Herman G Stuempfle hymn texts
  • mrcoppermrcopper
    Posts: 653
    Two unfollowed paths in the lengthy preceding comments interested me:

    1) gender change process

    2) one specific hymn text by Stuemple to discuss/criticize/praise.

    As to the first, I changed gender to be female in every children's book I read to my children (who are girls), from Runaway Bunny (SHE) to Bonnie Prince Charlie (SHE). Recently, my oldest, now adult, thanked me, and seemed to understand why I did it: it's enabling, enlightening, and exciting to think you, the child, can be anything and everything. Were we to persist with HE did HE was HE saids: we'd be better to have only male children.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,216
    Were we to persist with HE did HE was HE saids: we'd be better to have only male children.


    And the downside of this is...???
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,409
    And the downside of this is...??

    I can think of a few drawbacks.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,216
    I was not being serious, Adam LOL.
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,359
    I changed gender to be female

    Why it's always important to read to the end of the sentence.
    Thanked by 1Andrew Motyka
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,216
    I changed gender to be female


    I worked with someone years ago who did this. He went from being a respectable looking man to looking like Herman Munster in a dress. What he thought he was gaining is beyond me. Now he can sing along with Frankenstein, "We are many parts."
  • BruceL
    Posts: 1,060
    The explication of Fr. Krisman about the Tietze introits is (pax to the compiler) one of the better all-time posts on this board. I can never put my finger on it, but there it is. Thank you!
  • G
    Posts: 1,391
    We are better off considering the texts on their own merits directly. Screening on the author's religious affiliation might seem like a useful shortcut, but it would knock out some orthodox texts.
    Amen.
    But, of course, this does require someone actually considering the merits, not just for poetic beauty and singability, but for orthodoxy.
    It would probably be helpful if those whose work, especially new work, is being considered for inclusion not also be part of the editorial board vetting it and judging its orthodoxy, or is openness to unintended heterodox interpretation, surely a greater danger in those who don't actually share our beliefs.

    (Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,216
    It would probably be helpful if those whose work, especially new work, is being considered for inclusion not also be part of the editorial board vetting it and judging its orthodoxy, or is openness to unintended heterodox interpretation, surely a greater danger in those who don't actually share our beliefs.


    Preach on! I have noticed the inbreeding on some review boards. The individuals are probably all nice folks who never speak ill of each other's works.
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,359
    I'm not sure I catch the draft of G's latest comment, but if he or she thinks the editorial committee of a publishing company judges the orthodoxy of hymn texts, he or she is mistaken.

    If something like a hymnal is intended for use in Roman Catholic religious services, a permission to publish (formerly referred to as an "imprimatur") is needed from the diocesan bishop in whose jurisdiction the publication will occur. The permission is based on the fact that the content of the publication is in accord with Catholic teaching.

    Members of an editorial committee may know Catholic teaching very well, so much so that they are able to weed out items presented for inclusion in a proposed hymnal which appear not to accord with Catholic doctrine. But ultimately the diocesan bishop (and the censors of books he appoints) are the judges.

    I also don't know what CharlesW is referring to when he writes, "I have noticed the inbreeding on some review boards."
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,409
    I'm not sure I catch the draft of G's latest comment, but if he or she thinks the editorial committee of a publishing company judges the orthodoxy of hymn texts, he or she is mistaken.

    If something like a hymnal is intended for use in Roman Catholic religious services, a permission to publish (formerly referred to a an "imprimatur") is needed from the diocesan bishop in whose jurisdiction the publication will occur. The permission is based on the fact that the content of the publication is in accord with Catholic teaching.

    Members of an editorial committee may know Catholic teaching very well, so much so that they are able to weed out items presented for inclusion in a proposed hymnal which appear not to accord with Catholic doctrine. But ultimately the diocesan bishop (and the censors of books he appoints) are the judges.


    I think the assumption here was that the editors would try (as best they can) to put forth and include only texts which - as far as they can determine - are orthodox and sound. As opposed to, for example, including any old thing and hoping it will slip by the censors.

    I also don't know what CharlesW is referring to when he writes, "I have noticed the inbreeding on some review boards."


    I assume he means members of editorial review boards including a great deal of material written by members of editorial review boards, or their friends and colleagues.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,216
    I also don't know what CharlesW is referring to when he writes, "I have noticed the inbreeding on some review boards


    I was once semi-involved with a non-Catholic denomination which will remain unnamed, that was putting together a denominational hymnal. Several of the reviewers were related, and others had been close associates for years. No one found fault with anything submitted by other board members.

    I assume he means members of editorial review boards including a great deal of material written by members of editorial review boards, or their friends and colleagues.


    It happens, and probably will again.
    Thanked by 1ronkrisman
  • G
    Posts: 1,391
    if he or she thinks the editorial committee of a publishing company judges the orthodoxy of hymn texts, he or she is mistaken.
    You're serious?
    An editorial board of a Catholic publishing company pays no attention to the texts of hymns other than for the quality of the poetry, they don't care what they say? just compile a hymnal and wait for someone in the chancery to veto anything inappropriate?
    I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm trying to figure out on what basis they vet hymn texts if they wouldn't disqualify one for inclusion on the basis of saying something contrary to the Catholic Faith.
    Particularly with greater attempts at inclusivity, with texts coming from nations and traditions with which they are not extremely familiar, their must be some attempt at discerning whether the texts are compatible with Christianity?
    One might include a native American hymn addressed to Gitche Manitou, for instance, but reject the use of a veda to Surya and Savitri however lovely and poetic, (or for something closer to home for us North Americans, paeans to Ometeotl or Tlaloc.)
    It's clear that doctrinal judgments are not always made with much precision or care, but surely they are made at least a little, with orthodoxy being preferred to heterodoxy?

    If theological judegments weren't made, a decision in favor of eliminating some male pronouns in older hymns wouldn't be made, I would think, since those, I would hope are made not to be "nice" or for political reasons but for actual doctrinal reasons, to better express the reality that men and women are both made in the image and likeness of God, that "in Christ there is no longer.... male or female."

    Incidentally, I'm ..... made in a female image of God.

    (Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

    p.s. The preface to Worship 4 states "Perhaps the single most defining feature of Worship-Fourth Edition is the effort the committee put into choosing high-quality hymn texts. The result is a body of hymns that are theologically sound," which implies that someone made a theological judgement as to their orthodoxy; or is the preface not part of the book that is submitted to the diocese, and was written after the hymns were all approved?
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,359
    You appear not to have read everything I wrote. In context, I was saying that the editorial committee is not the final arbiter, the bishop of the diocese in which the hymnal is published is that final arbiter.

    I wrote in my previous comment:
    Members of an editorial committee may know Catholic teaching very well, so much so that they are able to weed out items presented for inclusion in a proposed hymnal which appear not to accord with Catholic doctrine. But ultimately the diocesan bishop (and the censors of books he appoints) are the judges.
  • G,

    I think that your initial quote taken from Fr. Krisman's above post is best understood by the remainder of his post, especially the following:
    Members of an editorial committee may know Catholic teaching very well, so much so that they are able to weed out items presented for inclusion in a proposed hymnal which appear not to accord with Catholic doctrine. But ultimately the diocesan bishop (and the censors of books he appoints) are the judges.
    As one of the five general editors of Worship IV, I can assure you that we did indeed read every text for possible inclusion in the hymnal with an eye toward Catholic orthodoxy. I think Fr. Krisman is saying that we ourselves were not the ultimate judges, but that the diocesan bishop and his censors were.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,357
    I do sometimes wonder what is meant by "Catholic orthodoxy."

    It seems to mean widely different things to different people, from "whatever Rorate Caeli is angry about this week, " to "whatever the CTSA was promoting either last week or back in the 80s when my professors were all talking about it when I was in seminary"--and other, better things as well.
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,665
    Does anyone (who works/worked for GIA or otherwise) know why SIOBÁN NI LAOGHAIRE seems to have fallen out of favor? It was included in both Worship III (With Jesus for Hero) and Gather Comprehensive II (O Mary of Promise), but doesn't appear to be in any of the "next generation" hymnals.
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,359
    matthewj, SIOBÁN NI LAOGHAIRE is a fine tune, but does anyone really want to argue the merits of the texts of "With Jesus for Hero" and "O Mary of Promise"? The Worship IV committee considered both texts and chose neither for that hymnal. I can only imagine that the Gather 3 committee (of which I was not a member) must have discussed "O Mary of Promise," since, as you mentioned, it had been in Gather Comprehensive II.

    That being said, the Worship IV committee did study the twelve selected texts with an 11 11 11 11 meter to see if any of them was a good fit for SIOBÁN NI LAOGHAIRE. And it decided that none of them were.
  • Does anyone (who works/worked for GIA or otherwise) know why SIOBÁN NI LAOGHAIRE seems to have fallen out of favor? It was included in both Worship III (With Jesus for Hero) and Gather Comprehensive II (O Mary of Promise), but doesn't appear to be in any of the "next generation" hymnals.
    Matthew,

    One of the first things the Worship IV editorial committee did was to decide which hymns from Worship III should also be included in Worship IV. Even though our committee was diverse in many ways, we wanted further input about the usefulness of about 85 hymns from Worship III.

    So, we decided to develop a survey. We came up with a list of people who have used Worship III for a number of years, and asked them to rate the hymns. We tried for a diverse sampling of people (men/women, cathedral/parish, geographical location etc.) We received 36 responses.

    Each person was asked two questions about each hymn: First, have you used this hymn (yes or no)? Second, should this hymn be included in Worship IV (rate on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being yes).

    Only 4 people said that they used “With Jesus for Hero,” while 32 said they didn’t. On whether this hymn should be included in Worship IV, the result was 2.12 out of 5. So the hymn didn’t receive enough support for it to be included.

    We didn’t do a survey about the hymns in Gather Comprehensive. Honestly, I don’t remember the reason why “O Mary of Promise” wasn’t included in Worship IV. My guess is that we felt that we already had a good number of hymns both old and new for Marian celebrations, and that the tune, although laudable, probably wouldn’t be used much.
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,665
    Would GIA ever consider releasing the results of that survey? I'm sure it would be fascinating to read!
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,357
    I suppose a lot of respondents use Silence, Frenzied, Unclean Spirit...
    Thanked by 2CharlesW CHGiffen
  • I suppose a lot of respondents use Silence, Frenzied, Unclean Spirit...
    That was not one of the 85 hymns that the Worship IV committee requested input about, since we had already decided to choose the text, but pair it with a different tune (EBENEZER). One of the reasons the hymn was included in Worship IV is that it reflects the Gospel reading of the Fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year B.

    Believe it or not, it just so happened when the hymnal was being laid out that the hymn "Silence! Frenzied, Unclean Spirit" is hymn number 666! Strange, but true!
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,359
    Yes, Carol Doran's tune in Worship III, entitled AUTHORITY, did not get high marks. But the Thomas Troeger text is quite moving (and unsettling). It behooves us all to ask Christ to free us from the demons and unclean spirits in our minds and hearts:

    Clear our thought and calm our feeling.
    Still the fractured, warring soul.
    By the pow-er of your healing
    Make us faithful, true and whole.

    (Troeger, last half of stanza 3, (c) 1985, Oxford University Press)
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,357
    I guess there are two problems with this (now that we've skipped over the word "frenzied"):

    1. "Still" is an adverb as well as an imperative verb, and more commonly used that way, and at the end of line 2 the impulse is to look for the verb. The same ambiguity arises to a lesser extent with the two clauses in line one. However, there the confusion is limited because the imperatives are also adjectives rather than adverbs , so no extra words need to be supplied in a misreading. That is to say, "Clear [is] our thought" is a complete English expression, whereas "Still...the soul [does what?]" is incomplete.

    It would probably be better to have clarity in texts that ask for freedom from confusion.

    2. How does this text relate to apostolic zeal, and the fervor that is Pentecost?

    Still, I'd wager that almost no DM has gotten past the title.

    Paraphrases can be excellent. F Bland Tucker is the acknowledged master, I think, though his work also raises questions sometimes: e.g. when at Mass is it appropriate to sing the anaphora from the Didache (Father, We Thank Thee)?

    It's quite a subtle art. It helps the congregation has to have an entree to the Biblical text, like Tucker's opening line to his magnificent paraphrase of the hymn from Phillipians 2. The Scripture doesn't say All Praise to Thee, for Thou, O King Divine. The Scripture doesn't address Him directly, and yet the hymn that does rings true in a way that Troeger's text cannot.

    We can reasonably praise the Lord's humility, but we can't actually reasonably scold the demon haunting a first century man. Asking a congregation to do that is quite weird.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • ghmus7
    Posts: 1,332
    Thank you Fr.Krisman for your replies.
    Ok here is another question... arent the GIA hymnals all now looking pretty much the same? It seems to me that Worship began as strictly a hymnal of traditional (few new hymns) all organ based... through the various incarnations, the hymnal now pretty much the same as Ritual Song, which is pretty much the same as Gather Comprehensive. Really, all three books are homogomous. Why is Worship iv even more so?
    And it seems to me, that the GIA definition of traditional is any old or new text from any denomonation or new source as long as it is sung to a metered hymn tune.This is most of Wor IV is it not? Is worship iv really a traditional hymnal, when there are hundreds of new texts that Catholics have never sung?
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,359
    If one is desirous of seeing the entire text, go to
    https://www.onelicense.net
    At "Search Titles" enter Silence! Frenzied
    At the second result click "Preview."

    As will be seen, all but one of the verb forms in stanza 3 are imperatives: silence, speak, clear, still, make. It's hard to imagine that anyone will think "still" is an adverb in context. Besides, Troeger does not write English from the 1860's, so one would not expect a transitive verb at the end of a line. There is a clarity in "Silence! Frenzied, Unclean Spirit" that is lacking in many contemporary hymn texts. (And, BTW, Troeger does use "still" as an adverb in stanza 2.)

    Notice the structure of the text: stanza 1 succinctly recalls the Gospel pericope (Mark 1:21-28); stanza 2 says that so many people today, so many of us, are beset by demons of many kinds: tyrant voices, twisted thought, doubts, fears, guilt, nightmares (who thinks that faithful, practicing Catholics are not beset by one or more of these?); stanza 3 petitions Christ for healing. There is a coherence in the text's development that is lacking in many contemporary hymn texts.

    There's plenty of apostolic zeal in the text, the core message of the Gospel: Christ is our Savior.

    Any DM worth his or her salt and using Worship IV will get past the title and study the entire text. I wrote above that the text can be unsettling. It may not be appropriate in some assemblies. If used, I'd have it sung after the Gospel and homily, during the preparation of the altar and offerings.

    The hymn scolds no first century demon; rather, it recalls Christ's action in Mark's Gospel. And Christ did a lot more than scold his enemy.

    That's my take.
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,359
    @ghmus7: Sorry, but I cannot accept your premise. Worship IV definitely is not Gather 3. Yes, half the hymns in Worship IV are also in Gather 3, but the other half aren't. There's always going to be overlap like this in hymnals, because many hymns are part of a core Catholic repertoire. But there's so much more in a hymnal and service book: the music for the rites, the psalmody, the music of the responsorial psalms. If I were a DM, I'd be overjoyed to be able to work with Worship IV being in the pews; I'd be less overjoyed with Gather 3, but I'd make it work.

    You appear to prefer making statements of what "seems to you" rather than what "is." Case in point: "the GIA definition of traditional is any old or new text from any denomonation or new source as long as it is sung to a metered hymn tune." And where is that definition stated or even hinted at by GIA?
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,361
    It may not be appropriate in some assemblies.

    Actually I wonder if anyone here has even once heard it sung by a congregation? I'm not blind to it's virtues and that same part of me is routing for AUTHORITY as well, which at least does not have the "still, the FRACtured..." ambiguity of EBENEEZER.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,216
    I have never heard that hymn sung by a congregation. That doesn't mean it isn't sung, just that I never heard it.

    I still have a number of Worship II hymnals in my choir room. It had an excellent selection of traditional hymns better, I think than its successor. However, the missal has changed since then and it would not work as a service book today. I still get it out for the choir to sing hymns as anthems.
  • I'm not blind to it's virtues and that same part of me is routing for AUTHORITY as well, which at least does not have the "still, the FRACtured..." ambiguity of EBENEEZER.
    I'm not sure what is meant by this comment. Both the tune AUTHORITY and EBENEZER are in common time, and the two syllables of the word "fractured" are respectively on beats three and four in both tunes. Am I missing something here?
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,361
    Am I missing something here?

    Possibly, :-) though you can hardly be blamed for not guessing I was mistakenly thinking of NETTLETON ("Come thou font...Here I raise my Ebenezer") instead of the tune I know as TON Y BOTEL, which actually might well pass without giggling.

    I in turn am puzzled by "beats 3 & 4" of AUTHORITY: as I remember the UMH and as appears in the New Century (which omits that verse) the second phrase starts with repeated notes on a downbeat, doesn't it?

    EBENEZER is also an alternate name for CELESTE, fwiw.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,357
    On the theological level, it's quite strnge to draw such a direct parallel between spiritual and psychological events. A twist in one's gray cells is not a demon.

    Theologically, then, the text does not recount the Gospel but reduces it.

    But again the greater flaw, and it is enormous, is euchological. Why on earth would a congregation sing vox dei in this particular sense? Can you imagine a guy shaving one morning, and his gray cells start acting up, and he says to the mirror, "Silence, frenzied, unclean spirit!" and it works?

    On the other hand, what if he says, "Have mercy on me, God, in your kindness" or "I do believe; help my unbelief" or "You give them food in due time" or "'I am the way, the truth, and the life,' says the Lord"?
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,359
    Your three observations are all based on your rewriting Troeger's text, not what he actually wrote. That is not helpful.
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,357
    No, I'm commenting on the theology of Troeger's text as written. It's not good, and not only weak but misleading.
  • mrcoppermrcopper
    Posts: 653
    As to the music of this example: "Silence. Frenzied". I'm not at all impressed.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,686
    Is it appropriate to say "the demons still are thriving / In the gray cells of the mind" in regard to us, that is, persons who have undergone the little exorcism of the pre-baptismal scrutinies, and have been baptized?

    Is it theologically justified to call mental sufferings "demons" as the text appears to do?
    Thanked by 1Kathy
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,359
    Yes, it is quite appropriate, because "demon" has a number of meanings and usages other than "evil spirit," whether that evil spirit is personified or not. "I have to face my own demons," people say, and those demons include fears, bad memories, addictions, as well as temptations to sin.

    Troeger uses a colon at the end of the second line of stanza two, indicating what is in apposition to his use of the word "demons."
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,357
    We aren't disagreeing about the content. We are disagreeing about the theology behind the content. The gospel demons are not the sort of things you could overcome in therapy if you chose that route. They have to be expelled by an authoritative power, the One Whom they know and fear.
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,359
    We aren't disagreeing about the content.

    Good
    We are disagreeing about the theology behind the content.

    I'm not so sure. I will say that I agree with your second and third sentences ("The gospel demons... know and fear."), and I would think that Troeger would too.

    Perhaps the disagreement, if there is one, lies in the fact that I think it is fine that Troeger recounts the Markan pericope of Jesus' exorcism of a man demonically possessed in stanza 1 and follows that with us asking Jesus to heal us of our own demons that do not constitute demonic possession.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,357
    Yes. You think it is fine, and I say it is pastorally irresponsible to flatten out the gospel in order to make it somehow apply to us, particularly when the effect is to reduce the supernatural to the natural. "If our hopes in Christ are for this life only, we are the most pitiable of women" (Mr Copper translation).
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,359
    Q.E.D. We do appear to have a disagreement of a theological nature, but I'm still (adverb) not sure it has anything to do with Troeger's text.

    When I pray to God for healing from anything and everything that inflicts me, I am not in any way "reducing the supernatural to the natural." If I receive the healing I have prayed for, and that healing is one that science cannot explain, great. God be praised. If, in addition to my prayer I also take the pills my doctor prescribed, and I am cured of my ailment and my spirit receives an inner healing as well, thanks be to God! Why the need to tightly compartmentalize supernatural and natural, or physical, psychological, and spiritual, for that matter? Thomistic rat psych generally is not a frame of reference for people today.

    I say it is pastorally irresponsible to convey to people the understanding that the only worthwhile healings are the miraculous and supernatural ones.
    Thanked by 1Richard Mix
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,357
    I say it is pastorally irresponsible to convey to people the understanding that the only worthwhile healings are the miraculous and supernatural ones.

    Huh? No one has suggested this red herring. The healthier and happier people are, the better. But "issues" are not "demons" in the same way the Gospel demons are demons, and homiletically suggesting that they are reduces and misrepresents the Gospel.

    Which, I hope we agree, is a bad idea.
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,359
    No one has suggested this red herring.

    It's not a red herring because it's precisely what you are suggesting when you say that applying Mark 1:21-28 to any affliction other than demonic possession is "flattening out the gospel" and "reducing the supernatural to the natural."
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,357
    It is a red herring. I am not saying these things are unimportant, but that the equivocation undermines the sense of the supernatural. And that is pastorally destructive. It's irresponsible, like giving people in the pews Bultmann for spiritual reading.
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,359
    When you start hauling out Bultmann, I think it's time we agree that we've said enough on this issue.

    I hope you are having a super Dies Domini, Kathy.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,357
    Any public document is open to public criticism. And hymnals should be much more so. People do not only hear hymns. We also expect people to sing them. Hymns should not only be free from doctrinal error, should not only not-mislead, but should positively reinforce the faith of the people--and without misleading.

    What a beautiful feast today is! I think I shall say Vespers now.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • In my opinion, a successful hymn text about a Scripture passage is a homily-in-miniature: It presents the Scripture, relates the Scripture to the human situation, and acclaims how God is present and active in our lives today.

    I think Thomas Troeger’s text, “Silence! Frenzied, Unclean Spirit” does this quite well.

    The 1982 document of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops about preaching, Fulfilled in Your Hearing, states:
    The preacher represents this community by voicing its concerns, by naming its demons, and thus enabling it to gain some understanding and control of the evil which afflicts it. He represents the Lord by offering the community another word, a word of healing and pardon, of acceptance and love… [13]
    As we know, clergy of various denominations have been successful hymn text writers over the years. I tend to believe that homiletics and hymn writing can be complementary. Perhaps the context of Thomas Troeger’s hymn texts can be understood better by reading the following, excerpted from the Yale Divinity School website:
    Thomas H. Troeger is Professor of Christian Communication at Yale Divinity School. As such, his primary task is to teach homiletics, or the art of preaching.

    Colleagues say he has developed an "unorthodox pedagogy" that helps students avoid fixed and predictable ways of encountering the biblical texts, connect their preaching to "lived experience," and develop capacities to engage the imaginations of people in the pews.

    "I talk about what I call imaginative theology," Troeger explains, "by which I mean the ability to draw on the symbols and stories and rituals and parables of the faith tradition and of the symbols and stories that live in human beings from their contemporary culture and draw those together."

    From June 1991 through June 2005, Troeger was Professor of Preaching and Communications at Iliff School of Theology in Denver, CO, where he established and directed the school's Doctor of Ministry program in homiletics.

    Ordained in the Presbyterian Church (USA) in 1970 and in the Episcopal Church in 1999, he is dually aligned with both traditions. He ministered for seven years as a pastor and then taught homiletics for 14 years at Colgate Rochester Divinity School/Bexley Hall. Troeger holds an undergraduate degree from Yale. He is the author of more than a dozen books in the fields of preaching and worship. Dickinson College and Virginia Theological Seminary have awarded him honorary doctorates for his work in homiletics, liturgy and hymnody.
    Thanked by 2Gavin CHGiffen
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,665
    I don't mind the text of SFUS. I might not/never use it, but the text never bothered me.

    The tune in W3 bothered me.
    Thanked by 1Andrew Motyka
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,665
    It's a niche text that isn't worth arguing about.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,357
    Matthew, a prayer book designed for congregational use is formative of their faith. The entire book is absolutely worth arguing about.