Academic literature on the topic 'Baptist hymn book'

Grundtvig and the Old Testament - the Danish Bible or the SeptuagintBy Christian ThodbergThe article begins with an account of Grundtvig’s attitude to the Old Testament (OT). Gmndtvig does not have to presuppose the New Testament when dealing with OT, but can read it freely: it is the same God that acts in both books of the Bible, though in different ways, according to how he leads and maintains his people. The same freedom finds expression in Gmndtvig’s sermons where he moves about effortlessly in the whole of the Biblical universe.Some of these sermons are dominated by a solemn, Old Testament tone, especially those that follow a triadic stmcture: first the Old Testament prophecy is mentioned, in the middle its fulfilment in and with the coming of Christ is described, and finally follows the most important part, the fulfilment of the prophecy in the present, Grundtvig not failing to place his activity in the centre - but as a stage, naturally, in the course of the history of salvation.In Grundtvig’s hymns, too, this structure recurs, as in Blomstre som en Rosengaard, in which the triadic structure is connected with the so-called Vstructure, the right side of the »V« of the hymn describing the fulfilment of the prophecy. By means of the V-structure Thodberg shows how baptism is the focus of the hymn, and also that in his interpretation of Isaiah 35 as a prediction of baptism Grundtvig leans on the Septuagint rather than the contemporary Danish Bible translation. In the Danish Hymn Book, Blomstre som en Rosengaard is only a torso - baptism is not the essential thing here.The article mentions a number of other examples of influence from the Septuagint on Grundtvig’s hymns and sermons. Among these the hymn Hyggelig, rolig stands out since it contains a large number of phrases that refer to the Septuagint. This applies to stanza 4 in which Grundtvig shows how even the person most troubled by doubts and most deeply bereaved will have a foretaste of the Kingdom of God when approaching Heaven in his or her heart on the tone ladder of songs of praise. This is a rendering of Psalm 84 in the Septuagint. The article concludes that from the 1830s Grundtvig makes extensive use of the Septuagint when quoting from OT. The background is that Grundtvig regarded the Septuagint as more poetical than the Danish translation from 1736, and - more importantly - that in preferring the Septuagint Grundtvig follows Irenaeus by relying on the Bible of the New Testament and the Old Church.

When American missionaries from the Methodist Episcopal Church arrived in India in the middle of the nineteenth century, they very soon published hymn-books to aid the Christian church in worship. But these publications were not solely the product of American Methodists nor simply the collection of foreign songs and music translated into Urdu. Rather, successive editions demonstrate the increasing participation of both foreigners and Indians, of missionaries from various denominations, of both men and women, and of even those not yet baptised as Christians. The tunes and poetry included were in both European and Indian forms. This hybrid nature is particularly apparent by the end of the century when the Methodist press published a hymn-book containing ghazals and bhajans in addition to hymns and Sunday school songs. The inclusion of a separate section of ghazals was evidence of the influence of the Muslim culture on the worship of Christians in North India. This mixing of cultures was an essential characteristic of the hymnody produced by the emerging church in the region and was used in both evangelism and worship. Indian and foreign evangelists relied on indigenous music to draw hearers and to communicate the Christian gospel.

Mary Ann Middleditch, a young woman of twenty in 1833, living in Wellingborough in Northamptonshire and working in a school, confided in her letters her passionate feelings about Jamaica and the emancipation of slaves. The daughter of a Baptist minister, she had grown up in the culture of dissent and antislavery and felt deeply identified with the slaves whose stories had become part of the books she read, the sermons she heard, the hymns she sang, the poems she quoted, and the missionary meetings she attended. In 1833, at the height of the antislavery agitation, Mary Ann followed the progress of William Knibb in Northamptonshire. Knibb, who was born in nearby Kettering, had gone to Jamaica as a Baptist missionary in 1824 and been radicalized by his encounter with slavery. In the aftermath of the slave rebellion of 1831, widely known as the Baptist War because of the associations between some of the slave leaders and the Baptist churches, the planters had organized against the missionaries, burnt their chapels and mission stations, persecuted and threatened those whom they saw as responsible. Faced with the realization that their mission could not coexist with slavery the Baptist missionaries in Jamaica sent William Knibb, their most eloquent spokesman, to England to present their case. Abandoning the established orthodoxy that missionaries must keep out of politics, Knibb openly declared his commitment to abolition. The effect was electric and his speeches, up and down the country, were vital to the effective organization of a powerful antislavery campaign which resulted in the Emancipation Act of 1833.

Forty years after Charlemagne’s imperial coronation, Walahfrid Strabo, thirty-three-year-old abbot of the monastery of Reichenau, wrote a history of mid-ninth-century Frankish liturgy: Libellas de exordiis et incrementis quarundam in observationibus ecclesiasticis rerum—A Little Book about the Origins and Development of Certain Aspects of the Liturgy. It was the first account of liturgical development, and the topics ranged widely over thirty-two chapters, from bells to baptism, language to litany. Most of the subjects were in a state of change or expansion. Where there was controversy—for example, should a priest celebrate the Eucharist more than once a day—the history of a practice would help to underline the essential elements and to demonstrate the Christian constants as opposed to cultural diversity. Where there was development, such as the increasing number of hymns available for the Liturgy of the Hours, the history of that practice was appropriate and timely.

Many books have been written on Muslims and Islam since 9/1 I. Amajority of them have tried to show Islam's negative side in an attempt toprove that Islam teaches violence and that Muslims love to engage injihad to become martyrs. Such contentions are generally made by antiMusliminterest groups, certain religious organizations, and politiciansunder the influence of such extremists. These people stir up anti-Muslimsentiments to influence public opinion and bend government policies infavor of such groups. This book is a similar attempt to gain popularity forthe authors and arouse anti-Muslim sentiment at a time that is trying formost Americans. The authors, Ergun Caner and Emir Caner, are brothers.The senior author is professor of theology at Criswell College, Dallas,Texas, and the second author teaches at the Baptist Seminary in WakeForest, North Carolina.The book contains a preface and introduction, I 6 chapters on variousaspects of Islam, and four appendices, including an index to the Qur'anand a glossary of Arabic terms. The preface is a story of the clash ofculturesbetween the authors' Muslim (Turkish) father and Swedish mother,which resulted in a divorce when the Caner brothers were still veryyoung. The father had visitation rights and would take Ergun and Emir tothe Islamic Center in Columbus, Ohio, on weekends "to do the prayers,celebrate Ramadhan and read the Qur'an." This was the children's onlyexposure to Islam, until Ergun was I 5 and visited a church after his bestfriend invited him to do so. Ergun found the people at church warm and"didn't mock when he stumbled through the hymns." He joined thegospel ministry in 1982 and has since been preaching (against Islam) inorder "to bring salvation for 1.2 billion Muslims." Thus the title of thebook is itself deceiving, as it conveys that a practicing Muslim became aChristian, when, in fact, the authors actually became Christians in theirearly teens and had almost no education in Islam.It is appalling that the introductory chapter opens with a threat from"Shaikh" Osama bin Laden to the Americans and blessings for those whogave their lives to k.ill the 9/1 I victims. The authors portray bin Laden asa typical Muslim who is out to get all people who refuse to accept Islam ...

Gudbilledlighed og syndefald. - Aspekter af Grundtvigs og Kierkegaards menneskesyn på baggrund af Irenæus.[The Image and Likeness of God and the Fall of the Human Being. - Aspects of Grundtvig's and Kierkegaard's Conceptions of the Human Being in light of Irenaeus]By Niels Jørgen CappelørnIn his account of the human being, the early church father Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyon (in the second century, C.E.), makes a distinction between imago dei and similitudo dei based on the Genesis account of the creation of human beings in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26-27). It is the thesis of this article that this distinction can be traced in the works of N. F. S. Grundtvig and Soren Kierkegaard and that this distinction opens possibilities for finding and demonstrating new and parallel elements in Grundvig’s and Kierkegaard’s respective conceptions of the human person, particularly concerning the relationship between the image and likeness of God in human beings and the Fall.Grundtvig studied Irenaeus for the first time in 1823 and produced a translation of the fifth and final book of his apologetic work, Adversus haereses, in 1827. Kierkegaard seems not to have studied Irenaeus’ own texts, but a good ten years after Grundtvig’s translation he read about the theology of Irenaeus in Johannes Adam Mohler’s Athanasius der Große und die Kirche seiner Zeit from 1827.Irenaeus’ conception of the human being with regard to both the Fall and the rebirth in Christ can be summarized as follows: The human being consists of body and soul, which is its substance, and this substance must become united with the Spirit of God if the individual is to become a complete spiritual person. What was lost in Adam is won in Christ. But not all was lost with the Fall. The image of God is still within the human soul while the likeness of God, which resides in the human spirit, has been lost and must be reborn of the Holy Spirit.The image of God in the soul is freedom, and this remains with human beings. At times, this freedom assents to the flesh and falls into earthly desire, at times it follows the will of God and submits to His Spirit, which is granted anew in Christ.The account here of Grundtvig’s conception of the human being - specifically with regard to the consequences of the Fall for the image and likeness of God that was endowed to human beings at creation – is based on Den christelige Børnelærdom, [Elementary Christian Doctrine], which was first published in a series of articles in 1855-61 and which was later republished in book form in 1868. Additionally, it is based on a series of hymns and spiritual songs from the same period, especially “Hvor skal jeg Guds Billed finde?” [Where Shall I God’s Image Find?] and “I Begyndelsen var Ordet / Gjenlyds-Ordet i vort Bryst,” [In the Beginning Was the Word / The Resonating Word in Our Breast] together with a sermon from 1839 on Mark 7: 31-37, and finally, ‘Christenhedens Syvstjeme’ [The Pleiades of Christendom] (1854-55).The corresponding account of Kierkegaard’s conception is based on several sources: The Concept of Anxiety (1844) where the author engages in a critical rejection of the Augustinian-Lutheran understanding of inherited sin; “An Occasional Discourse” and “What We Learn from the Lilies in the Field and the Birds of the Air” from Upbuilding Discouses in Various Spirits (1847); and his discourses for Friday Communion in Christian Discourses (1848), in Three Discourses at Communion on Fridays. The High Priest - The Tax Collector - The Woman Who Sinned (1849) and in Two Discourses at the Communion on Friday (1851). Additionally, a series of other texts is consulted, including passages from Philosophical Fragments (1844) and Journals EE (1839) and HH (\ 840-41).These two respective accounts reveal that the thesis of the article cannot be comprehensively applied in every detail and for every text; the constmction is too schematic and static to do justice to Gmndtvig’s dynamics and Kierkegaard’s dialectics. But as a backdrop to a reading and comparison of their respective conceptions of the human being with regard to the Fall and its consequences for the image and likeness of God in human beings, it has been helpful to treat essential aspects of their respective anthropologies.Both Gmndtvig and Kierkegaard agree with Irenaeus that human beings consist of a triad: body, soul and spirit. And they share the conviction that human beings possess an original divine stamp, established in creation, in the form of the image and likeness of God.This stamp has not completely perished with regard to the image of God, but with regard to the likeness of God, it has been lost – though Grundtvig and Kierkegaard do not make the distinction between imago dei and similitudo dei as sharply.In Grundtvig, one finds first and foremost that despite the Fall, a positive element of God’s image survives in the soul as “the resonating word” which can both hear and utter God’s creative Word. In Kierkegaard, one finds first and foremost that because of the Fall a negative element of God’s image is left behind as a cracked and split freedom which is, however, manifest positively as a consciousness of sin and a desire for God. For both of them - insofar as Irenaeus’ distinction can be sustained - a remnant of God’s image in the soul remains while the likeness of God in the spirit has been lost. They likewise agree that God’s Spirit is the driving force for both the renewal and reunification of the image and likeness of God. For Grundtvig, this renewal of the image of God and the rebirth of the likeness of God takes place through the Holy Spirit in Baptism. For Kierkegaard, where Baptism does not have the same signifying meaning, it takes place in the interaction between Confession and Communion.Grundtvig maintains a clear axis between Baptism and Communion, with an emphasis on Baptism as the place where human “sin-guilt,” which is a consequence of the Fall, is forgiven and erased once and for all. By contrast, Kierkegaard inserts a third element, Confession, so that the schema appears as follows: Baptism, Confession, Communion, but with an emphasis on Confession as the place where human beings confess their sins and God grants His forgiveness. Grundvig underscores first and foremost that Baptism is a spiritual bath of rebirth and, secondly, that it is a covenant. To be sure, they are in agreement that Baptism must be appropriated in faith but Kierkegaard, more than Grundtvig, insists that human beings constantly fall away from and break the covenant. It is here that the confessee’s admission of sin and the absolved one’s reception of God’s forgiveness in Confession receives decisive significance as a preparation to and precondition for going to Communion worthily and for accepting forgiveness at the Lord’s table.In neither of them is there a mention of a “creation anew” in the form of a second creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing) - at least not as the dominant theme - but rather a renewal, a rebirth, a redemption, a restoration, a repetition, and a reunification in spirit and truth. While Grundtvig, who thinks especially dynamically and metaphorically, places emphasis on the homogeneous quality of the states before and after the Fall or, more specifically, before and after renewal and rebirth, Kierkegaard - who thinks more dialectically and conceptually - points to the heterogeneous quality. For both of them, one can speak of a growth: in Grundtvig, a growth in faith, hope and charity; in Kierkegaard, a growth in faith and especially in following Christ as truth which brings about a sanctifying fellowship of love and suffering in Christ.

Grundtvig's Relations with Luther and the Lutheran TraditionBy Leif GraneGrundtvig’s relations with Luther and the Lutheran tradition are essential in nearly the whole of Grundtvig’s lifetime. The key position that he attributed to Luther in connection with his religious crisis 1810-11, remained with the Reformer until the very last, though there were changes on the way in his evaluation of the Reformation.The source material is overwhelming. It comprises all Grundtvig’s historical and church historical works, but also a large number of his theological writings, besides a number of his poems and hymns. Prior to Grundtvig’s lifelong occupation with Luther there had been a rejection of tradition as he had met with it in the Conservative supranaturalism. After the Romantic awakening at Egeløkke and the subsequent »Asarus« (the- ecstatic immersion in Nordic mythology), over the religious crisis 1810-1811, when Grundtvig thought he was »returning« to Luther, it was a different Luther from the one he had left a few years before. Though Grundtvig emphasizes the infallibility of the Bible, it is wrong to describe him as »Lutheran-Orthodox« in the traditional sense. In Grundtvig’s interpretation, Luther is above all the guarantee of the view of history he had acquired in his Romantic period, but given his own personal stamp, as it appeared in slightly different ways in the World Chronicles of 1812 and 1817. There already he turns against the theologization of the message of the Reformation that set in with the confessional writings. Ever since he maintained the view of the Reformation that he expounds in the two World Chronicles, though the evaluation of it changed somewhat, especially after 1825.The church view that Grundtvig presented for the first time in »Kirkens Gienmæle« (The Rejoinder of the Church), and which he explained in detail in »Om den sande Christendom« (About True Christianity) and »Om Christendommens Sandhed« (About the Truth of Christianity), was bound to lead to a conflict (as it did) with the Protestant »Scripturalism«, and thus to clarity about the disagreement with Luther. This conflict attained a greater degree of precision with the distinctions between church and state, and church and school, as they were presented in »Skal den lutherske Reformation virkelig fortsættes?« (Should the Lutheran Reformation Really Be Continued? 1830), but it was not really until the publication of the third part of »Haandbog I Verdens-Historien« (Handbook in World History) that the view of church history and of Luther’s place in it, inspired by the congregational letters in the Apocalypse, was presented, in order to be more closely developed, partly in poetical form in »Christenhedens Syvstjeme« (The Seven Star of Christendom), partly in lectures in »Kirke-Spejl« (Church Mirror).Grundtvig had to reject orthodoxy since the genuineness of Baptism and Eucharist depended on their originating from Christ Himself. Nothing of universal validity could therefore have come into existence in the 16th century.Thus the evaluation of Luther and Lutheranism must depend on how far Lutheranism corresponded to what all Christians have in common. Luther is praised for the discovery that only the Word and the Spirit must reign in the church. It is understandable therefore that Luther had to break down the false idea of the church that had prevailed since Cyprian, and Grundtvig remained unswervingly loyal to him. But he cannot avoid the question why Luther’s work crumbled after his death. The answer is that it crumbled because of »Scripturalism« which Grundtvig considers a spurious inheritance from Alexandrian theology. We must maintain Luther’s faith which centres on all that is fundamentally Christian, but not his theological method.Grundtvig believes that with his criticism of Luther he is really closer to him than those who are cringing admirers of him. Grundtvig confesses himself to having committed the mistake of confusing the Bible with Christianity, and he cannot exempt Luther from a great responsibility for this aberration. All the same, in Luther’s case the wrong Yet Luther was induced to want to make his own experiences universally valid since he did not understand that his own use of the Scriptures could not possibly be right for every man. Here Grundtvig is on the track of the individualism which to him is an inevitable consequence of Scripturalism: everybody reads as he knows best. It was not in school, but in church that he saw Luther’s great and imperishable achievement.So while Grundtvig cannot exempt Luther from some responsibility for an unfortunate development in the relation between church and school, he is very anxious to exempt him from any responsibility for the assumption of power in the church by the princes, which is due, in his opinion, to a conspiracy between the princes and the theologians with a view to tying the peoples to the symbolical books.In the development of Grundtvig’s view of church history it turns out that the interest in the national, cultural and civic significance of the Reformation has not decreased after he has given up fighting for a Christian culture. The Reformation must, as must church history on the whole, be seen in the context of the histories of the peoples. Therefore, if it is not to be pure witchcraft, it must have its foundation deep in the Middle Ages.Grundtvig points to what he calls »the new Christendom«: from the English and the Germans to the North. Viewed in that light, the Reformation is a struggle for a Christian life, a folkelig life of the people, and enlightenment.Though the 17th century wrenched all life out of what was bom in the 16th, and the 18th century abandoned both Christianity and folkelig life altogether, it was of great significance for culture and enlightenment that the people was made familiar with Luther’s catechism, Bible and hymn book. What was fundamentally Christian survived, while folkelig life lay dormant.The Reformation was unfinished, and its completion must wait until the end of time. But compulsion is approaching the end, and the force of the Reformation in relation to mother tongue and folkelig life manifests itself more strongly than ever before, Gmndtvig believes. What is fundamentally Christian in Luther must be maintained and carried onwards, while the Christian enlightenment, i.e. theology, depends on the time in question.Life is the same, but the light is historically determined. With this concept of freedom, which distinguishes between the faith in Christ as permanent and the freedom of the Holy Ghost that liberates us from being tied to the theology of the old, Gmndtvig may convincingly claim that it is he who – with his criticism - is loyal to Luther, i.e. to »the most excellent Father in Christ since the days of the Apostles«.

The Son of the Widow from Nain.By Kaj ThaningThis article intends to elucidate the distinctions that Grundtvig made in his world of ideas in the course of the years from 1824 to 1834, first between spirit and letter, church and church-school (1826-1830), and then between natural life and Christian life (in 1832). In His "Literary Testament" (1827), Grundtvig himself admits that there was a "Chaos" in his writings, due to the youthful fervour that pervaded his literary works and his sermons in the years 1822-1824. But not until 1832 does he acknowledge that "when I speak or write as a citizen, or a bard, or a scholar, it is not the time nor the place to either preach or confess, so when I have done so, it was a mistake which can only be excused with the all too familiar disorder pertaining to our church, our civic life, and our scholarship...", as it says in a passage omitted from the manuscript for "Norse Mythology”, 1832. (The passage is printed in its entirety in ”A Human first...”, p. 259f.)The point of departure for Thaning’s article is a sermon on the Son of the Widow from Nain, delivered in 1834, which the editor, Christian Thodberg also found "singularly personal”, since Grundtvig keeps using the pronoun ”1”. In this sermon Grundtvig says that those who have heard him preaching on this text before, would remember that he regarded the mourning widow as ”an image of the same broken heart at all times”, and her comforter, Jesus, not only as a great prophet in Israel, but ”as the living Being who sees us and is with us always until the end of the world”. Thodberg is of the opinion that Grundtvig refers to his sermon from 1823. Thaning, however, thinks that the reference is to the sermon from 1824. But Grundtvig adds that one may now rightly ask him whether he ’’still regards the gospel for the day with the same eyes, the same hope and fear as before.” He wants to discuss this, among other things ’’because the best thing we can do when we grow old is ... to develop and explain what in the days of our youth .. sprang up before our eyes and echoes in our innermost mind.” In other words, he speaks as if he had grown old. So Thaning asks: "What happened on the way from Our Saviour’s Church to Frederick’s Church?"Thaning’s answer is that there was a change in Grundtvig’s view of life. Already in his first sermon in 1832, he says that his final and truly real hour as a pastor has now arrived. Thaning’s explanation is that Grundtvig has now passed from the time of strong emotions to that of calm reflections. Not until now does he realize "what is essential and what is not". And in 1834 he says that our Christian views, too, must go through a purgatorial fire when we grow older. This is not only true of the lofty views of human life which, naturally, go through this purgatory and most often lose themselves in it. Here Grundtvig distinguishes between natural and Christian life which is something new in a sermon. Thaning adds that this purgatorial fire pervades Grundtvig’s drafts for the Introduction to "Norse Mythology" in 1832. But then, Grundtvig’s lofty views did not lose themselves in purgatory. He got through it. His view of life changed. (Here Thaning refers to his dissertation, "A Human First...", p. 306ff).This is vaguely perceptible throughout the sermon in question. But according to Thaning Grundtvig slightly distorts the picture of his old sermon. In the latter he did not mix up natural and Christian life. It is Thaning’s view that Grundtvig is thinking of the distinct mixture of Christianity and Danish national feeling in the poem "New Year’s Morning" (1824). But he also refers to Grundtvig’s sermon on Easter Monday, 1824, printed in Helge Toldberg’s dissertation, "Grundtvig’s World of Symbols" (1950), p. 233ff, showing that he has been captured by imagery in a novel manner. He seems to want to impose himself upon his audience. In 1834 he knows he has changed. But 1832 is the dividing year. In the passage omitted from the manuscript for "Norse Mythology", Grundtvig states explicitly that faith is "a free matter": "Faith is a matter of its own, and truly each man’s own matter". Grundtvig could not say this before 1832. Thaning is of the opinion that this new insight lies behind the distinction that he makes in the sermon in 1834, where he says that he used to mix up Christian life with "the natural life of our people", which involved the risk that his Christian view might be misinterpreted and doubted. Now it has been through purgatory. And in the process it has only lost its "absurdity and obscurity, which did not come from the Lord, but from myself”.Later in the sermon he says: "The view is no more obscured by my Danish national feeling; I certainly do not by any means fail to appreciate the particularly friendly relationship that has prevailed through centuries between the Christian faith and the life of this people, and nor do I by any means renounce my hope that the rebirth of Christianity here will become apparent to the world, too, as a good deed, but yet this is only a dream, and the prophet will by no means tell us such dreams, but he bids us separate them sharply from the word of God, like the straw from the grain...". This cannot be polemically directed against his own sermons from 1824. It must necessarily reflect a reaction against the fundamental view expressed in "New Year’s Morning" and its vision of Christianity and Danishness in one. (Note that in his dissertation for the Degree of Divinity, Bent Christensen calls the poem "a dream", as Thaning adds).In his "Literary Testament" (1827) Grundtvig speaks about the "Chaos" caused by "the spirits of the Bible, of history, and of the Nordic countries, whom I serve and confuse in turn." But there is not yet any recognition of the same need for a distinction between Danishness and Christianity, which in the sermon he calls "the straw and the grain". Here he speaks of the distinction between "church and church-school, Christianity and theology, the spirit of the Bible and the letter of the Bible", as a consequence of his discovery in 1825. He still identifies the spirit of human history with the spirit of the Bible: "Here is the explanation over my chaos", Grundtvig says. But it is this chaos that resolves itself, leading to the insight and understanding in the sermon from 1834.In the year after "The Literary Testament", 1828, Grundtvig publishes the second part of his "Sunday Book", in which the only sermon on the Son of the Widow in this work appears. It is the last sermon in this volume, and it is an elaboration of the sermon from 1824. What is particularly characteristic of it is its talk about hope. "When the heart sees its hope at death’s door, where is comfort to be found for it, save in a divine voice, intoning Weep not!" Here Grundtvig quotes St. John 3:16 and says that when this "word of Life" is heard, when hope revives and rises from its bier, is it not then, and not until then, that we feel that God has visited his people...?" In the edition of this sermon in the "Sunday Book" a note of doubt has slipped in which did not occur in the original sermon from 1824. The conclusion of the sermon bears evidence that penitential Christianity has not yet been overcome: "What death would be too hard a transition to eternal life?" - "Then, in the march of time, let it stand, that great hope which is created by the Word ... like the son of the great woman from Nain."It is a strange transition to go from this sermon to the next one about the son of the widow, the sermon from 1832, where Christ is no longer called "hope". The faith has been moved to the present: "... only in the Word do we find him, the Word was the sign of life when we rose from the dead, and if we fell silent, it was the sign of death." - "Therefore, as the Lord has visited us and has opened our mouths, we shall speak about him always, in the certain knowledge that it is as necessary and as pleasurable as to breathe..." The emphasis of faith is no longer in words like longing and hope.In a sense this and other sermons in the 1830s anticipate the hymn "The Lord has visited his people" ("Hymn Book" (Sangv.rk) I, no. 23): the night has turned into morning, the sorrow has been removed. The gospel has become the present. As before the Church is compared with the widow who cried herself blind at the foot of the cross. Therefore the Saviour lay in the black earth, nights and days long. But now the Word of life has risen from the dead and shall no more taste death. The dismissal of the traditional Christianity, handed down from the past, is extended to include the destructive teaching in schools. The young man on the bier has been compared with the dead Christianity which Grundtvig now rejects. At an early stage Grundtvig was aware of its effects, such as in the Easter sermon in 1830 ("Sunday Book" III, p. 263) where Grundtvig speaks as if he had experienced a breakthrough to his new view. So, the discovery of the Apostles’ Creed in 1825 must have been an enormous feeling of liberation for him – from the worship of the letter that so pervaded his age. Grundtvig speaks about the "living, certain, oral, audible" word in contrast to the "dead, uncertain, written, mute" sign in the book. However, there is as yet no mention of the "Word from the Mouth of our Lord", which belongs to a much later time. Only then does he acquire the calm confidence that enables him to preach on the background of what has happened that the Word has risen from the dead. The question to ask then is what gave him this conviction."Personally I think that it came to him at the same time as life became a present reality for him through the journeys to England," Thaning says. By the same token, Christianity also became a present reality. The discovery of 1825 was readily at hand to grant him a means of expression to convey this present reality and the address to him "from the Lord’s own mouth", on which he was to live. It is no longer enough for him to speak about "the living, solemn evidence at baptism of the whole congregation, the faith we are all to share and confess" as much more certain than everything that is written in all the books of the world. The "Sunday Book" is far from containing the serene insight which, in spite of everything, the Easter sermon, written incidentally on Easter Day, bears witness to. But in 1830 he was not yet ready to sing "The Lord has visited his people", says Thaning.In the sermon from 1834 one meets, as so often in Grundtvig, his emphasis on the continuity in his preaching. In the mourning widow he has always seen an image of the Church, as it appears for the first time in an addition to the sermon on the text in the year 1821 ("Pr.st. Sermons", vol I, p. 296). It ends with a clue: "The Church of Christ now is the Widow of Nain". He will probably have elaborated that idea and concluded his sermon with it. Nevertheless, as it has appeared, the sermon in 1834 is polemically directed against his former view, the mixture of Christian and natural life. He recognizes that there is an element of "something fantastic" sticking to the "view of our youth".Already in a draft for a sermon from March 4,1832, Grundtvig says:"... this was truly a great error among us that we contented ourselves with an obscure and indefinite idea of the Spirit as well as the Truth, for as a consequence of that we were so doubtful and despondent, and we so often mistook the letter for the spirit, or the spirit of phantasy and delusion for that of God..." (vol. V, p. 79f).The heart-searchings which this sermon draft and the sermon on the 16th Sunday after Trinity are evidence of, provide enough argument to point to 1832 as a year of breakthrough. We, his readers, would not have been able to indicate the difference between before and now with stronger expressions than Grundtvig’s own. "He must really have turned into a different kind of person", Thaning says. At the conclusion of the article attention is drawn to the fact that the image of the Son of the Widow also appears in an entirely different context than that of the sermon, viz. in the article about Popular Life and Christianity that Grundtvig wrote in 1847. "What still remains alive of Danish national feeling is exactly like the disconsolate widow at the gate of Nain who follows her only begotten son to the grave" (US DC, p. 86f). The dead youth should not be spoken to about the way to eternal life, but a "Rise!" should be pronounced, and that apparently means: become a living person! On this occasion Grundtvig found an opportunity to clarify his ideas. His "popular life first" is an extension of his "a human being first" from 1837. He had progressed over the last ten years. But the foundation was laid with the distinction between Christian and natural life at the beginning of the 1830s.

This master's thesis named Seven Sacraments Reflection in Tobias Zavorka Lipensky's Liturgical Work, deals with the transcription and analysis of liturgical acts which reflect seven sacraments of the Catholic Church. The appropriate texts were taken from Zavorka's agenda The Rule of Church Service, the hymn-book The Songs of Divine Praise and the song-book Funeral Chanting. The master thesis begins with brief Zavorka's curriculum vitae of Zavorka, who was the neo-utraquistic priest and Dean of the region of Doubravnik, and a description of his works. The main focus of the thesis is to describe the specifics of the special or sacramental liturgical acts that demonstrate the character of Zavorka's theological and liturgical work.

Abstract This final chapter is intended not to conclude but to sharpen a focus on process and change. As both a reprise and an extension of issues within the book, here I describe comparative travel and follow-up research trips between May 1989 and September 1995, which took some unforeseen turns. During my final months of research in 1989, I journeyed west toward Nola and Bayanga. I was eager to meet BaAka from this region, who call themselves BaAka Bambenjele, because as far away as Bagandou these BaAka have something of a reputation as exceptional dancers and singers.1 As I expected from hearsay in Bagandou, though, around the large town of Nola, Centrafrican Baptists had been active with the pygmies for years. I stayed in Nola for a few days with a local Peace Corps worker named Susan. On Sunday, Susan’s neighbor Jean-Pierre-the pastor I’d interviewed the previous day (described in chapter 8)-took us to a service among BaAka who live along the road outside town. This Baptist service did not have the ad hoc leeway of the service at Dzanga; the pastor led the prayers, mostly in Sango, and these BaAka-much more familiar with Sango and long exposed to missionaries-followed obediently. Nevertheless, I found the musical aspects intriguing. Like the Grace Brethren, the Baptists have been in Centrafrique since the early 1920s, but like many other Christian sects, their hymns in Sango have been “Africanized;’ with syncopated phrasing and parallel harmonies in intervals of thirds, fourths, and fifths, accompanied by lively but unvarying drum rhythms that emphasize one central downbeat. Most striking, though, is that BaAka here have been Christians long enough to have developed at least one hymn in their own language, and I was startled to hear them sing it in overlapping, pygmy fashion (CD 2:11). Unlike the other hymns, this one had words buried within layers of interlaced phrases, with harmonies in seconds and vowel sounds of “oh”s and “eh”s (though without the trademark “eeya”s). Although the form of this song was not as dynamic as most BaAka singing, it carried an unmistakably BaAka sensibility. This was the first time I’d seen BaAka reconfigure Christian material into their own style.

Abstract Zacharias (or Zechariah or Zachariah), a Jewish priest, appears in Luke 1 and receives a vision promising him and his aged wife, Elizabeth, a son. That son is John the Baptist. Zacharias celebrates the child ‘s birth with the hymn known to Christianity as the Benedictus. So much for the New Testament references to Zacharias. But, like many such figures in the New Testament, Zacharias became the subject of later tradition. At the end of the Protevangelium of James, a book largely given over to the birth and childhood of the Virgin Mary and to the birth of Jesus, the story changes from the escape of the infant John and his mother at the time of Herod ‘s Massacre of the Innocents to a scene in which John ‘s priestly father, Zacharias, is murdered in the Jerusalem Temple by command of Herod. It is likely that the story was a late appendix to the Protevangelium and is an elaboration of Jesus ‘ prophecy to the Jews in Matthew 23: 35: ‘On you will fall the guilt of all the innocent blood spilt on the ground, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. ‘ Whoever that Zechariah was, the apocryphal tradition obviously identified him with the Baptist ‘s father and thus created the story below which would be seen as a fulfilment of the prophecy. It is interesting to note that after Zacharias ‘ murder his successor as priest is said to be Simeon, another character taken from Luke ‘s infancy narrative.

Led by their indefatigable itinerant bishop, Francis Asbury, the Methodists spread like wildfire in the early republic. Unlike Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Unitarians, Methodists largely eschewed politics to focus on personal conversion and small group religious nurture. Methodists were the era’s most effective revivalists and also the group that best contained the fires of revival through the structures of the Methodist Discipline. Hymns played a crucial role in spreading the Methodist message and strengthening local Methodist fellowship. The Methodist avoidance of political partisanship looks commendable from a contemporary angle. Their great early success, however, included successful evangelization of southern whites; their defense of the slave system eventually led them to compromise their earlier stand against the institution.

Abstract The first movement of Cantata 77,”Du sollt Gott, deinen Herren, lieben:’ the cantata that will serve as the focus of interest for this and the following chapter (see Table 7.1), centers on Luther’s chorale “Dies sind die heil’gen zehn Gebot:’ which summarizes the Ten Commandments in poetic form. This chorale, which was apparently written in early 1524 and first appeared in Lutheran chorale books in that year, set to the melody of a medieval pilgrimage hymn, “In Gottes Namen fahren wir;’ was from the time of its publication one of the core chorales of the Lutheran catechism. Luther, in fact, wrote chorales for all six principal parts of the catechism: the three basic summaries of the word of God—the Ten Commandments, the Apostles’ Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer—along with the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, with penitence (confession and absolution) included as a preparation for the Lord’s Supper.1 Luther viewed not only the creeds (the three so-called Symbola of the church) but also the Ten Commandments, the first commandment alone and the catechism as a whole as comprising the meaning of scripture in summary forms. As he remarked in his introduction to the Large Catechism, “This much is certain: anyone who knows the Ten Commandments perfectly knows the entire Scriptures… What is the whole Psalter but meditations and exercises based on the First Commandment? … the Catechism … is a brief compend and summary of all the Holy Scriptures:’2 As a result, certain of the oldest chorale books were organized according to the catechism, beginning with “Dies sind die heil’gen zehn Gebot:’ while others that followed the order of the liturgical year tended, as mentioned previously, to associate the catechism with the beginning of the Trinity season.3

Committee I.1: Environment Alexander Babanin (Chair); Mariana Bernardino; Franz von Bock und Polach; Ricardo Campos,; Jun Ding; Sanne van Essen; Tomaso Gaggero; Maryam Haroutunian; Vanessa Katsardi; Alexander Nilva; Arttu Polojarvi; Erik Vanem; Jungyong Wang; Huidong Zhang; Tingyao Zhu Floor Discussers: Florian Sprenger; Carlos Guedes Soares; Henk den Besten Committee I.2: Loads Ole Andreas Hermundstad (Chair); Shuhong Chai; Guillaume de Hauteclocque; Sheng Dong; Chih-Chung Fang; Thomas B. Johannessen; Celso Morooka; Masayoshi Oka; Jasna Prpić-Oršić; Alessandro Sacchet; Mahmud Sazidy; Bahadir Ugurlu; Roberto Vettor; Peter Wellens Official Discusser: Hayden Marcollo Committee II-1: Quasi-Static Response James Underwood (Chair); Erick Alley; Jerolim Andrić Dario Boote; Zhen Gao; Ad Van Hoeve; Jasmin Jelovica; Yasumi Kawamura; Yooil Kim; Jian Hu Liu; Sime Malenica; Heikki Remes; Asokendu Samanta; Krzysztof Woloszyk; Deqing Yang Official Discusser: Prof. T. Yoshikwa Committee II.2: Dynamic Response Gaute Storhaug (Chair); Daniele Dessi; Sharad Dhavalikar; Ingo Drummen; Michael Holtmann; Young-Cheol Huh; Lorenzo Moro; Andre Paiva; Svein Sævik; Rong-Juin Shyu; Shan Wang; Sue Wang; WenWei Wu; Yasuhira Yamada; Guiyong Zhang Floor Discussers: Ling Zhu; Tomoki Takami; Anriette (Annie) Bekker; Bruce Quinton; Robert Sielski Committee III.1: Ultimate Strength Paul E. Hess (Chair); Chen An; Lars Brubak; Xiao Chen; Jinn Tong Chiu; Jurek Czujko; Ionel Darie; Guoqing Feng; Marco Gaiotti; Beom Seon Jang; Adnan Kefal; Sukron Makmun; Jonas Ringsberg; Jani Romanoff; Saad Saad-Eldeen; Ingrid Schipperen; Kristjan Tabri; Yikun Wang; Daisuke Yanagihara Official Discusser: Jørgen Amdahl Committee III.2: Fatigue and Fracture Yordan Garbatov (Chair); Sigmund K Ås; Henk Den Besten; Philipp Haselbach; Adrian Kahl; Dale Karr; Myung Hyun Kim; Junjie Liu; Marcelo Igor Lourenço de Souza; Wengang Mao; Eeva Mikkola; Naoki Osawa; Fredhi Agung Prasetyo; Mauro Sicchiero; Suhas Vhanmane; Marta Vicente del Amo; Jingxia Yue Official Discusser Weicheng Cui Floor Discussers: Robert Sielski; Sören Ehlers; Stephane Paboeuf; Teresa Magoga Committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria Matthew Collette (Chair); Piero Caridis; Petar Georgiev; Torfinn Hørte; Han Koo Jeong; Rafet emek Kurt; Igor Ilnytskiy; Tetsuo Okada; Charles Randall; Zbigniew Sekulski; Matteo Sidari; Zhihu Zhan; Ling Zhu Official Discusser: Enrico Rizzuto Committee IV.2: Design Methods Andrea Ivaldi (Chair); Abbas Bayatfar; Jean-David Caprace; Gennadiy Egorov; Svein Erling Heggelund; Shinichi Hirakawa; Jung Min Kwon; Dan Mcgreer; Pero Prebeg; Robert Sielski; Mark Slagmolen; Adam Sobey; Wenyong Tang; Jiameng Wu Official Discusser: Mario Dogliani Committee V.1: Accidental Limit States Bruce Quinton; Gaetano De Luca; Topan Firmandha; Mihkel Körgesaar; Hervé Le Sourne; Ken Nahshon; Gabriele Notaro; Kourosh Parsa; Smiljko Rudan; Katsuyuki Suzuki; Osiris Valdez Banda; CareyWalters; Deyu Wang; Zhaolong Yu Official Discusser: Manolis Samuelides Committee V.2: Experimental Methods Sören Ehlers (Chair); Nagi Abdussamie; Kim Branner; ShiXiao Fu; Martijn Hoogeland; Kari Kolari; Paul Lara; Constantine Michailides; Hideaki Murayama; Cesare Rizzo; Jung Kwan Seo; Patrick Kaeding Official Discusser: Giles Thomas Committee V.3: Materials and Fabrication Technology Lennart Josefson (Chair); Konstantinos Anyfantis; Bianca de Carvalho Pinheiro; Bai-Qiao Chen; Pingsha Dong; Nicole Ferrari; Koji Gotoh; James Huang; Matthias Krause; Kun Liu; Stephane Paboeuf; Stephen van Duin; Fang Wang; Albert Zamarin Official Discusser: Frank Roland Floor Discussers Alessandro Caleo; Agnes Marie Horn; Krzysztof Woloszyk; Robert Sielski Committee V.4: Offshore Renewable Energy Atanasios Kolios (Chair); Kyong-Hwan Kim; Chen Hsing Cheng; Elif Oguz; Pablo Morato; Freeman Ralph; Chuang Fang; Chunyan Ji; Marc Le Boulluec; Thomas Choisnet; Luca Greco; Tomoaki Utsunomiya; Kourosh Rezanejad; Charles Rawson; Jose Miguel Rodrigues Official Discusser: Amy Robertson Committee V.5: Special Vessels Darren Truelock (Chair); Jason Lavroff; Dustin Pearson; Zbigniew (Jan) Czaban; Hanbing Luo; Fuhua Wang; Ivan Catipovic; Ermina Begovic; Yukichi Takaoka; Claudia Loureiro; Chang Yong Song; Esther Garcia; Alexander Egorov; Jean-Baptiste Souppez; Pradeep Sensharma; Rachel Nicholls-Lee Official Discusser: Jaye Falls Floor Discussers: Jasmin Jelovica; Stephane Paboeuf; Sören Ehlers Committee V.6: Ocean Space Utilization Sebastian Schreier (Chair); Felice Arena; Harry Bingham; Nuno Fonseca; Zhiqiang Hu; Debabrata Karmakar; Ekaterina Kim; Hui Li; Pengfei Liu; Motohiko Murai; Spiro J Pahos; Chao Tian; George Wang Official Discusser: Hideyuki Suzuki Floor Discussers: Robert Sielski; Sue Wang; Sarat Mohapatra; Gaute Storhaug; Henk den Besten Committee V.7: Structural Longevity Iraklis Lazakis (Chair); Bernt Leira; Nianzhong Chen; Geovana Drumond; Chi-Fang Lee; Paul Jurisic; Bin Liu; Alysson Mondoro; Pooria Pahlavan; Xinghua Shi; Ha Cheol Song; Tadashi Sugimura; Christian Jochum; Tommaso Coppola Official Discusser: Timo de Beer Floor Discusser: Krzysztof Woloszyk Committee V.8: Subsea Technology Agnes Marie Horn (Chair); Tauhid Rahman; Ilson Pasqualino; Menglan Duan; Zhuang Kang; Michael Rye Andersen; Yoshihiro Konno; Chunsik Shim; Angelo Teixeira; Selda Oterkus; Blair Thornton; Brajendra Mishra Official Discusser: Segen F. Estefen