curmudgeon in his entire article. The impression I get is he’s saying “If they’d only asked me I would have done it right.” Well, one man’s opinion is one man’s opinion. ELW was developed with the work and input of thousands of people across the ELCA and ELCIC (we appreciate that our little church was given some seats at the table). Nothing is perfect nor will it please everyone. I like it just fine.
Bravo, Tom.
I’ve offered some thoughts on the ELW and Pfatteicher’s comments over at my blog, if you care to read . . .
[...] Filed under: Daily Office, Lutheran — Derek the Ænglican @ 12:39 pm Sure enough, LutherPunk, Chris and Christopher have all weighed in on Pr. Pfatteicher’s article trashing the [...]
Glad to see G. Grindal mentioned. She was my college English teacher. I still remember her metaphor about the woman at the nursing home: Her breast hung from her chest like Norway hangs from Sweden.