The way it played out is different that what I expected back 15 or 20 years ago. While the ACNA was officially not founded until 2009, here in San Diego individual parishes started leaving TEC in December 2005.
Beyond differences in what hymnals were produced, the elephant in the room is the decline in the importance of hymnals over the past 30 or 40 years ago. In this century, a large number of ACNA parishes have decided they don’t want or need hymnals due to their culture and worship practices. Many put everything on a screen, and a few put everything in a booklet. Of the former, some are constantly chasing the newest music — which is fundamentally incompatible with a fixed, agreed-upon corpus of music shared between churches and over multiple decades.
Hymnal Fragmentation
Compared to what I expected in 2005 or 2010, the most obvious difference is that there are now 4 hymnals used by non-TEC Anglicans, instead of one or maybe two. But after working to become a hymn scholar over these past years, I now know that that frequently a denomination or publisher will be disappointed when it tries to replace an old hymnal with a new one, either for something “new” or to make more money selling the “upgrade.”
An iconic example was the failed attempt by the LCMS (or more accurately, its money-making CPH publishing arm) to sell users of The Lutheran Hymnal (1941) on “upgrading” to Lutheran Worship (1982). Of course, TLH was arguably the best and most influential U.S. Lutheran hymnal of the 20th century, while LW was (at best) a so-so compromise from a failed effort to produce a joint hymnal (the 1978 Lutheran Book of Worship) with its much more liberal LCMS brethren. CPH was more successful in wiping out TLH with its 2006 update (Lutheran Service Book), which is a decent hymnal but — more importantly — was backed both by a full CPH marketing push and a concerted denominational effort to eliminate older hymnals and unify under the new hymnal.*
The latter success cannot be a model for today’s ACNA hymnals. While The Hymnal (1940) and Hymnal 1982 were produced by official ECUSA committees (before “TEC” became the common acronym), MTL and SUL are hymnals for the ACNA but not by ecclesially-sponsored ACNA authorities. (MTL is an officially produced hymnal for the REC and its four US dioceses, but not mandated even for them). So in the next decade, there will be no stone tablets from Mt. Sinai (or Pittsburgh, Atlanta or Raleigh) saying “thou shalt buy this hymnal.”
(* Note: For Lutherans and Methodists among others, a “hymnal” includes both the music of an Anglican hymnal and all the liturgical elements that for Anglicans are found in a prayer book.)
Difficulty Evaluating Hymnals
I’ve spent more than six months examining the 800+ musical pieces in SUL, which required building databases that allow me to compare the two 21st century ACNA hymnals (SUL, MTL) with the two latest 20th century ECUSA ones (H82,H40) — ignoring The Hymnal (1916).
For the January 29 article on service music of SUL, I identified and cross-referenced 16 complete mass settings (nine traditional language, seven contemporary language) across these four hymnals; some of these are also found elsewhere. I also cataloged more than 200 specific pieces of communion music from full or partial mass settings (e.g., my favorite “Scottish” Gloria) found in at least one of these hymnals. I also cross-referenced nearly 400 pieces of Daily Office service music found in one or more hymnals.
Similar, for today’s (Aug 28) article on the SUL hymns, I made a database of 1216 unique hymn texts and 1630 hymn-text pairings found in one or more of these hymnals. While texts are standardized for service music (at least until recent divergence of contemporary translations), incrementally modified hymn texts made it more difficult (or even subjective) to decide if two hymns were the same text. Less obviously, some tunes have multiple names which makes it a challenge to match them unless you do so one hymn at a time.
Difficult Committee Decisions
I’ve never been on a hymnal committee (nor have I shipped a new jet engine, fighter plane or computer operating system). In earlier jobs, I did develop and maintain various forms of complex system software.
From studying these hymnals and talking to the two most recent editors (Chris Hoyt and Mark K. Williams), there are a lot of details to be tracked — of what you’re starting from, what you’d like to do, and what you end up adding, changing or deleting. Obviously it would help to have someone with OCB attached to the hymnal committee, as well as good tracking tools.
Unless you have a photographic memory, it’s nearly an impossible task, even with good tools. Talking to the editors 2,3,4 years after they made a decision, after spending a weekend on one small part of the hymnal (e.g. the change in Christmas hymns over a previous hymnal) I was probably that week more knowledgeable what the hymnal is (as opposed to why) than the person(s) who made it.
That doesn’t even get to the question of what decisions you want to make, and how you end up making them. It’s clear that the H40 and especially H82 decision making had both formalized processes and the logical consequence of such processes: bureaucracy and politics. I have not yet seen the H40 working papers, but it seems that the H82 process was the more political of the two— the hymnal feels like the result of conflicting visions rather than the relatively unified vision of H40 (or the stronger moral and technical authority of C.W. Douglas, who had no equal in the H82 process).
MTL had 1½ leaders — an editor (Hoyt) and a clear second-in-command, Andrew Dittman. Knowing the two, while they both have strong opinions and thus must have had conflicts, both have been friends and worked alongside each other for a long time. I thus see evidence of a blended effort to create a vision and implement that vision for the new hymnal.
From reading, emails and calls regarding SUL, its process was even more streamlined: Williams is the editor, and everyone else listed played an advisory role. Even more so than with the Douglas H40, SUL is the result of a unitary vision.
Inevitable Tradeoffs
What is in each hymnal? Below is a summary I published with my Part 1 review, including not just H40 but its two later updated editions (of which 1981 is now what’s found in most churches).
Table 1: Hymns and Service Music in U.S. Anglican hymnals, 1940-2023
| Hymnal 1940 | Hymnal 1940 (1961) | Hymnal 1940 (1981) | Hymnal 1982 | Book of Common Praise 2017 | Sing Unto the Lord | |
| Hymns[7] | 725 | 725 | 751 | 720 | 639 | 741 |
| Service music | 141 | 160 | 175 | 288[8] | 161 | 140 |
| Total musical pieces | 866 | 885 | 926 | 1008 | 800 | 881 |
| Complete Mass settings | 4 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 10 |
Conclusion: No One Answer for Everyone
Looking back to 15 years ago, my biggest surprise is that there is still no “ACNA” hymnal for the entire province, let alone all US Anglicans. No one hymnal is suitable for all parishes across all dioceses of the ACNA, let alone Continuing churches. (The decision for Continuing Anglicans is much simpler, but there is still the choice of 1940 vs. 2017).
The flip side of this is that each of the 21st century hymnals is less of a compromise than H82, and thus a better fit to a specific subset of US Anglicans. So what would I recommend?
First, for existing users of H40 or H82, there’s no requirement to change. In many aspects of life newer is not better, let alone an “upgrade”. People meet in 100 year old buildings and some drive 30 year old cars or stay married for 60 years. Change is not, by its nature, inherently good.
Over my many parish visits and conversations, my sense is that either there’s a groundswell of interest in replacing the old hymnal or there isn’t. Clearly, having a new rector or music director throw out the old hymnals because he can is not a sufficient reason to do so — any more than firing the assistant rector or getting rid of the organ is. In extreme cases, this can prove a career-limiting move.
However, some parishes have already decided to look for a new hymnal — or some new or newish parishes may not have a hymnal and thus can make the decision from scratch. Which hymnal should they choose?
- The short answer: compare MTL and SUL to each other — and if you have a hymnal, to the one you have.
- The next longest answer: MTL is the successor to H40 and SUL to H82, so unless your parish character has changed, the starting assumption is that the average parish will be more happy to “upgrade” within its lane.
But beyond these simple rules, there are further considerations:
- MTL is a less extensive revision and SUL a more extensive one (higher proportion of new material).
- MTL consciously valued saving material from H40 and rarely borrowed from H82 (the Hurd mass setting being the major exception). SUL has no particular loyalty to any previous hymnal, so there is no guarantee that your favorite hymn or setting from any of the previous hymnals will be kept. (Put another way, the editor chose what he thought best from MTL, H82 and H40, while recovering a few even older hymns).
- The ethos of MTL for things like inclusive language follows H40, i.e. almost none. SUL is certainly more aggressively updated than MTL and less updated than any 21st century TEC hymnal would be; on average, I'd say it’s between H82 and MTL: “Good Christian men” become “Good Christian friends” but with Chesterton we still sing "All Thy saints in warfare".
Finally, H82 came at a time when the 400 year old liturgy became Rite I and the prayer book was split into Rite I vs. Rite II. Thus, in the 1980s, both the prayer book and hymnal allowed for both, and together they were frequently used by parishes that had one service of each. Four decades later, the ACNA liturgy commission decided that contemporary language is the norm, that traditional language could be tolerated for a few cranky parishes, but that no prayer book would support both.
Each of the new hymnal mainly supports the 2019 or 2022 (“TLE”) ACNA liturgies. MTL is a Rite I (or TLE or 1928) hymnal with four traditional mass settings and (IMHO) the best of the H82 contemporary settings — David Hurd’s “New Plainsong.” If you’re an H82 parish and Hurd is not your preferred setting, you’ll be disappointed — as will those parishes that rotate between 2 or 3 settings across the liturgical year.
Instead of 4 vs. 1, SUL is slightly more balanced with 2 (TLE) settings vs. 6 for the modern (2019) texts. However, SUL omits one of the three core traditional settings. Perhaps it’s not one used in S.C., but (in my biased opinion) it’s the most musically important of the three, the Douglas “Missa Marialis” adapted from authentic medieval chants. (Of course, if all your mass settings are in the service booklet, you can ignore these two paragraphs).
But if you’re not a blended parish, nine times out of ten the default choice is the best choice. Going beyond that default choice would likely require understanding in more detail the differences in the core portfolios of 600-700 hymns that account for most of the pages of each book.
Below is what I’ve written on the subject of 21st century US Anglican hymnals; not a lot of other people are doing so. Beyond these articles, I am glad to provide resources (e.g. a database) to readers if someone is interested in more specifics on what’s different.
References
- West, Joel W. “Magnify the Lord,” book review, The Hymn, 71, 1 (Winter 2020): 41.
- West, Joel W. “Hymnal Choices for North American Anglicans,” North American Anglican, June 15, 2020.
- West, Joel W. “Anglican Hymnals in the 21st Century,” North American Anglican, July 19, 2024.
- West, Joel W. “Book Review: Sing Unto the Lord (Part 1) ,” North American Anglican, January 29, 2025.
- West, Joel W. “Book Review: Sing Unto the Lord (Part 2),” North American Anglican, August 28, 2025.
