I have recently learned of the Christingle Service you published (RW 37, Dec. 95). The service has been discussed on the Ecunet on-line service and has received a great deal of interest from many people, including me. I am enclosing a check... to purchase a copy of RW 37.

Paul H. Bomely
Oxford, CT


RW 39 is an excellent piece of work. So many of the articles, especially those by Wayne Brouwer and Ronald Vanderwell, could have been written about our congregation. I'd like permission to copy those articles for pastoral use in our congregation. The people will certainly be able to appreciate these excellent contributions. Thanks for an excellent resource!

David Groenenboom
Hobart, Tasmania

Note: Subscribers may copy articles and resources for church newsletters and bulletins unless a specific copyright notice appears with that element.


I enjoyed reading your very amusing editorial (in RW 42) on the "credentials" you bring to your new position as theological editor of RW. Congratulations! Your rare sense of humor will certainly be a plus in your new and challenging job.

Over the years our worship committee at Claremont-Lafayette Presbyterian Church has used effectively many of the wonderful and creative ideas and resources suggested in your magazine. However, in all my years as a subscriber I've never seen anything on Shrove Tuesday and Mardi Gras. We've grown to appreciate those pre-Ash Wednesday services at neighboring Catholic and Lutheran churches and would appreciate it if you would include in your next Lenten issue ideas and resources for a pre-Ash Wednesday service that we could use.

Ruth Slade
Jersey City, NJ


I just received the most recent issue of RW in the mail today and was interested in the article by Richard Vander Vaart, "Name(s) Above all Names" (43, p. 20).

Unfortunately the article was a real missed opportunity. Vander Vaart has accumulated a list of 249 names for addressing God, but of these he does not share a single one that reflects feminine imagery, though such images are also provided in the Bible. Some of your readership may derive the wrong message from this "exclusive" list.

I would love to see your subscriptions continue to increase across the different Reformed bodies. I encourage seminary students to consider subscribing to RW. However, such a lack of inclusivity will turn away many.

Martin Tel
Princeton, NJ


In your editorial in RW 43 you raise the contemporary/traditional issue. One part of that issue is the matter of placing traditional in contrast to contemporary, assuming that all traditional is organ/choral and all contemporary is praise teams with various instruments. In such discussion the definition of terms has become a real problem.

In most discussions I hear, the organ is not considered a contemporary instrument, which to my mind is absurd. There are living, breathing organ builders making wonderful new organs. While still blowing wind into wood and metal pipes, organs are also using CAD-CAM, high-tech woodworking equipment, solid state electronics, and MIDI compatible playing systems, including digital record/playback. There are living, breathing composers and organists composing and playing creative, inspirational, God-honoring music that sounds nothing like the funeral parlor dirges too many people associate with organ music. Are these composers and organists not contemporary?

We need to look at what the term "contemporary" truly means—the P&W/Band/Pop genre is but a portion of the whole picture.

John Ourensma
Battle Creek, MI

Reformed Worship 44 © June 1997 Worship Ministries of the Christian Reformed Church. Used by permission.