Minutes of the Hymnal Evaluation Committee

April 25, 1996 - 7:00 PM

In Attendance:

Rev. Jed Rardin June Bennett Ginny Gracy Carl Hornbecker Allan Isbell

(as revised)

Bev Jedlinsky Dennis Jedlinsky Margie Nichols Sandy Tarbox Karen Zarcone

1. Jed lead the group in prayer. 2. June Bennett explained the group's mission and timing as defined in the most

recent Church Council meeting. a. Develop a list of criteria to evaluate a potential new hymnal; review, discuss

and evaluate as many hymnals as possible, with the goal of reducing potential choices presented to the Congregation to two by 5/31 /96, and to a single choice by 6/30/96.

b. Provide updates and rationale to the Deacons, the Music Committee, and to the Congregation for those hymnals selected and those eliminated.

c. Following workshops and opportunities for hymn sings throughout the summer and early fall, make a final hymnal recommendation by October 1996 for action at a special Congregational Meeting or at the regular Annual Meeting if that timing is more appropriate.

3. Wide ranging discussion ensued on the reasons for moving to a new hymnal, development of the selection criteria, views and perspectives on the New Century Hymnal, and how to be sensitive and receptive to the "voice of the congregation". a. Several thoughts were offered on the diversity of the Congregation, their

different views and desires for a hymnal, and whether the "roots" of many members in Catholic or other Protestant churches should be considered in our discussions. It was agreed to develop our list of criteria which would both help to guide our decisions, and also allow for discussion and suggestions from anyone in the Congregation for consideration by our committee.

b. Why do we feel the need to replace the Pilgrim Hymnal? • It was published 40 years ago and a vast amount of new and appealing

music is available to expand and enrich our worship. • Culture, society and views have changed significantly in the past 4

decades and much of the wording in the PH is outdated or cumbersome.

-2-

• There is an expressed need (not unanimous or uniform in its definition) that hymns using inclusive language (gender, ethnicity, racial), hymns in different languages, or from other religious traditions (Native American, African-American spirituals, others) should be part of our worship music.

• It needs to be documented, but the opinion of the group was that only about a third of the PH hymns are sung repeatedly and the others are not used.

c. What defines the "Perfect Hymnal"?

• A hymnal that everyone will enjoy and accept - one that is fresh for today, retains and celebrates traditions of the past, and will still be vital tomorrow.

• One that introduces new music and expands our musical choices. • One that is modern, and reflects current cultural and societal views on

diversity and inclusive language - without going overboard. • A hymnal that includes selections from other ethnic, cultural or religious

traditions. · • One which still includes as many of the "old favorites" as possible - with

little or no changes in text or tune (particularly Christmas Carols). • One that brings back some old favorite hymns which were left out of the

PH, e.g., the Old Rugged Cross, Blessed Assurance. • One that has patriotic hymns in it, e.g., Battle hymn of the Republic,

America the Beautiful (as written), America, Star Spangled Banner. • In short, a hymnal that keeps the best of the Pilgrim Hymnal, with many

new musical selections as a bonus.

d. Why didn't The New Century Hymnal meet these requirements?

• A large number of old favorites were eliminated as being militant, elitist, masculine oriented, out-dated or "inappropriate".

• The editors chose to revise all the selections to meet their tight definition of inclusive language, removal of dated language (thee, thy, thine, thou), and other specific "agenda items". As a result, most familiar hymns were re-written to meet these criteria and many of the changes are seen as gratuitous, unnecessary or overboard to some persons.

• While much new music is included and refreshingly expands our musical choices, some new entries seem to have been chosen to support the "agenda", and can result in debate, concern, and polarization in the congregation.

-3-

• To summarize, the NCH embraced their definition of "inclusion" so single-mindedly that it resulted in "exclusion" of those not in full agreement with the aims.

4. The group agreed to do a quick statistical analysis of several hymnals which had been collected by June, Jed and others. Committee members were given a PH and another hymnal and asked to characterize the new hymnal as follows by the next meeting. a. Total number .. of hymns b. Number that are not in the PH c. Number Common to both, and of these-

- how many are your old favorites? - which of the favorites have been altered, and to what extent?

d. Any other information that seems appropriate.

5. The group went to Fellowship Hall and sang several selections of "new favorites" from some of the hymnals to get a sense of their appeal and singability.

6. It was agreed to meet again at 7:00 PM, Thursday, May 2.

7. The meeting ended at 9: 15 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Minutes of the Hymnal Evaluation Committee

May 2, 1996

In Attendance:

~ Rev. Jed Rardin Bev Jedlinsky June Bennett Dennis Jedlinsky [I] Ginny Gracy Margie Nichols w Judy Grimes Sandy Tarbox Carl Hornbecker Karen Zarcone

1. The meeting began at 7:00 PM with the singing of the Tallis' Canon. 2. Minutes of the meeting of April 25, 1996 were read and the following revision

noted: Item 2.a. (Mission and Timing).

"Develop a list of criteria to evaluate a potential new hymnal; review, discuss and evaluate as many hymnals as possible, with the goal of reducing potential choices presented to the Congregation to two by 5/31 /96, and to a single choice by 6/30/96. II

The minutes were approved as amended. 3. At the 4/25/96 meeting, committee members were given hymnals for review and

comparison with the Pilgrim Hymnal to identify number of common hymns, new hymns, extent of word or tune changes and any general impressions relating to the evaluation criteria. Clearly each person approached this task with diligence, enthusiasm, and thoroughness, as evidenced by the comprehensive statistical and descriptive information everyone offered. Statistical information was collected by Jed. The reviewers' impressions were as follows:

'Sing Joyfully'

'Sing to the Lord'

'The Worshipping Church'

G. Gracy

M. Nichols

Eliminate

Not enthusiastic, but someone else should take a look

C. Hombecker Eliminate

• Not enough "celebration hymns" • Several text changes • Interdenominational flavor • Larger text is easy to read • Many favorites retained • Published in 1993 •Many text changes, especially

language "modernization" • Has lots of worship aids • Took a "folk like" approach

.. :>.J .. ::.::: .. :.::.:··.:.' ... :.·.· .. !.' .•. ··.•.:.• ... :.'.·.•.··.·.H.·.···· ....•..•. Y<'"·.m.··· .. •. · .• · .. n.··:.·.a.··.·.·.1.••.'. ... :.: >.··.· .. ·-::.:.•: .•• •.···.R .. e .. · vie.·.·.···.w.·.·· ...... e .. d ....... •. B.·.· .. · .. · ·y···. ·:• . .. .···.c .... · ..... o.·· ... n./.dos.···.ion ... . . . ····•·• ··••: )</%::·:corf.rt\&lit$ :•:-:-=·\\ .<tr:; ..... . • • • ·. • ::::::::: .. __ ·::::::::::: .·.·.··· .·-·.·.·.·.· ·.·.·.·.·.· .. ··.·.·.·.- .. ·.·.·.-. ·.·· .. ·-.·.-.·.·.· .. ··-·.-.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·,·-·.·.· ·.·.-.·.· ·:·.

'Hymns for the S. Tarbox Eliminate •Not new (published in 1975) Family of God' •Alt. verses in script (italics)

'The Hymnal' (Methodist)

'The Presbyterian Hymnal'

8. Jedlinsky Worth a second D. Jedlinsky look but...

K. Zarcone Liked it

• Many word and tune changes • Lots of hymns included • Many new and retained hymns • Few word and tune changes •Many service songs, canticles

and readings throughout • Strongly Methodist in style and

appearance of readings and orders of worship

• Many (215) common hymns •Few word or tune changes • Lots of new music • Extensive "Psalm" section • Like the hymn order beginning

with advent. ..

4. June also obtained another hymnal, 'The Chalice', which had not been thoroughly reviewed, but which seemed to hold promise as a ''finalist" at first look. She will get more copies if possible, and will report her own views at the next meeting.

5. The group agreed to look at the Methodist and Presbyterian Hymnals by next meeting and share their views. June will report on 'The Chalice' and Jed will see if 'Sing to the Lord' should stay in the running.

6. The next meeting was scheduled for 7:00 PM on May 9, 1996. 7. The meeting ended at 8:45 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

DJ/jl

"" - ~ .

Minutes of the Hymnal Evaluation Committee

May 13, 1996

In Attendance:

Rev. Jed Rardin June Bennett Ginny Gracy ·earl Hornbecker

Dennis Jedlinsky Margie Nichols Sandy Tarbox Karen Zarcone

1. The meeting was rescheduled from Thursday May 9, 1996.

2. The meeting began with the singing of "Blessed Assurance".

3. Revised minutes of the meeting of 4/25/96 were distributed. Minutes of the meeting of 5/2/96 were read and accepted.

4. Several Committee members had reviewed and compared the Methodist and the Presbyterian Hymnals. While comments and observations on each of them were mostly favorable, neither was unanimously endorsed. Both seemed to meet our criteria for retention of a large number of traditional favorite hymns with little or no word or tune changes, and for inclusion of new music.

The most often mentioned concern was with the large amount of Methodist orders of worship in that Hymnal. June indicated that a member of the Congregation. had mentioned to her that he "hoped we would not end up with a hymnal with other denominations orders of worship in them".

5. As part of the evaluation, Dennis had prepared a list of approximately 150 of his ''favorite hymns" which were in the Pilgrim Hymnal, or in the Methodist or Presbyterian Hymnals and cross-referenced which hymnals each of them were in. These were grouped by topic, such as Christmas, Easter, Patriotic, etc. He proposed that it should be expanded to include favorite hymns of all of the committee and that the expanded list could help us with statistical comparisons of all hymnals we were interested in. Since June had obtained several copies of "The Chalice", it was agreed to cross-reference this new hymnal to the list immediately, and this was quickly accomplished.

., t I JI-

6. It was agreed to expand the list to include others' favorites. Each person who had other hymns to offer was to call Dennis and he would update the list. It was also agreed that another section, for hymns written after 1980 should be included. June and Karen agreed to list new hymns in each of the hymnals and bring them to the next meeting.

7. Prior to the meeting, June was approached by Barbara Hampton, who asked if she could put all of the hymnals under consideration on display in the Library for reference and review by anyone who was interested. June was hesitant to do this as she felt it would probably add confusion and new controversy to a process that seemed finally to be progressing smoothly and effectively. The Committee agreed and observed that there is an open and standing invitation for any member of the Congregation to attend our meetings, and everyone has been encouraged to discuss their concerns or expectations about a new hymnal with any member of the Committee.

8. June indicated that an update of progress will be made at the Deacons' meeting on Sunday and at Church Council on Tuesday. She urged anyone who could attend these meetings with her to do so.

9. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, 5/22/96 at 7:00 PM.

10. The meeting ended at 8:30 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Minutes of the Hymnal Evaluation Committee

May 22, 1996

In Attendance:

Rev. Jed Rardin June Bennett Ginny Gracy Judy Grimes Carl Hornbecker

Bev Jedlinsky Dennis Jedlinsky Margie Nichols Karen Zarcone t

1. The meeting began at 7: 15 PM with the singing of "All Glory, Laud and Honor'' . . 2. The minutes of the meeting of 5/13/96 were read and accepted.

3. June reported that updates of the committee's work was given to the Deacons this past Sunday and to Church Council on Tuesday (yesterday). Several other members were at one or both meetings and offered additional comments. Both groups were impressed with our progress to date and are supportive of our approach and are receptive to our results thus far.

4. It was agreed that the final recommendations should be reviewed with the Deacons at a special evening meeting, if possible, since the regular Sunday meeting is too rushed.

5. June had received copies of the Mennonite and the Moravian Hymnals. Dennis had updated the cross-reference list of Hymns to include "The Chalice" results from our last meeting and additional favorite hymns received from Karen, Margie Ginny, and Jed. The group decided to cross reference the new hymnals to the list during the meeting, and this was done.

6. Both the Mennonite and the Moravian hymnals contained the least number of favorites. No patriotic songs and very few folksongs/spirituals. Each of the groups working on these hymnals felt that they should be dropped from consideration.

7. Jed supplied a written summary of the background and "theology" of The Disciples of Christ, The United Methodist Church, The Presbyterian Church, USA, The Mennonites and The Moravians to assist our evaluations.

8. Four tasks were assigned for the next meeting:

a. Anyone who still had favorite hymns (pre-1980) who wanted them added to the list should call Dennis before next Tuesday.

b. We agreed to personally rate each qf the (current) 213 Hymns on the list using a rating scale discussed at the meeting. The results would be averaged to provide a composite rating for each hymn as a way of reducing the list to the "most important" ones to assist meeting our objective of retaining as many favorites as possible in the new hymnal.

c. Several members agreed to list foreign language hymns in "The Chalice", ''The Hymnal" (Methodist), and "The Presbyterian Hymnal" to discuss at the next meeting.

d. We need to begin a process for selecting ''favorite" new hymns. Karen provided a complete alphabetical listing of all new hymns in "The Chalice" from the '60s and '70s, and from the '80s and '90s. The list contained Hymn numbers, composers and tune names. Quite an effort! June had done a similarly exhaustive listing from The Methodist and The Presbyterian Hymnals. (These people do not sleep). Each person was asked to begin a list of new hymns they particularly liked. Jed and Maria Coffin will be asked to assist in this important effort, and we will discuss further actions at the next meeting.

9. Carl reminded us to keep all of our criteria in mind as we continue our work so that we don't focus too single-mindedly on a particular issue, such as few text changes, at the expense of another important goal such as modernization, inclusiveness, or hymns from other cultures or languages.

1 O. The next meeting was scheduled for 7:00 PM on Tuesday, May 28, 1996.

Margie Nichols Sandy Tarbox

......... ' ' ~I~ ~· ........ 1-r• I 1 ... ~· ·, B·~t-- ·-_7- - 11.~ ... ~

.- ' I ~ ' I ~

,. I. ,,, Lit . J, • I

... ~ ' . ~" .=.-, .l ' . -.~ r, (: ~· ,. • '. I ••

t , ~ ~ I ...... ~ I 1•

... -;.t-:1\ . • .. .......

I•

I' I'

• I

.·

11

-- .:•- l

.. .. '~-

,:., _.:~; 7. Several members offered personal observations on the three hymnals, having .. i"~; .. reviewed them thoroughly. There was a common feeling that The Methodist

--"'t, ;: ·"·hymnal was very strong in all areas but the preponderance of Methodist liturgy

. '"r ~- .I 0 • ; .~;,:i L ..

• -. "' '"'= -,. .. . ·-'1 .·•· ..

I... . ~. and orders of worship was troublesome., As a result, a vote was taken to •_ I

Iii- ......... •

: .. • ••• ,1 ., ,

~ ·. ~ . ._ "provisionally eliminate The Methodist Hymnal and to concentrate on the other r 1' • ,, ll -

-rl. ' : ~ . ( -;:~-=' two". The vote passed. ._ ~ ""-., -;: . l , ,:-- .. ,._. . . =-- J. •• -..: ••. ... ••• ~ ~ .,_ t I .• t ' I ,. Ii. Ii • I~ - _. 1 ~ ~ ~ .( .... s ... ~ • .'' t,.

l . I

<·; ........ i:' • . ~J' ,

1 • - .. +..:-=,,· .. 1.8. Maria Coffin had been asked to join us to play through _several of the new hymn ~·.~·.-'

• 1 :,.~i./~.fr·:~.: selections. the group went to the choir loft and sang several hymns from both !:. ... ~. I'._ • • '-· "--~ The Chalice and The Presbyterian hymnals. This was very helpful in t . _

·.. ~ =: ·~..:.- experiencing the "singability" of these newer and sometimes unfamiliar songs. l", ·: ·,1

: ·r·t

1,-.. • -1 i.

··\ i. .. ~

; ~~· s, ~ - 1· V -r~ ... ~

9. To help focus our discussion at the next meeting, several members agreed to ~ · · ., • make a list of positive and negative impressions regarding the two remaining . .~

~ 1 •• ~- }·~-~~. hymnals. 1-• - I~ ·.~' ~ .,. ,•, ....... • I ,::y .,_' f • • I I

"' I ... I ... L I • .1 ~ ... ~ .·

·1 ... ...

,_

·'

Minutes of the Hymnal Evaluation Committee

June 11, 1996

In Attendance:

Rev. Jed Rardin June Bennett Carl Hornbecker Bev Jedlinsky

Dennis Jedlinsky Margie Nichols Karen Zarcone

(for Hymn sing: Maria Coffin and Garland Anderson)

1. The meeting (rescheduled from 6/4/96) began at 7:00 PM with the singing of "Come Christians, Join to Sing".

2. The minutes of the meeting of 5/28/96 were read and accepted.

3. The focus of the meeting was a thorough analysis and review of The Presbyterian Hymnal and The Chalice. Several committee members had volunteered to look at positive and negative impressions of each of these hymnals. These reports were given or read (for members not present), and others added additional comments. These comments and impressions are summarized below:

The Chalice Positives: Ginny Gracy, et al. • It retains a large number of favorite

hymns from the Pilgrim Hymnal

• It had the highest number (98) of our top 100 hymns vs. 84 for The Presbyterian Hymnal

• Most text changes are minor and should not be upsetting to most people

• It has a large number of "old favorites" not in the Pilgrim Hymnal, including "Amazing Grace", "Blessed Assurance", "Great is Thy Faithfulness", "How Great Thou Art", "Softly and Tenderly", "Sweet Hour of Prayer'' Old Rugged Cross", "Once in Royal David's City", and "Just a Closer Walk With Thee".

Negatives: Carl Hornbecker, et al. • The organization and grouping of

hymns seemed different from what we may be used to (considered this a minor point)

• It was heavy on Communion Hymns (40) (but noted ~hat some would see this as a positive)

• Had fewer (24) of our favorite Christmas Carols than Presbyterian (28) or Pilgrim (29) and some had minor text changes. Notable absences were "In the Bleak Midwinter'' and "Watchman, Tell Us of the Night". Also "As with Gladness Men of Old" was changed to

• It introduces a large number and variety of new, singable hymns for all ages.

• There are several lovely hymns from foreign languages, or different cultures, ethnic or religious traditions.

• There are several choir hymns, hymns the choir could teach the congregation, and hymn with descants.

• There is a wide variety of hymns for all occasions, and some for special need situations.

• It has the UCC Statement of Faith in it, exactly as used by the S.B.C.C.

• The index lists both First Line and Titles for easier location of a hymn.

• Both the print and the paper· color choice made it pleasant to read.

• There were several sung responses that were easy to learn and to follow.

"As with Gladness Sages Bold" and "On this Day Earth Shall Ring" was now "Down to Earth", using the same tune.

• The popular hymn "Ride On, Ride On in Majesty" uses the less familiar tune.

• A number of "old favorite" hymns do have text changes. The great majority are minor. Some are inclusive language (gender and ethnic primarily) driven, but few if any went as far as the "New Century Hymnal" changes.

• While few in number, there are some quotes or references to the Disciples of Christ within the hymnal. Those who would insist on a UCC hymnal could find this a problem.

The Presbyterian Hymnal Positives: Jed Rardin, et al. • The organization of hymns follows the

church year, starting with advent.

• It retains a large number of favorites from the Pilgrim Hymnal, although not nearly as many as The Chalice.

• Text changes were generally minor,

Negatives: Karen Zarcone, et al. • Many Pilgrim Hymnal favorites were

left out, including "Rock of Ages", "Nearer My God to Thee", "Faith of Our Fathers", "I Would be True", "Be Still My Soul", "I Love to Tell the Story", and "Stand Up, Stand Up for Jesus".

non-controversial and not as many as in • It uses the less familiar tune for The Chalice.

• The number and variety of new hymns was large.

• It has some "old favorites" not in the Pilgrim Hymnal, including "Jesus Loves Me", Blessed Assurance", "Great is Thy Faithfulness", Once in Royal David's City", "Rise Up .. Shepherd and Follow''.

• There is an extensive section on the Psalms (this was not viewed as a positive by everyone).

"Christ the Lord is Risen Today".

• It only had 84 of our top 100 hymns in it, fewer than The Chalice or Pilgrim Hymnal.

• It was fairly weak on Spirituals and folk songs compared to The Chalice.

• While it has many new songs and old ones not in the Pilgrim Hymnal, it seems to be less "adventurous" in its variety or song styles than The Chalice.

• There were numerous sung responses (however some found the accents and intonations to be confusing, unfamiliar or even unwanted).

• Many of the hymns follow a "safe" 4/4, key of C pattern, giving it a more traditional "cathedral service" feel.

• The extensive Psalm section ( 100 • The index and tune references were well hymns) may be a ''waste of space" if

arranged and easy to use, although most of these are sung infrequently. different type sizes are used in the index • The introduction is written as to fit long titles on a single line. Presbyterian to Presbyterian. It might

underscore that this is not a UCC hymnal to those sensitive to this point.

4. A hymn sing was scheduled for 8:00 PM. Maria Coffin provided organ and piano accompaniment, and Garland Anderson joined us. The hymn sing concentrated in ·two areas: continued singing of newer hymns from each hymnal, and a focus on favorites with text changes that Jed had identified. This was to see whether the changes were "acceptable". Many new hymns from both hymnals were received favorably by the group. It was noted that many more suggested new hymns seemed to be coming from The Chalice rather than from The Presbyterian Hymnal.

As far as text changes vs the more familiar Pilgrim Hymnal versions, many were noted, and The Chalice clearly had more changes than The Presbyterian. Notable among hymns with some sort of text changes were, "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God", "Holy, Holy, Holy", "Joyful Joyful We Adore Thee", The Church's One Foundation", "Our God Our Help in Ages Past", Faith of Our Fathers", "Battle Hymn of the Republic", among others.

Many of the changes were minor, usually involving updating the language, improved phrasing and timing, or changing masculine references such as "men" and "mankind" to "people" or "everyone". Each time a change was noted, the group was asked how they felt about it. In almost every case, the consensus was that the changes were beneficial, not a problem, or noticeable but acceptable. It was observed that none of the changes went as far as in the New Century Hymnal, that in many cases, the most familiar first verse was left intact even if later verses had changes, that some changes involved reordering verses or even sections of verses for a different "flow'', and importantly, there was no wholesale changing of certain words or phases as was done in the New Century Hymnal. Specifically, words such as thee, thy, thine, thou, ye, hath, etc. are still used in many hymns, and might be changed to you, your, yours, has, etc. in others; phrases such as God the Father; Christ the King; Son of God; Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Spirit); God is Lord; Heaven Above; Reign from Above; Kingdom of Heaven; etc. are used in many hymns, and might be changed in others.

5. The Committee (less Maria, Garland, and Jed) discussed their personal conclusions regarding the two hymnals. The following is a paraphrasing of some typical comments:

• The Chalice has a feeling of friendliness, warmth and familiarity to it while The Presbyterian seems a little stuffy, stiff, and structured.

• The Presbyterian appeals on an intellectual level; The Chalice on an emotional one.

• The large number of entries (over 100) in The Presbyterian Hymnal devoted to the psalms is too much of the total number since it doesn't appear that they would be sung that often.

• Both hymnals had word changes in some familiar hymns. The Presbyterian seemed to have fewer and would be more acceptable to those concerned with any changes. Text changes in The Chalice were more frequent, but they still didn't seem to be too controversial.

• The more formal, liturgical style of The Presbyterian Hymnal might appeal to some, but our church is much less formal. The Chalice seems to mirror our own warm and friendly spirit as a church.

• The Disciples of Christ, as a denomination, are closer in theology and philosophy to the UCC, than any other denomination. This may be a reason that we feel more comfortable with The Chalice .

• Many of the newer hymns in The Chalice (including those from foreign language and cultures) were nice to sing, and had meaningful messages. There were many that would appeal to younger people and to adolescents.

• Both of these hymnals are very strong candidates, and each is appealing in different ways. The Presbyterian Hymnal is like the stereotype of the Father: reliable, dependable, giving strength and security, but maybe just a little distant and buttoned down. The Chalice is the Mother: providing the strength and dependability of the father, but with warmth, and the comfort and assurance of a hug.

• If we look back at our original list of goals and criteria for the "Perfect Hymnal", The Chalice comes closest to meeting each one of them. It retains the best of The Pilgrim Hymnal, with the addition of a large number of new hymns and the return of some nice older ones as a bonus. Like its name, with this hymnal, "Our Cup Runneth Over''.

6. A motion was made and seconded that the Hymnal Evaluation Committee recommend The Chalice as its choice of hymnal to replace The Pilgrim Hymnal. The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion. June had received notes from the three absent members. Two preferred The Chalice. The third had originally favored The Methodist Hymnal with The Chalice second, but understood and accepted the previous vote to eliminate The Methodist, and so this vote was also for The Chalice.

Jed finished his other meeting and joined us. He was informed that a vote had just been taken. He stated that he would be delighted with, and supportive of either, but his vote, had he been here, would have been for The Chalice. We reported that his vote makes it 10 of 10 in favor of The Chalice.

7. Following a wave of euphoria and relief which washed over the group, the reality that there is still an enormous amount of work to be done set in. We are obligated to deliver our recommendations to the Deacons, and following their decision, to the Church Council. Assuming their agreement with our recommendations, the Congregation must be informed and prepared for a final vote in the fall at the regular, or a special Congregational meeting. After much calendar discussion, it was decided to ask Church Council to postpone their 6/18 meeting in lieu of an evening meeting of the Deacons and the Music Committee. This meeting would be held at Bev and Dennis' home. Jed will confer with Anthony Mariano, and if acceptable, Jed and/or June will confirm the meeting with everyone.

8. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 PM.

DJ~I