ELW Thoughts

There has been a fair amount of buzz created by the article written by Pr. Philip Pfatteicher regarding the new worship book being produced by the ELCA. I originally linked the article because of Pfatteicher’s adept criticism of the Daily Offices. Most people, however, never really got passed the more inflammatory statements he made in the beginning of the article about a possible Augsburg Fortress bailout or his criticism of so-called inclusive language. It is disappointing, because the article is an opportunity to understand a bit more about the offices in their broader context, and to see how the ELW has departed from some of the historic practices associated with this form of prayer. I do encourage everyone to give Pfatteicher a fair read here. A good way to do this is to have a copy of ELW, LBW, and maybe even the BCP for cross-comparison.

I never really weighed in on what Pfatteicher said, though I had intended to. The week has simply gotten away from me. Maybe that was a good thing, as in the meantime Chris re-framed the chatter by asking a simple question, “What would you do?” It’s a great question, one that Derek has already responded to from his perspective as a post-Lutheran. Derek and I are much on the same page regarding this issue, but I think I would differ with with Chris in the way I would interpret and apply CA VII. It reads as follows:

Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4, 5. 6.

My read of this article is an affirmative one. It is, in fact, the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of Sacraments that matter. Rites and ceremonies need not be exactly the same across the board. Within the Christian church there has always been a certain amount of natural diversity in the way rites are carried out. I do not expect that Lutheran worship in Kenya will look the same as it does in Sweden. Nor do I expect that a Latin American ex-pat congregation in the U.S. will worship in the same way a Norwegian heritage church in Minnesota will worship. But I expect that the worship will be recognizable. I expect that there will be more similarities than differences. I expect that – even if the worship is held in another language with music very different from what I am used to – that I will be able to follow along. I expect that there will be unity within our diversity. However, I do not believe that this article grants carte blanche creative license. I would suggest that this article had something of a baseline for liturgy in mind. Determining that baseline is the tricky part.

I think you would be hard pressed to find many Lutherans who believe that the LBW was or is a perfect book, or that it should serve as the baseline for English Lutheran liturgy. It has flaws, as do all worship books. I understand the reason why many congregations look outside the LBW for materials. I too do this, though the congregation I serve tends to draw more from Anglican and Roman resources for supplemental materials than it does from any other outside resource. Part of that is shaped by the liturgical theology of the pastor, to be sure. I bring this up only to say that I really do understand that there are limits and I am not a cheerleader for LBW. At the same time, I think the LBW did a better job in some aspects than the ELW. (The Daily Offices are but one example, and I agree with most of what Pr. Pfatteicher says in regards to the issue.) The question at hand, however, is not about what is out there, but rather what would I have done if I were Grand Puba of liturgical revision in the ELCA.

To be honest, I am not positive what I would have done. It seems to me that the root of the problem lies in the attempt of the ELCA to provide a “core” resource. Maybe those days are over. Maybe the ELCA needs to provide a hymnal apart from a service book, and then publish a series of liturgical resources. I think if we had a functional Lutheran equivalent to the Anglican Missal, I would be pretty content, as would much of our congregation that attends traditional worship. There could be a contemporary resource, an Spanish language resource etc and the possibilities would be endless. I am going to suggest the radical by saying that the ELW IS an attempt to be the Lutheran version of the BCP, and by trying to please everyone, it actually pleases few. People will still need to look elsewhere for sources, and on this account, the ELW fails to fulfill its own stated purpose. I think it would have been better to simply acknowledge this reality early on and take worship planning and resources into a different direction.

 

This is not to say that everything about the book is bad or that I refuse to use it. I have spoken highly of some parts of the book. There are a couple of settings for mass that are lovely and the occasional services have greatly improved.