8 Reasons to Delay Approval of Renewing Worship

 

1.  We’ve spent the last 4 years studying sex       (ie: Journey Together Faithfully, Parts I & II)

Most people are familiar with the issues covered in the studies sponsored by the Task Force on Sexuality.  But, despite many efforts to introduce the RW materials, they remain unfamiliar to most members of the ELCA.  It is doubtful that the Churchwide Assembly is prepared to make an informed decision about RW.

 

2.  Agenda Overload at CWA

It is also doubtful that this year’s Assembly will be able to give the RW materials the kind of serious, careful evaluation they must have, because there are several other highly contentious proposals on its agenda (ie: Restructuring Churchwide, Restructuring Governance, and recommendations related to homosexuality).  Past Assemblies have shown a clear pattern of being able to deal effectively with only one major, controversial issue.

 

3.  Final Approval rests with the Presiding Bishop - NOT  the Churchwide Assembly

If approved as proposed, the Presiding Bishop would actually have the final approval.  See RW recommendation, Paragraph 6.a. (in 2005 Pre-Assembly Report, Section IV, p. 17)

 

4.  The RW recommendation is to approve a process, not a finished project.

The approval process itself is unclear.  The 2005 Churchwide Assembly will vote on a proposed hymnal, but the book itself is not yet complete.  What does that mean?  How can the assembly vote to approve materials that are not yet in their final form?

 

5.  Info from RW feedback is not available to Voting Members

The RW web site indicates that feedback is still welcome until the day after the churchwide assembly adjourns.  What kind of feedback shaped the proposals for this CWA?  Is it comments like, “I like this tune,” or, “I like that part of the liturgy.”  Or is it theological opinions from a cross section of scholars in the ELCA?  What do these scholars say?

 

6.  Not necessarily Lutheran

The background materials to RW (including the video, “With the Whole Church”) make it clear that
conforming to an “ecumenical consensus” was a key motivator for many of the proposed changes.  Lutherans, however, have insisted that our theology must determine how we worship.  Practices of other Christian
churches, ancient traditions and innovations of every kind must be weighed on the scales of confessional theological integrity and, if found wanting, cast aside.
 

7.  RW Could benefit from more study

The Renewing Worship materials contain a number of substantial changes in the theology and worship practices of the ELCA, such as substituting a “Thanksgiving for Baptism” rite for the confession and absolution of sin, radical re-translation of familiar hymns and a plethora of new rites and rituals which distract from a clear focus on the Word of God.  RW is not just a hymnal, but a much larger project involving numerous volumes of background and supporting materials.  Careful review of all that material takes much time. 

 

8. RW could benefit from a greater diversity of input

Feedback from members of the ELCA about the proposed Renewing Worship materials are not available on the web site.  It does describe an approval process which includes theological review, but few details are provided nor are those reviews available to read.  A more thorough theological review, perhaps by seminary faculties, clearly seems warranted.

 

SUMMARY:  There is reason to question whether the Renewing Worship materials reflect or will maintain a Lutheran theology of worship.
 

DELAY THE VOTE:  For these and other reasons, it is wise and responsible to delay for at least two years any vote to approve these worship materials which could profoundly affect the faith and belief of those who use them.