Copyright: © 1999 Paul F. Bosch.
This document may be freely reproduced for non-commercial purposes with credit to the author and mention of the Lift Up Your Hearts web site http://www.worship.ca/ as the source.

"What's in a name?" muses Shakespeare's tragic heroine. "That which we call a rose / By any other name would smell as sweet..." Ah, yes, Juliet; but when your name is Capulet and his name is Montague, that name does indeed make a difference.

It was in Seminary, forty-five years ago, that a classmate, Richard Pankow, pointed out to me the importance of the names, the terms and designations, in our worshipbook. In those days it was (yes!) the Common Service Book (CSB). Richard's point was a good one, and it's stayed with me throughout all these decades. The names and designations in our worshipbooks have, for the most part, been selected with great care, and they mean to invite you into an alternative piety.

Whenever, that is, you page through an unfamiliar worshipbook; whenever you enter an unfamiliar church building; whenever you participate in an unfamiliar liturgical form, you are invited to re-examine your piety, and perhaps to alter it. Nothing less than your relationship to your God, to others, to your world, and to yourself is at stake, in the choice of terms and designations and names we use. Just ask Juliet.

Our church's current worshipbook is the Lutheran Book of Worship, and its terms and designations, too, have been chosen with great care. These terms and names and designations invite you to re-examine your piety. The LBW is not the Service Book and Hymnal (SBH), still less the CSB -- although you could hardly notice any difference, in the practice of many of our parishes.

Take the name of the chief Sunday service in our Tradition. In LBW, it's not "Eucharist." It's not "Mass." It's not "Divine Service." It's not "Lord's Supper." It is "Holy Communion." I'd like to suggest that's a fine term, in no way inferior to any of these other designations. Each of these alternative designations is a perfectly fine term, each quite valid and appropriate in its own context. And I find myself using these other designations, myself, in casual conversation and in teaching.

But I like "Holy Communion"; I actually prefer it, even over the now-almost-universally familiar "Eucharist." Why? "Eucharist" (Greek for "Thanksgiving") suggests, to its credit, the aspect of joy too often missing (Lord knows!) in our so-called "celebrations" of the Supper. But it's one-directional: it spells out nicely what we do: that is, give thanks. But the term "Holy Communion" is multi-directional: me toward God, God toward me, me toward you, you toward me. "Holy Communion," that is, suggests a mutuality and a relationship lacking in the term "Eucharist." Further: "Communion" in the English language is a corporate noun: we, the gathered people, are the Holy Communion, eh? I think that's neat.

The bottom line? I'd feel free to use any, and all, of the other designations, in casual conversation. But when I want to be very precise, as in my parish's printed guide-to-worship and in other print-pieces, I'd be certain to call it what LBW calls it: Holy Communion. Among other things, that kind of precision is a gesture of respect to strangers and visitors, who might otherwise be paging through our book, looking for "Eucharist," and coming up empty-handed.

How about other terms and designations? Our worship leader at Mass (Gotcha!) is not "liturgist." (Frank Senn is a liturgist; Phil Pfatteicher is a liturgist: a student of liturgy.) It's not "celebrant": we're all "celebrating." Our designation is "Presiding Minister" -- another fine term: see my Essay #27. The assisting minister, a layperson, is, well, an "Assisting Minister" -- not "Deacon."

How about the parts of the Service itself? Among us, it's not an "Opening Hymn"; it's an "Entrance Hymn". (Wouldn't it be neat if someone -- the choir? Presiding and Assisting Ministers? All the worshippers? -- actually made an entrance on the Entrance Hymn? See Essay #25.) And they're "Lessons" and the "Gospel" we read from scripture.

And please note: It's only in Eucharist (Gotcha again!) when a lection from an evangelist is designated as "Gospel," and we stand. At Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer, a gospel lection is simply "Second Lesson" or "Third Lesson" -- and the people remain seated for its reading. (Why? Maybe just to make the Lord's Supper different from other forms of worship...)

Oh yes: Hymn tune-names. It was only the English (Anglican) hymnological tradition, at first, that assigned names to hymntunes with any consistency. Now it's pretty universally understood as A Good Thing. I'd make it a point, in my Sunday bulletin or guide-to-worship, to give each hymn its full pedigree: Hymn number in LBW, first words of text, and tune-name. It's an enormous aid to the musicians, and to worship-planners when they review the Service, perhaps days or weeks later. (My Dad, even into old age, could tell you the tune-name, its number in the book, and even quote many of the stanzas, of almost any hymn you mentioned. "'O God, our help in ages past'? That's 'St.Anne', number 320 in LBW..." Marvellous! A true professional who loved his work! And who loved the tools of his trade!)

A quickie quiz: Can you hum the hymntune "Fredericktown"? Or "Vruechten"? For a week now, I haven't been able to get that majestic "Westminster Abbey" out of my head: it's in With One Voice. And for unknown reasons, the last few measures of the tune "Herzlich lieb" never fail to reduce me to almost-uncontrollable weeping, even independent of that magnificent text.

Well, all this can sound fuss-budgety to the point of seeming obsessive-compulsive. But the point is valid: by such nuances and niceties are you invited to re-examine your piety.

And that might be A Good Thing.