FW: Walther’s Hymnal: Complete Translation of the First LCMS Hymnal Rich in Orthodox Hymnody

More Walther…

 

Feed: Cyberbrethren Lutheran Blog Feed
Posted on: Thursday, November 29, 2012 8:12 AM
Author: Paul T. McCain
Subject: Walther's Hymnal: Complete Translation of the First LCMS Hymnal Rich in Orthodox Hymnody

 

Look what just came in, a magnificent piece of work: Walther's Hymnal: Church Hymnbook for Evangelical Lutheran Congregations of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession. This is a complete translation/edition of the first hymnal produced by The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, and arguably I suppose, the first orthodox and confessional Lutheran hymnal produced in the New World. Mr. Matthew Carver did a tremendous job preparing this volume. I'll reproduce below the image more information about the book. You can purchase a copy by calling 800-325-3040. As always, click on the image below for the "supersize" version. Walther's Hymnal: Church Hymnbook is the first of its kind: an English translation of the first official hymnal of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. This was the hymnal that C.F.W. Walther edited and used, and that provided Christians throughout the LCMS a common experience during the Church's early years in America, in the same way that Lutheran Service Book provides a common experience for us today. Now presented for the first time in English, this is an invaluable resource for history enthusiasts, church musicians, and anyone who wants insight into how our grandfathers sang and prayed. This is a chance to share in that song and prayer of the saints gone before us. Matthew Carver, MFA, is a translator of German and classical literature. He resides in Nashville, TN, with his wife Amanda and their young son, where they pursue interests in art, orthodox Lutheran theology, liturgy, and hymnody.  What Others Are Saying Thanks to Matthew Carver, we now have Walther's hymnal, which guided the life of the Synod through its German-speaking period—six decades blessed with exponential growth. —Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison, President, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod Walther's Hymnal will soon find a place in the libraries of all interested in thedevelopment of Lutheran hymnody in America. —Dr. Carl Schalk, Concordia University Chicago Matthew Carver has opened the closed door and provided English translations for all the hymns in Walther's hymnal, and many are translated for the first time. —Dr. Robin A. Leaver, Yale Institute of Sacred Music Walther's Hymnal will serve not only as a rich devotional resource for our time but also as an impetus for future hymn writers as they add to our rich heritage. —Rev. Dr. Paul J. Grime, Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne This will be a welcome addition to the library of all who appreciate the Lutheran chorale, and for composers who are searching for "new" texts to inspire musical settings for use in the church, school, and home. —Rev. Prof. Dennis Marzolf, Bethany Lutheran College Matthew Carver's masterful translation of C. F. W. Walther's 1847 collection of German-language hymns opens a window on the mid-nineteenth-century revival of confessional Lutheranism in America. —Dr. Daniel Zager, Eastman School of Music In this labor of love, Carver has provided a wonderful resource for historians, pastors, and homes—and a wonderful tribute to Walther and our Lutheran hymnody. —Rev. Thomas Egger, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis Matthew Carver has recovered translations longhidden away in forgotten books, and he offers many of his own translations,thus giving us the complete poetic texts in a way that is beneficial and useful for pastors, teachers, musicians, congregation members, theologians, and historians. —Prof. Mark DeGarmeaux, Bethany Lutheran College …a book that will be a blessing to any lover of Lutheran doctrine, liturgy, and hymnody. —Rev. William C. Weedon, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

View article...

FW: Walther’s Hymnal — Interview with the Editor/Translator Mr. Matthew Carver

Walther…

 

Feed: Cyberbrethren Lutheran Blog Feed
Posted on: Thursday, November 29, 2012 9:05 AM
Author: Paul T. McCain
Subject: Walther's Hymnal — Interview with the Editor/Translator Mr. Matthew Carver

 

Saint Louis, MO—Concordia Publishing House (CPH) is pleased to announce the release of the English-language edition of Walther's Hymnal: Church Hymnbook for Evangelical Lutheran Congregations of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession. Walther's Hymnal is the first of its kind: an English translation of the first official hymnal of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS). This was the hymnal that C. F. W. Walther edited and used; it provided Christians throughout the LCMS a common experience during the Church's early years in America, in the same way that Lutheran Service Book provides a common experience for us today. This is an invaluable resource for history enthusiasts, church musicians, and anyone who wants insight into how our grandfathers sang and prayed. This is a chance to share in that song and prayer of the saints gone before us. Walther's Hymnal was published through CPH's Peer Review Process. To find out more about Peer Review books, visit our website at cph.org/peerreview. During an interview with the translator, Matthew Carver, he answered several questions about the benefits and background of the book: Historically, why is Walther's Hymnal so important, and how is it useful to us today? Walther's Hymnal is a picture in our own language of what our fellow brothers and sisters believed, taught, confessed, sang, and prayed in their own language in days long past—a treasure partly lost during our synod's necessary transition from German to English, and until recently only accessible to students or native speakers of German. It is a snapshot of what they thought was important and useful in the exercise of their faith. It is a product largely influenced by the synod's first president, C. F. W. Walther, and as such is an important witness in the history of American Lutheranism. By such an examination of our forefathers' writings, we are given a mirror to see our own situation more clearly. Though we may deal with different problems today, we are often blind to them by virtue of being immersed in our own writings so heavily, and this historical mirror acts as a counterbalance to that. Who will most want to read this book? Walther's Hymnal will appeal to a range of people, from those with academic interests to casual historians to those interested in augmenting their devotions. But I think that whoever it is, those who will be most inclined to read, and re-read, this book will be the ones who like to sing and pray and be a Christian—who say, "Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner," and who hear when Jesus says, "Come unto Me, you weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest," and who respond, "Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief." In my opinion this is the essence of what our forefathers present to us in this collection, and the kind of people they address, the kind of people that God creates through His Word. Why will they benefit from this book? The hymns, prayers, and readings of the church presented here offer solutions to an array of problems that we deal with in our daily life. They also speak with joyous conviction the confession of Christ that the church has made throughout the ages, and allow us to join in this with them in diverse and beautiful forms that harmonize with and vigorously and faithfully echo the trustworthy propositions of Scripture and our confessional books. The works of these Christian poets, if not always conveyed as poetically in translation, at least provide us with an apt expression of the sentiment that we as Christians know and feel but often do not know how to put into words. They are lessons about the human race's deadly fall into sin, they are clear announcements of the good news that Jesus paid the price for all the sins of the whole world, they are formulas of praise and thanksgiving for all of God's mercies, they are consolations for the mourning and afflicted from our brethren and our pastors before us, they are exhortations to a life of newness in Christ. Thus they are fitting frameworks for hearts and minds in which to meditate on and confess God's Word. How did you come to be interested in translating this particular book? It all started as a personal project and a labor of love. When I converted to Lutheranism around 2001–2002, I became increasingly familiar with Lutherans' exceptional body of hymnody, and increasingly enamored of it. In 2006, Lutheran Service Book came out, and that stirred this interest more. When singing in church or at home, I would take note of the authors and dates at the bottom of the page, some ancient, some medieval, some of Luther's day, and some of the present. Upon further investigation into the history of our hymnals, I found that a great number of our Lutheran chorales had been lovingly maintained, translated, and handed on; I also found that some had not been translated, and I wondered why. I came to discover that some of them were very hard to translate, while others expressed sentiments which have passed in and out of favor at various times in the past. I went on a search for translations of these lost hymns and was granted success to a degree. For the rest, I had to fill in the blanks myself. During my long search for the supplementary translations, I was encouraged to seek publication and share the work with others. What are your thoughts upon the publication of this book? It is all very humbling, especially when I compare my own work to that of all these venerable translators and hymn-writers. I hope mine at least convey a sense of the original. If they are singable, so much the better. But I am excited too about having such an extensive collection of authors and translators in one book. I know that to have my own copy and receive the instruction and encouragement of these authors as a reader, rather than just a translator, will be a welcome and rewarding experience.

View article...

FW: When You Do Not Go to Church

Consider…

 

Feed: Cyberbrethren Lutheran Blog Feed
Posted on: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 6:01 AM
Author: Paul T. McCain
Subject: When You Do Not Go to Church

 

It never ceases to baffle and confuse me when I hear people make the comment, "You don't have to go to Church to be a Christian." I used to try to respond to this with rather long-winded explanations of the third commandment, and the gifts given, and blah, blah, blah. Lately, I've just decided to respond to those comments by asking, "Really? Where does our Lord in His Word teach that?" Hint: He doesn't! My friend, Pastor Weedon, offers this "take" on not attending Church. "If I decided one Sunday just to skip Church that week, do you think anyone would notice? Ah, you say, but you're the pastor. Yes, they'd notice. I agree. They would. But it also makes a difference when YOU decide to skip Church this Sunday. "Each Sunday is a gathering of the family – and when a beloved family member doesn't show up for the family gathering and meal at Christmas or Easter or Thanksgiving, there's a hole, a gap, a pain that everyone feels. We're all the less for that person not being with us to revel in the celebration of that day. Their absence diminishes the joy of the family. So when you choose to skip on Sunday, when you don't come together with your church family to join in offering the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving and to receive the gifts your Lord has for you, it's not just you that miss out. Your extended family – the Church – misses out. They are diminished by your decision to absent yourself. The singing is that much quieter. The "amens" that much softer. The spot where you usually sit and stand reminds us all of your absence. "Surely old Neuhaus was dead right on this: Christian discipleship should begin with a very simple commitment that any given Lord's Day will find you in the assembly of God's people, singing His praise, offering your prayers, receiving His gifts. The *only* reasons for missing is because you're too sick to be present or because you're away traveling – and even in the later case, blessed are you if you find the family gathered in that location and join with them." "Let us consider how to stir one another up to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near." Hebrews 10:25

View article...

FW: Great Stuff — Debunking a Myth: Contemporary Worship is not Inclusive

Consider…

 

Feed: Steadfast Lutherans
Posted on: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 11:15 AM
Author: Norm Fisher
Subject: Great Stuff — Debunking a Myth: Contemporary Worship is not Inclusive

 

Found on Matthew E. Cochran's blog, The 96th thesis:   When a congregation begins toying with the idea of contemporary worship, one of the usual driving factors is an attempt to be more "inclusive." "The Church needs to appeal to more people than the gray-hairs that attend every Sunday. Get rid of that tired plodding organ and get some more lively instruments in there! Why force modern Americans to sing nothing but 16th century German hymns?" The impression that advocates often give is that contemporary worship is something that opens the church up and broadens it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather than providing a breath of fresh air, contemporary worship is a narrow and constrictive force that can strangle a congregation. First, the contention that traditional Lutheran hymnals are simply a collection of music that only old people could like is rather dubious. Consider: The commonly used Lutheran hymnal (LSB) includes songs dating back from almost two thousand years ago all the way to today. Most of its hymns were written centuries before any of our elderly were even born. If they enjoy it, it cannot possibly be because it was the music of their generation–something that only they would like. Generationally exclusive music is, however, precisely what contemporary worship seeks to impose. Rather than selecting the best from a broad ocean of church music that spans cultures, continents, & thousands of years of history, contemporary worship restricts music: first to the last few decades, then to America, then to a subset of the youth. Towards the end of his book, Who's Afraid of Postmodernism, James K. A. Smith describes a "radically orthodox" church service that he considers to more "catholic" than the services we may be used to. Nevertheless, the mishmash of eclectic chairs, jazz bands, and Anne Sexton poetry he advocates would only appeal to the neo-hipster, Whole Foods, communitarian demographic. That's about as far from universal as you can get. In the name of being inclusive, contemporary worship excludes everyone but the young and hip by trading the rich heritage found in the liturgy for a handful of passing fads. Second, Contemporary worship restricts music's capacity to communicate. Every age has its own insights & blind-spots, and its preferred styles reflect these. One advantage to a broad hymnody is that the excesses of one age cover often the deficiencies of another. Contemporary worship lacks this safeguard. If you compare hymns written in the past 75 years or so to the hymns that preceded it, you'll quickly notice some general differences in the lyrical structure. Older hymns tend to be built around sentences and make statements. Modern hymns, on the other hand tend to be built around phrases and are designed to give an impression. While the former style serves a variety of purposes (confession, catechesis, prayer, praise, etc), the latter style is suited almost exclusively toward praise and self-expression (it's no accident they're usually called 'praise bands'). Now, while self-expression has very little place in the divine service, there's certainly nothing wrong with singing praise songs in church. Beautiful Savior, for example, is a classic hymn that makes use of this kind of phrase-based songwriting for precisely this purpose. The problem arises when almost every hymn is like that. Practically speaking, restricting a congregation to contemporary songs restricts them to praise music. By neglecting the ability to make meaningful statements in music, the hymnody begins to forget why we're responding to God with praise in the first place. When this goes on long enough, all that remains is a desperate attempt to use music to manipulate the emotions into producing what once flowed naturally from what God has done for us. Finally, contemporary worship generally doesn't make people feel more comfortable or welcome–at least not in Lutheran churches. In the movie Better of Dead, there's a scene in which John Cusack's family invites a French exchange student over for dinner. In order to make her feel more welcome, the hostess serves a meal consisting of French fries, French toast, and French bread. Needless to say, regardless of the hostess' efforts, the student did not exactly feel comfortable. Frankly, this is pretty much how Lutherans come off when we pander to those young, hip Americans of whom we have only the most shallow understanding by attempting to adopt their musical styles in church. Those we pander to might (or might not) be too polite to say that such imitation looks more like a bad parody, but they're often thinking it. Perhaps there's another thing we might learn from this analogy when we seek to invite unbelievers into the church. The Church is in the world, but not of it. No matter how we arrange our music, unbelievers who visit us are in a foreign land. The last thing an exchange student is looking for is a grossly inferior version of their own culture. The entire point of being an exchange student is to be immersed in something other. If the Church tries to make herself look like the world, not only will she do a poor job of it, but she will deny those who come to her the opportunity to find something more than what they already have. Our heritage is something any generation can be brought into. If we seek to be more inclusive and welcoming, we would do well to embrace it.

View article...

FW: The Nondenominationalists Who Weren’t

Great Points…

 

Feed: Steadfast Lutherans
Posted on: Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:16 AM
Author: Pastor John Fraiser
Subject: The Nondenominationalists Who Weren't

 

Calling oneself nondenominational is en vogue, but what does it mean exactly to be nondenominational? I doubt many have given it much thought. Yet, as I have talked to those who use this term for themselves or for their church, I find that they believe that there's something magnanimous about not being part of a denomination — that it's primitive and all Jesus-like to just call yourself a Christian and not be so sectarian as to be denominational. The term's appeal is that it gives those who use the term a feeling of being a pure Christian, but what does it mean to be nondenominational? Here's where the trouble comes in. I can't get a meaningful answer to this question from those who use it. This is because it is an entirely meaningless term. It is meaningless in the sense that there is no group to which it can refer. This makes the use of the term is worse than useless, it makes it misleading and inaccurate. Strictly speaking, no group of Christians is non-denominational. Do you or your church have a view on baptism? Do you baptize only those who can articulate their faith and only after they have confessed their faith? Or do you baptize infants? Is Baptism a unique means of grace or is it only a public confession? What is the Lord's Supper? Is it the physical body of Christ? Is it a visual symbol by which we act in obedience to Christ when we eat it? Is Christ only spiritually present in it? There are of course other important questions along which denominational lines are drawn but these questions suffice to show that nondenominationalism isn't really an option. I know of no church that doesn't have an opinion on these doctrinal issues. But even should your church have no opinion about these matters it wouldn't get around the denominational question. Without answering these kinds of questions, it would eliminate your church as a Christian church since Christians are regard these matters and who treat Baptism and the Lord's Supper with seriousness, and even if you think a church could count as Christian without answering these questions it still wouldn't be nondenominational since indifference is still a view of baptism and the Lord's Supper (among other things) which would define the church denominationally over against those who do practice it and regard it with seriousness. Not having an opinion on matters of baptism and the Lord's Supper constitutes a stance toward those issues and a denomination-making stance at that. But this consideration is really just a hypothetical extreme. In the real world, churches clearly have views about the issues that divide them into denominations. Most churches that call themselves nondenominational are really just Baptist churches who refuse to openly acknowledge this fact. Maybe they don't want to be part of a denomination, but we don't always get what we want. Some may not like belonging to a denomination by virtue of what doctrines they hold to, but their wishes are really irrelevant for placin Still, sometimes people use "nondenominational" a little differently than how I'm using it here. I'm using the term in reference to what doctrine a particular group confesses. It is sometimes used to mean not belonging to some organized conglomerate church body like the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the Southern Baptists, the Assemblies of God, etc. But it's easy to see that this isn't nondenominationalism. First, this has not been the meaning of a "denomination" historically. Doctrine has historically defined denominations rather than a denomination being defined according to what ecclesiastical infrastructure one is apart of (especially since there have been denominational groups without much infrastructure).g them in their religious grouping. There's nothing new under the sun; all the available doctrinal options have already been covered, and like it or not we all fit into one of these groups. Second, a church may be independent of an organized denominational group, but that doesn't make it any less denominational. At best it makes the church an independent Baptist or an independent Presbyterian or an independent Penecostal church, etc., but it is still a Baptist or Presbyterian or Penecostal church. The issue of nondenominationalism is different than the issue of an organized cooperation of churches. Furthermore, the issue of nondenominationalism is different than whether your church has discloses its denomination in the church name or title. Some churches leave their denomination out of the title but don't claim to be nondenominational. While there may be good and bad reasons for leaving the denomination out of the title, it isn't necessarily connected to the church's belief about their denominational status. I personally prefer that we be upfront about who and what we are. To quote a friend on this matter, from a time when I claimed to be "nondenominational": "I like labels; they let me know what I'm eating." This is true, of course, only on the condition that the label is true to the content. There are many churches who claim to belong to a denomination but have long since departed from the doctrine of that denomination. While these are often self-described liberal or mainline churches, there are many evangelical churches that have done this too. For example, despite being considered conservative, most Southern Baptist churches and specifically it's denominational confession, the Baptist Faith and Message, have departed from what Baptists historically have confessed about the Lord's Supper in Second London Baptist Confession of 1689. As I said above, those who call themselves "nondenominational" are nearly invariably Baptists. I don't propose to have an explanation for this phenomenon. Is it embarrassment about being Baptist? Is it some deceptive evangelism tactic that's to blame? Whatever the reason, claiming nondenominationalism isn't accurate. But it is more than just a minor quibble about labels and the meaning of the word "nondenominational." To claim nondenominationalism is, whether intentional or unintentional, deceptive and arrogant. Deceptive because it claims to be something that it isn't. Arrogant because those who claim nondenominationalism think they are above the fray of those who are hung up on what denomination they're part of. I've been around enough of it. Someone asks, "What denomination are you?" The response: "Oh! We're not part of a denomination. We're just Christians. We don't get into those debates. We just want to love Jesus here." Sounds nice, but the church goes on to articulate views that are without doubt denominational (as I say, usually Baptist) all the while claiming this is the Christian view. The implicit claim is that those who don't hold such views aren't Christians. If a church claims to be nondenominational and claims to have the "Christian" view of things, then by implication, there is a claim that churches who don't believe like they do on these matters aren't Christian or at least aren't fully Christian. This is clearly both deceptive and arrogant, again, even if unintentional. Furthermore, I don't think the unchurched people that nondenominationalists are trying to reach really buy the line that they're just these primitive, pure-doctrine Christians somehow floating above the fray of all those who want to divide the church and complicate things with denominationalism. It's certainly hard to buy that claim when you're sitting in a multi-million dollar complex, with a food court, and your "worship" involves lasers, smoke, spotlights, a praise band with electric guitars, late twentieth-century music, and a pastor who sits on a stool as a cultural cliche of emo glasses and a soul patch. Really? This is pure Christianity that's just about loving Jesus? The last point I wish to make is that the claim we've been evaluating (namely, that nondenominational churches are simply "Christian" churches who just want to love Jesus without getting caught up in denominational divides), is also a claim that being a Christian, loving and following Jesus is somehow unrelated to obeying what Scripture teaches about baptism, the Lord's Supper, church government, and various other doctrinal matters. But Christ told us that if we love him we will keep his commandments (Jn 14:15; 15:10). Obedience on these matters is quite relevant to what it means to love Christ and follow him. As Lutherans know better than almost any, you don't get to chose your own labels. Beliefs have consequences for defining you relative to those holding other beliefs. Own who you are and where you fit in the landscape. Telling us all that you're "just a Christian" is just an exercise in deception and manipulation, no matter what your intentions are.

View article...

FW: British agency is requiring open communion

A precedent?

 

Feed: Cranach: The Blog of Veith
Posted on: Friday, November 09, 2012 3:31 AM
Author: Gene Veith
Subject: British agency is requiring open communion

 

A British commission is refusing to allow a Plymouth Brethren church to be registered as a charity because it practices closed communion: A government agency that oversees charities in the United Kingdom has decided that a local Christian congregation cannot be registered because it does not open its communion services to just any outsider. The decision by the U.K.'s Charity Commission is being reported by The Christian Institute, which has been working on the case of the Plymouth Brethren assembly in Devon for seven years. Without registration, the group would be subject to a number of government restrictions that do not apply to charity organizations. The decision "would have a huge impact on the group's tax relief and would also have other implications," said the institute in a report. The report said the congregation's elders testified to a select committee of Parliament last week. The government has determined the group cannot be registered because it has decided that its communion services are for members only. "During the evidence a letter from the commission's head of legal services emerged claiming that churches cannot be assumed to be acting for the public good," the report said. The institute said it is working on the case because of the need to protect religious liberty for all church groups. A statement released by the government agency said, "The application [from the church] was not accepted on the basis that we were unable to conclude that the organization is established for the advancement of religion for public benefit within the relevant law." The institute said Conservative Member of Parliament Charlie Elphicke speculated whether the government agency was "actively trying to suppress religion in the U.K., particularly the Christian religion." According to a report from the Telegraph of London, the faith group is planning to take the battle to the European Court of Human Rights if needed. via Government regulates church communion. I don't pretend to understand church-state relations under British law, and I think I must be missing something.  Roman Catholic churches don't practice open communion.  Are they registered as "charities"?  Also, there is a small but vibrant group of confessional Lutherans in England.  Are they in the same jeopardy?  And what does it mean to be a registered charity in England?  Is that the same as our "non-profit" status, with all of the tax deductions that makes possible?  If anyone knows anything about this, please comment. Is this an example of the state control of churches in a country that does not have our separation of church and state?  Or is it a foretaste of what American Christians will face also if they are not sufficiently "inclusive" according to the canons of state-mandated toleration?

View article...

FW: Top 25 Hymns Sung in Church

From the Southern Baptist Convention publisher…

 

Feed: LifeWayWorship.com/blog
Posted on: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 7:00 AM
Author: LifeWayWorship.com/blog
Subject: Top 25 Hymns Sung in Church

 

The top 25 CCLI songs are publicly available to see what songs churches are singing. However, CCLI only tracks songs under copyright, and does not track the activity of songs in the public domain, most notably the great hymns of the church. Below is a list of the top 25 hymns sung in church today. To create this list, we combined the sales from a traditional arrangement and a contemporary arrangement of each hymn for the past four years. 1. How Great Thou Art 2. Great Is Thy Faithfulness 3. Blessed Assurance, Jesus Is Mine 4. All Hail the Power of Jesus' Name 5. Holy, Holy, Holy 6. Jesus Paid It All 7. Christ the Lord Is Risen Today 8. Crown Him with Many Crowns 9. It Is Well with My Soul 10. To God Be the Glory 11. The Solid Rock 12. Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing 13. I Stand Amazed in the Presence 14. Victory in Jesus 15. Nothing but the Blood 16. Amazing Grace! How Sweet the Sound 17. Praise to the Lord, the Almighty 18. At the Cross 19. Revive Us Again 20. Be Thou My Vision 21. Because He Lives 22. Joyful, Joyful, We Adore Thee 23. A Mighty Fortress Is Our God 24. O For A Thousand Tongues To Sing 25. America, the Beautiful "How Great Thou Art" and "Great Is Thy Faithfulness" are still under copyright, so CCLI tracks them and they rank #26 and #53 respectively on their list of all copyrighted songs sung in church. So what do you think of this list?

View article...