It always amuses me when older adults try to channel "what kids want". Rather like the ageing hipsters who try to use all the current lingo, and are received politely to their face but with derision behind their back. Who generates the "common wisdom" that pop music will recruit the young? Not the young,but those who presume to "get" them.

In my experience, it's better to (a) just be yourself and (b) recognize that lots of young people like tradition and continuity it represents. Indeed, in my experience (which is pretty broad, being a college professor) lots of young people are actually pretty conservative about such things.

Of course, nothing actually beats ASKING them. ;-)

BTW, this survey focuses on those who are already in church; it doesn't address the potentially different views of those outside. It is quite likely that those who are "turned off" by the hymnal as it is, aren't even in the pews to respond.

Susan Forsburg

As a 30-year-old myself, the only revision I want is more chant tones. The rest of it's just fine.

-Alex Scott

Young people? Wait - wasn't the U2charist supposed to be packing them in?

I'm with Alex Scott. As a 28-year-old, Anglican/Gregorian chant tones = awesome!

-John Shirley

Actually, I'm all in favor of hymnal reform. Specifically, I want to see "Once to Every Man and Nation" restored (as "Once to Every One and Nation," if absolutely necessary).

This card-carrying member of Generation Y still keeps a copy of the 1940 around for when the 1982 just won't do.

Phil Gentry

Why have an official hymnal at all? Why not create different types of hymnals and let congregations choose what fits their needs. Just imagine, one less fight over territory and all the other garbage that happens when revisions are mentioned.

Sigh: I just knew someone would use this to put down U2charists...

While I should just let this go, I am compelled to remind people that this is a special liturgy, that uses particularly thought-provoking lyrics concerning the nature of humanity and God, featuring a band that has remained together the last 30 years (which means predominately Gen X lifespan to this point) and FOCUSED ON THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS (currently the only legal way to use U2's music in a church setting).

It was never intended to be the regular way to worship, to replace hymns, to be the answer to prayer and praise, or to be the magical formula to bring "young" people in.

BTW: The article is a good one... :)

As I have commented elsewhere: This makes so much sense. The younger people surveyed know that if the church tries to keep up with "popular" music, it will keep falling behind. If it holds the tradition, the foundation on which so much of our western music is based anyway, whether it sounds like it at first listening or not, it will make much less of a fool of itself. And in the meantime, it will preserve great beauty for the bliss of the world. And I say this as a middle-aged female clergy member, bucking the statistics of my demographic!

Yeah, those "U2carists" really were a bigger hit with the parents than the kids.

Since we are a catholic tradition--- I suggest that our hymnal reflect the WHOLE tradition and not just one part. That means chant, polyphony, hymns, folks music, contemporary stuff and whatever else I may have overlooked. Unfortunately we often find that the hymnals we crank out reflect the taste of one group who think that they share God's taste. So that means that no snooty put downs of anyone's taste will do because none of us is the final word on how others should pray.

I have a few thoughts. As a middle-aged neurologist who is "back on the bench" helping out a struggling Episcopal church as "interim" organist, I hear the praise and complaints.
As for the "older" music, I would ditto that, at least the persons who are the 20-30 something converts (and cradles), many of them want traditional music. We have a solemn high mass (bells and smells) every Sunday and Holy day with not only Hymnal 1982 but also the Gregorian Propers from Palmer and Burgess. For the most part, the younger folks are fine. It is the "older folks" (in this case the over 60's) who think that it is "too long" or "too many notes" when I get negatives. I would ditto that it is the 40-50 somethings who have come to TEC from Evangelical traditions who want "old" hymns, by which they mean Gospel and/or Praise music.
If I were to suggest a "revision" it might be to update or provide a new version of Palmer and Burgess to be a better match with the new lectionary.
A word, as well, in favor of H1982 and H1940. Many who are not church musicians may have little idea how much work goes into such an effort to produce a hymnal. It is a massive and expensive and time-consuming undertaking. There is a "maze" of copyright/arrangements/text rights/translations/adaptations/revisions to be done. I really don't think that we can afford such an expensive project. Neither, however, can we just buy "off the rack." The Hymnal is extremely important to our liturgical identity. Simply poaching a hymnal from C of E or the Lutherans is not a viable or sensible option for us. "He who sings prays twice" and how we sing is an extremely important part of how we pray, and it is how we pray that makes us unique.
If there is a criticism of H82, it primarily lies in organization. Although I "get" the "S" system, I believe that it was a mistake to separate the different mass settings such that, to do a coherent mass (e.g. the Healy Willan) you need several different "S's" separated by many pages. It makes it hard not only for the less-experienced to use but also for those of us who have to plan. I periodically do a review of the S and and hymnal portions of the H82 just to re-familiarize myself with it. At the church I am currently serving, the Hymnals are still in the pews, but the service leaflet is "complete" with everything pretty much included. It uses beaucoups d' paper, but it makes it easier, particularly for those new to TEC (and particularly our uber-high-church) liturgies.

WARNING - I tend to blather...

Ever since I saw a copy of this report I have been troubled by its methodology (I have a friend on the Standing Commission so I got a sneak peak a while back). Both stages of survey collection focused on the inculcated, meaning the parishioners who are already making at least enough of a point of contact with their Episcopal parish as to feel compelled to participate in such a survey, to benefit ECUSA. I think that this is a well-intentioned exercise in ‘business as usual’ for our professional church. Meaning, it is good information…but maybe not the right information.

The closest statistic to welcoming in new voices to the conversation is found on page 18 when the survey delineates ‘cradle’ Episcopalians and ‘convert’ Episcopalians. While the information is still similar, it is less dramatic:

“As demonstrated in table 22a, respondents who previously attended Episcopal congregations are more opposed to revision than respondents who came to The Episcopal Church from another faith tradition or denomination. This gap is even more distinct when the sample is stratified by age. While all age groups in the “previously Episcopal” group strongly oppose revision, some age brackets in the “previously non-Episcopal” group express more favorable views. In fact, over one-third of respondents in their 30s and 40s who came to The Episcopal Church from elsewhere support Hymnal revision.”

To me, that explains that those who have been exposed to varied worship, in their adult faith journey, are able to see a benefit in adopting more variety into Episcopal worship.

Finally, I do remember looking at the survey tool itself and thinking that it did a poor job of explaining the far reaching variety of new hymnody/worship material available. Though, how could a survey convey the wealth of resources fully? Some have already mentioned, we need to have more accessible chanting…and I agree. But, we also need to explore so many more varied worship styles: weave in more rounds that can be used in experiential praying; paperless music gets heads out of hymnals and helps participants embody praise; percussion and instruments have only just begun to find their way back into our churches; more international tunes would be welcome, I am sure. If the surveyed don’t know what new music sounds like, how can they make an informed decision?

Across the board, when I welcome newcomers to a new-monastic, ancient-future service where I am a missioner, I have to equivocate that it is ‘not praise music’. ‘Praise’ seems to be anathema to many. I am thinking that a significant portion of those ‘young people’ who were surveyed had little experience of the breadth of worship available and may have read ‘praise music’ in the survey.

All of that said, I think that this document does three things well. One, it accomplishes the task set before the Standing Commission by the church, however parochial that task may have been in my estimation. Two, beyond the data, it shows that vital congregations are using the tools currently available dynamically to represent their mission. Three, it makes room for the reality that creative worship will continue to bubble up without any need for an edict from on high.

I like Phil’s comment, though I bet I am misusing it a bit. Since I am also a card carrying member of Gen Y, I like to think of worship in an evolving and Spirit filled church as ‘Yes, And’ worship. Like the improve stage, we don’t like to throw out any minable material for hidden gold. 1940? Sure! Ancient liturgies? Bring them on! For me, even ‘praise music’ (it still has to pass the cringe test) can join in the mélange of my congregational song.

So, why would we get rid of 1982? Just make more new, fun, creative, joyful resources to add to the party.

I find myself singing the same tune as Susan Forsburg (first comment).

That includes her point that the survey must be read in the light of who was surveyed. It's a self-select group -- those who chose to stay in church in an age when many are opting out, more now than in the past given the trend toward delaying marriage and starting a family. Upon reflection it shouldn't be surprising that the young who choose to stay are traditionals when it comes to liturgy and music, more so than the older cohorts in church.

How can we go about asking those who are not in church whether we're doing something that turns them off, or turns them towards alternative ways of drawing close to God? (Without compromising our own ethos and integrity as a faith rather than a brand.) As I write this, I see James Hamilton has a comment just above that points out information somewhat along the lines I'm suggesting was gleaned by the survey -- stratify cradle Episcopalians from others.

On the subject of taste: it's of course unfortunate when people wield their personal taste as a weapon, especially when it comes across as snobbery or is covertly expressing, say, racial and class-based antagonisms. But taste is unavoidable, and it is actually important to talk about it in a forthright way. I think what we lack more importantly is a good vocabulary to talk about why we like some music better than others. That's especially true with popular and contemporary music, which (in my experience of) church music discussions gets treated as if it is one unitary body of music, rather than a very diverse and constantly shifting terrain. Music is not inherently good or bad because it is contemporary. (I don't think we should really be using the word "popular," since very little of it actually is.) I'm a musicologist by profession, and in the classroom I am constantly trying to get students to justify their subjective opinions by being more specific about musical details. Once that's accomplished, however, then yes, taste matters, and it is something that needs to be argued about.

I'll save my musicological treatise on the evils of praise music for another time, since nobody here seems to be a fan of it anyhow...

Phil Gentry

I am a young adult (29) and a divinity school graduate. I enjoy traditional organ hymns, Anglican chant, global hymnody, music from Taize and Iona, as well as some contemporary worship music. As a result, I don't understand why the hymnal debate has to be framed as a polarizing, either/or sort of conversation. Having multiple hymnals is simply impractical and unwieldy, so supplements are not an adequate response. Further, there's a lot of music in 1982 that few congregations can or will sing. So why not combine the best from the supplemental sources, plus some newly composed music, with the 300 most singable and beloved hymns from 1982? Those of us in favor of a revised hymnal are not rejecting the past. Rather, we would like to have access to a greater diversity of modes in which to glorify God, including traditional hymns as well as some occasional music with rhythm!

1. Asking people who already go to Church if what their Church is currently doing is working or not is a poor indicator of what really matters- how to attract new people. This goes for all age groups.

2. The 1982 Hymnal is a frightening "worst of both worlds" musical artifact. Neither traditional enough, nor contemporary enough.

3. If, like in the American Catholic world, there was a free-market approach to hymnal production and selection, you would see a range of hymnals that represented a diversity of worship experiences, allowing individual communities to craft a music program that works for them. The idea that parishes are more-or-less bound indefinitely by the decisions of a committee that met back in the late 1970s is ludicrous. Wonder, Love, and Praise did not help. Rather than spend a bunch of money on studies or revisions, the Church should find a way to allow congregations to select their own hymnals, and encourage publishers like GIA, OCP, WLP (and their Protestant counterparts) to publish hymnals for Episcopal Church use. Congregations with well-developed and unique music programs could, like St. Gregory of Nyssa, publish their own hymnals as well.

4. I did a brief perusal of available meeting notes from the Standing Commission on Music and Liturgy a while ago. Discussions about "Praise Choruses" and "trying to find Praise and Worship music that is at least not awful" make it clear that these people (like everyone in charge, it seems) have no idea that they are talking about.

5. I took the online survey. The language of the survey questions with regards to various musical styles made it clear that the writers of the survey do not have a clear understanding of American Christian music outside of traditional mainline Protestantism.

6. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is tired of leadership groups within the Episcopal Church taking a long, hard look at a problem only to finally decide, "Actually, nothing is wrong. Keep going about your business." Music in the Episcopal Church is broken, and needs to be fixed before we lose yet another generation.

Great point there, Sean. Why NOT have a Hymnal that truly and honestly reflects the musical diversity of our tradition? Praise music, chant, traditional hymnody, traditional AND inclusive language etc. Let individual parishes choose which of those many hymns they sing and which they don't.

And, to qualify where I'm coming form, I say this as a 26 year old layman who not-so-secretly desires chant and "ancient" church music in my worship. :)

My only real problems with the 1982 hymnal are (a) its nervousness about the texts, (b) the usual self-indulgences on the part of the committee in writing unsingable tunes, (c) the poor plainsong hymn accompaniments, and (d) the mess that is the service music. All of this is fixable except the first, which isn't politically possible. And as far as "praise music that is not awful": well, whenever I go to the guitar service at our parish, I find that most of the music is more or less unsingable, and I say this as a semi-pro. But that's OK, because even though I can sing out over top of the entire congregation, there's no need to: the folks with the mics take care of that for me.

Finally, I don't know about losing a generation. My teenage kids don't want a guitar mass; they want to sing hymns, even if that isn't much like the music they listen to the rest of the week. Nonetheless, we do not have an obligation to the rest of American Protestantism or for that matter to the Orthodox or the Catholics, but we DO have an obligation to our own traditions. There is ever so much of ECUSA thinking these days which assumes that, no matter what we do, the old guard will grit their teeth and stick around. And that isn't true. An organization that takes its core membership for granted is likely to die of that neglect.

I responded to the survey, though I found it very frustrating. It was framed in terms of official music sources and questions weighted to choosing between "traditional" and "contemporary," both of which are words currently used as code for a narrow range of music which misses huge segments of what's actually traditional and a great deal of what composers and communities are making now that's new. Sean Lanigan's and Adam Spencer's responses make good sense to me and cut through the false dichotomy. Beyond that, on the generational front, the under 35's that I know through colleagues and as friends who are recent graduates of Berkeley/Yale Divinity School have a much richer musical vision, like what I'm hearing from Adam and Sean. That's significantly thanks to the work in class and in the chapel of Patrick Evans. And what we're finding in All Saints Company's work in Music that Makes Commmunity (and sharing what of that music work we gathered and published with Church Publishing in Music By Heart) is that the church can readily and very happily draw on practices that community singing groups, a capella groups, world music groups, threshold choirs (singing by the bedside of dying people) are discovering and renewing, a practice of sharing music learned by ear and sung by heart, a practice that invites improvisation and discovery, a practice of shared leadership inviting, nurturing and blessing the musicianship that's inherent in everyone. There are exciting things happening in music for worship that draw together many strands, things that are fresh whether ancient or modern. Borrowing (with appropriate copyright attention) music from a variety of sources is what congregations that sing are doing more and more. I don't think the expense of making a new hymnal fits our times or this opportunity at all.

Most striking point of the survey, on quick read: the very large disparity between the clergy and the laity.

And Donald, two things: first, I'm open to the possibility of new material, but I'm bothered by the common attitude among a certain class of people that there's something wrong with the hymnal and even the idea of singing traditional congregational hymns. Abstractly, I'm open to the possibility of a revision, as there's always room for improvement; but right now it seems to me that revision is too closely coupled to the sentiment of basically throwing the current hymnal content away and suppressing the tradition of choral part singing. (And yes, I realize that's an exaggeration.)

Second, even if I ignore the musical aspects, the liturgical material SCLM proposes this time around shows that they can't be trusted with revision at this time. I'm sorry I have to say that, but there it is.

I didn't say we'd lose a generation because we're not doing enough "guitar mass."

We're losing people because what we do is not intentional. We sing habitual music and call it "traditional." We sing guitar songs from 40 years ago and call it "Contemporary." In my Diocese nobody seems to know the difference between Contemporary Praise and Worship music and Gospel music- it's all "Praise Music," whether you like the styles or not. (Matt Maher and The Gaither Homecoming are not the same style), with the result that, outside a few that know better, parishes just sing the same 50-or-so hymns, slowly, accompanied by an organ, week after mind-numbing week. And just try using the 1982 repertoire to find 3 or 4 hymns every week that have something, anything to do with the Lectionary readings. Very nearly impossible. (I think oremus.org's suggestions are mostly dart-board selected).

Some people are going to respond well to, and be brought into relationship with God by, almost any "style" of music. Parishes need to expand their repertoire, and up their quality, to include a range of musical styles and pieces which reflect the needs of their communities. This will certainly mean more Praise and Worship music, and also more High Church choral and chant, more traditional hymnody, expanded instrumentation, more unaccompanied singing.

The biggest problem with Episcopalian Music practice, and with the 1982 Hymnal, is how limited it is in scope. We need more parishes like St. Gregory of Nyssa, Trinity New York, Christ's Church New Haven, and (dare I say) my own little St. Stephen's of Hurst, TX (where we sing everything from Gregorian Chant and Renaissance Polyphony to David Haas, Dennis Jernigan, and John Bell).

It's self-defeating to think that all of the music that might be appropriate in a community's worship can (or should) be contained in one book, just as it is silly to think that music can usefully be categorized as "traditional" or "contemporary" - or even "sacred" or "secular." Any music that is meaningful to the community, performed with an intention of excellence (whatever the limits of musical "competence" may be), and relevant to the pastoral concerns of those present, should be considered to be within bounds. Sun Ra, Johnny Cash, and J.S. Bach can, and have, all worked together in a meaningful and moving worship experience. It happens week by week at Canterbury House at the University of Michigan, and it's possible anywhere else that liturgists, musicians, and congregations are prepared to work creatively together.

Reid Hamilton

Dear fellow Episcopalians -

I am the secretary for the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, and the Director of Music at Christ Church Cranbrook in Bloomfield Hills, MI. This survey has provided the SCLM with interesting and valuable information, albeit inconclusive, about the church-wide sentiment over hymnal revision. I think, however, what is equally valuable is all your responses to the report such as is found in the comments here (and other places). As we continue to wrestle over church's song, let us rejoice in our diversity and trust that God will guide us to continue to make a joyful noise in our changing world. For more comments, visit the SCLM blogsite at http://liturgyandmusic.wordpress.com.

John Repulski

I was one of those who participated in the survey. My bottom line was "don't prepare a new Hymnal, for at the very moment it is published it is already out of date. I also suggested that SCLM could/should issue and authorize a new hymn once a month for trial use in our congregations. That being said I understand the fondness for the hymns we sang 50, 75, 100 years ago. I think that we are fond of them because we "know" the texts and tunes. But I often "gag" on their imperialistic theology as in "Crown him with many crowns", or "The Churches one foundation".

I'm sorry...
what's imperialistic about "Crown Him With Many Crowns" or "The Church's One Foundation"?

I tend to think triumphalism is appropriate when talking about Christ's triumph over death and sin (Crown Him) and I can't find anything objectionable about lamenting over divisions within Christianity and looking forward to our eventual union in Christ (Foundation).

When the music is, on average, 300 years older than anyone currently living, does the age of the respondent really matter?

And a second to Adam Wood's comment:
"2. The 1982 Hymnal is a frightening "worst of both worlds" musical artifact. Neither traditional enough, nor contemporary enough."

Appalling - happened right in the early wave of political correctness, so it is dated both in the age of the content which was then bastardized by the period in which it was cobbled together.

And... if the hymnal were to be revised, what would be added?

More stuff from the 20th century (if anything like the handful of things that made it into the current hymnal then bleah - outdated and poor choices all)

Or just different 400 year old stuff, in which case does it really matter anyway?

And isn't the concept of a hymnal pretty outdated anyway? This is the 21st century people - acting like it's 1955 just shows up TEC for the cumbersome dinosaur it is rapidly becoming.

TEC is a "cumbersome dinosaur"? How about the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics. They have traditional liturgy and music and they seem to be doing just fine. Music and liturgy isn't the issue. People are the issue.

Hmmmm...if the concept of a hymnal is outdated, then the ELCA and PCUSA must be pretty backwards, at least in the opinions of a number several commentators here! Both of those denominations have recently produced excellent new hymnals, and I'd be tempted to add one of those to the rack along with The Hymnal 1982, if a revision isn't forthcoming. I certainly don't think ALL relevant music should or could be contained in one book, but in places without significant resources (full-time clergy, paid music staff, office assistance, etc), new music probably isn't going to be sung if it's not in the hymnal. I believe that our collective theological and ethical visions will be significantly impoverished if we decide to forfeit the difficult hymnal conversation and decide that only resource-rich parishes deserve to be exposed to new and innovative music (and concomitantly, more expansive ways to imagine and address God). A hymnal conversation is most essentially a theological conversation, and I think it's one that could be a significant rejuvenating force in our church.

If we are to publish a new hymnal, do a smaller hymnal (600-650 hymns, and sans service music) and bind it really nicely, as a core collection. Have smaller collections of service music, newer music, Taize and contemplative music, world music, very early Christian music, new hymns or praise choruses, or what have you as inexpensive supplements, well-compiled but supplemental to the core collection meant for every community, and meant to fit easily in the pew racks with the core hymnal.

Reid, nobody seriously intends the hymnal to be the source of "all" music used. It's supposed to be a foundation, a core structure; surely nearly everyone back in the flusher days of the early eighties assumed that the typical parish would have a choir which would sing, well, pretty much anything.

I have only some very limited experience watching the videos from St. G of N. My reaction, however, is that I would feel deprived if that was what I were stuck with. Which is not to say I want to deprive them of everything they do that is novel; but they are not the model for the worship in which I feel most connected to the church.

Siblings:

First, unlike the Book of Common Prayer, the Hymnal, while official, is not required in the same way. This was brought home in the General Convention in 1982 when this Hymnal was approved. Perhaps the biggest controversy, believe it or not, was whether to include "He's Got the Whole World In His Hands." Some spoke, even with tears, about their desire to include it. A member of the (then) Standing Commission on Church Music responded that it had been considered and specifically rejected. The reason was that the wonder and value of "He's Got the Whole World In His Hands" was the opportunity to to add verse after verse, spontaneously reflecting those singing it at the time. The Commission was concerned that if it were put in the Hymnal, folks would become rigid about it, feeling they could only sing those verses that were printed.

At the same time, a denominational hymnal has to do more than provide music that is singable. It also has to accurately reflect the theology of the body. That, Bill, is why "Once to Every Man and Nation" was dropped: because we believe that God accepts us again and again, and not just once (and then there is that weird lyric about "God's new Messiah"). Yeah, I loved singing it, too; but it reflected bad theology.

I feel much the same about so much current or recent Christian pop. I think there's some great stuff out there; and there's also a good deal of drivel. Much of it is too focused on how excited we are about God, and not what we have learned about God's care for us. It has much less sophistication than "He's Got the Whole World In His Hands," and reflects less about our faith.

I do agree with Adam: it's about being intentional. That intention has to address more than what we like, whether it was written in 810 or 1810 or 2010, It has to be singable, and it also has to reflect the faith. (I do disagree with Adam, though, on this: I don't have any problem finding hymns in the 1982 that reflect the Scriptures.)

Marshall Scott

"TEC is a "cumbersome dinosaur"? How about the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics. They have traditional liturgy and music and they seem to be doing just fine."

Well the RC is unraveling fast with the child abuse scandals and the war on women (next up: Girl Scouts!)

It may take a few decades, but the RCs descent into irrelevancy started decades ago and will continue as fewer and fewer people with any kind of independent thought leave them behind.

And the Orthodox will continue as a niche for some, but they are hardly relevant in the grand scheme of things.

One of the giveaways in the survey was the use of the term "folk mass". I mean, who calls it that any more? Where are the Fisherfolk when you need them?

Sorry to be commenting so frequently, but a few more two cents from a musicologist born after 1980:

1. I have been in a congregation where the baby boomers were sure that a "guitar mass"--their words--was just the thing needed to bring in a younger generation. And that thought having a jazz service would do the same. In both cases, I (at that point literally the sole member of the parish between the ages of 16 and 35, in an urban neighborhood full of twenty-somethings) had to point out that neither Dylan-esque folk music nor light jazz were particularly au courant, if that was the intent. For me, the main lesson from all of this is: it's fine to advocate for particular musical practices in the church but for heaven's sake, don't pretend you're doing it on behalf of some particular "generation"!

2. I think this tendency to want to include more and more music in an authorized hymnal to be rather insidious. As several have noted, no single book is going to be comprehensive. And there is a lot of great music out there that can only fit in printed form in a hymnal if you alter it in very significant ways, often rather violently. It's a disservice, an almost rather colonizing one, to try to squeeze rudimentary notions of "world music" into an Episcopal service, let alone into a hymnal.

3. Really we're talking about not different repertoire, but different musical practices altogether. An authorized hymnal is a reflection of a particularly literate musical tradition that privileges a pretty high degree of musical literacy. I don't think you can force it to be something other than that. Since the authorize hymnal is merely a liturgical suggestion to begin with, I say, let it remain what it is, with perhaps occasional editing. Congregations like St. Gregory will do what they do no matter what's in a hymnal, and I'm sure that will speak to plenty of people.

Mind you, not me personally; I joined the Episcopal Church as a twenty-something adult precisely because of that literate musical tradition.

Phil Gentry

I'm in my late 20s and if I wanted a free for all service, I would have stayed in the Baptist church. I love tradition and the mystery that surrounds it. I felt that it made my relationship with Jesus that much more stronger.

Yeah, I'm not a very spontaneous person, and while I'm trying to fix that in my social life, it's not the sort of thing I need at church. I worry that it would put too much pressure on me to perform. It's the entire reason I love the Prayer Book -- it's like a road map of prayer.

Conversely, I feel like American Christianity (not just TEC) is too addicted to experimentation, with too little to show for it. What I crave is stability. At the same time, what fulfills me in worship is the feeling of transcendence, the sense that I'm being drawn outside myself and this world. And it's because the worship has an ancient structure and the hymns aren't limited to my own lifetime -- it's a healthy reminder that my daily life in the 21st century United States is not the measure of all existence.

I'm not sure one hymnal can ever be one-size-fits-all. But I do see the value of having an official one for the national church. Maybe it's less about whether we need the hymnal, but whether it needs to be in every single pew. Maybe the hymnal should be more like a one-stop catalogue, from which each church can choose and adapt its own repertoire, and put that in the pews or the bulletin.

- Alex Scott

This:
nobody seriously intends the hymnal to be the source of "all" music used. It's supposed to be a foundation, a core structure; surely nearly everyone back in the flusher days of the early eighties assumed that the typical parish would have a choir which would sing, well, pretty much anything.

And this:
the Hymnal, while official, is not required in the same way
--
While perhaps reflecting some unspoken consensus at the time of adoption, do not jibe well with written rules or (as far as I can tell) many Episcopalians' opinion on the matter. The 1979 BCP states:
"Hymns referred to in the rubrics of this Book are to be understood as those authorized by this Church. The words of anthems are to be from Holy Scripture, or from this Book, or from texts congruent with them."

So, yeah- I guess a choir can sing anything it wants (as long as it is congruent with scripture) but the congregation can only sing hymns specifically approved by the Church.

Even Wikipedia notices this:
"Unlike many Anglican churches (including the Church of England) the Episcopal Church requires that the words of hymns be from officially approved sources, making the official hymnals perhaps more important than their counterparts elsewhere."

While some Music Directors and Clergy blatantly ignore this rule, many do not. God save the Music Director whose vestry-members don't like their off-book selections. (And don't even get me started on the patronizing attitude toward Music Directors provided in Canon 24, Section 1).

That's why I said above- we don't need a new hymnal. We need the authority and the encouragement to figure out what the real people in our communities really need.

(Sorry- that is currently Title II, Canon 5)

@David,

The Orthodox are the second largest expression of the Faith in all of Christendom. There are over 300 million of them, more than three times we Anglicans. I would be quite careful about calling them irrelevant or just a niche.

Jacob Pierce

@David,

The Orthodox are the second largest expression of the Faith in all of Christendom. There are over 300 million of them, more than three times we Anglicans. I would be quite careful about calling them irrelevant or just a niche.

Jacob Pierce