UNIFORMITY IN WORSHIP
Introduction
When I was a campus pastor at the University of North Dakota I inherited a situation in which the people of the church would form small worship teams of three or four. Each team would be assigned a Sunday and it would put together the service for that Sunday. The results were both eclectic and somewhat unpredictable. In the process I learned at least three things. First, everyone has a different idea of what should happen on a given Sunday. And these different opinions are often held with fanatical tenacity. Second, in such a process the arguments about what this person felt was best or what that person wanted often overshadowed the whole point of Sunday morning. “The service and worship of the Gospel is to receive good things from God. The highest worship in the Gospel is the desire to receive the forgiveness of sins, grace and righteousness.” [1] So say the confessions of the church, but this gift of forgiveness often seemed less than primary in our considerations. Third, I learned that the more different people are from each other the more they need things that celebrate their sameness. Because these young people came from churches of different Lutheran synods or different church bodies and even no church at all they had different expectations of what should happen. Because they had different sins, different vocations, different levels of understanding and different aspirations they all wanted something different from the Sunday service. Consequently, when everyone had input things were disparate, varied, unpredictable, sometimes confusing, often disconnected. We never seemed to develop a rhythm. It was like a progressive dinner – fun and exciting, but also frenetic and somehow you weren’t sure you had really had dinner – not something you would want to do every day. And after summer break when the lion’s share of the kids had been gone for three months we seemed to relive an awkward adjustment to life back at the Chapel. They needed stability and unity. I was giving them something different. That experience lead me to study our liturgical and worship heritage and rethink my whole understanding of what should be happening on Sunday morning. I concluded, based on this study, that all Christians need a uniform liturgy and should be able to rely on the service of God being as uniform from church to church as is possible.
The first half of this paper will examine the positive reasons for which the church should strive for a uniform liturgy and dedicate herself diligently to that constant task. The second half will be a response to objections which I have heard or which I could anticipate from those who are unconvinced of the benefits of a uniform service. Recently the Board of Directors of the Minnesota South District of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod passed a resolution which requires new mission starts of the district to use the liturgical forms of the Lutheran Service Book. Since I helped author that resolution and since I strongly supported it some of the arguments in the second half of this paper will respond to objections to that specific resolution as well.
Part I: The Case for Uniformity in Worship
Many within our synod desire a uniform liturgy and contend that uniformity of ceremonies should be the desire of all congregations. Further they want this fervent desire for uniformity to be shared by others. This group of people typically is not trying to push others around. Nor are they willing to sacrifice a fervent missionary zeal on the altar of “personal comfort zones” or “archaic practices.” Their sentiments can aptly be expressed in the words of that old praise song, “I wish for you my friend the happiness which I found.”
Uniformity in Worship reflects our oneness in Christ
All Christians are united in Christ. Paul lists those gifts which we have in common with each other. “Make every effort to keep the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit – just as you were called to one hope when you were called – one Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.” (Ephesians 4:3-5) All Christians enjoy a common relationship with Jesus which is created by God through the gospel. I cannot imagine a Christian who does not thank His Lord at all times for these unifying blessings. When you look at these seven blessings of Ephesians four, it becomes apparent that most of them are not immediately seen. I cannot see your hope. I can assume you have hope when you confess Christ but I cannot see hope. You cannot see my faith at least not obviously. You can conclude I have faith when I speak of his love but you cannot see faith. I cannot see the Spirit the Lord and the Father as you hold them in your heart through faith. For this reason the assembly of Christians which we call the church is often called “hidden.” You simply cannot know exactly who the Christians are.
Marks of the church
Thankfully some of God’s gifts
take this hidden church and let us know exactly where Christ people are.
Baptism is a visible gift of God which you can see, hear and feel and which,
according to Ephesians 4, all Christians share. The spoken word of grace – the
gospel – is another gift which you can hear with your ears or see with your
eyes. When we were “called to one hope,” as
The Divine Service
Notably these marks are also the main gifts which God gives to us at the Sunday morning service. The early Lutherans did not refer to the Sunday service as “worship” or “church.” Typically it was called the “Divine Service.” God serves us His grace and forgiveness through the word and sacrament which unite us in Christ through a common faith. The Divine Service was not a place in which you expressed your individuality or in which the many people sought to celebrate the differences which existed among them. The Divine service was an occasion when you set aside differences and all received the same gifts from God.
When you think about it there is really no need to tell people to express their individuality. This is what we do by nature. We are created men and women. We are different. We are placed into various vocations in this world which make us different from each other. We come from different nations, families, clans or tribes. We come from different social or economic strata. And these make us different. We have different skills, gifts, talents, life situations. All these differences are reflected in almost every aspect of our lives.
But in the Divine Service we are all the same. And this sameness must be expressed. “As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, Male nor female, for you are all one in Christ.” (Galatians 3:23) And the Divine Service – the time and place where all Christians are noted for what they receive much more than what they give – should be designed to emphasize most starkly what God gives and the unity and sameness we have in the gift of God’s grace.
Uniformity of Worship
Christians do not differ from individual to individual at least when it comes to the reception of grace. Nor do congregations differ from each other depending on the times or place in which they find themselves. The oneness we have is not only within our congregation it is between the congregations. So the Christian church throughout the ages has typically attempted to reflect our oneness in Christ by doing everything possible to make the divine service – those times and places in which God gives us his grace – as similar as possible. That is why Luther exhorted the churches of his day, “As far as possible we should observe the same rites and ceremonies, just as all Christians have the same baptism and the same Sacrament and no one has received a special one of his own from God.” [2]
When there is disunity in the
church, responsible church leaders have always attempted to bring uniformity to
the service. In I Corinthians Paul confronted a situation in
Years later Luther did the same thing. At that time the many Lutheran congregations were rightly discarding some of the offensive Roman customs. But no two churches, it seemed, were going about making helpful changes in the same way. Each church was developing its own liturgy with little concern for the more dominant Christian truth that we are all one in Christ and united in the Gospel. So Luther wrote to that situation and encouraged all the congregations and pastors to “Each one surrender his own opinions and get together in a friendly way and come to a common decision about these external matters, so that there will be one uniform practice throughout your district instead of disorder – one thing being done here and another there.” [3]
Neither Paul nor Luther wanted to drive people out of the church just because their worship practices differed from the uniform norm. The goal of the gospel ministry is not to drive people away from the forgiveness of sins. But both strove, in their own contexts, to bring a higher level of uniformity to the church. And neither developed church programs or movements which encouraged the forsaking of unity or uniformity within the church or the services of the church.
Uniformity of liturgical practice reflects unity of doctrine
In
Our unity of doctrine is a wonderful blessing which the Bible speaks of positively as something that should be valued and guarded. So Paul can tell the Christians to “be likeminded” (Phil. 2:2). He can exhort the most divided congregation of the New Testament times “That all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought” (I Corinthians 1:10). And he can condemn in the harshest of terms anyone whose Gospel deviates from that which the church has been taught and learned (Galatians 1:8-9). Paul also tells us to avoid those who would teach something different than the true and unifying gospel of Jesus and avoid them (Romans 16:17).
If purity and unity are gifts worth guarding and promoting then they should be signs of this unity and purity that are easily recognizable. You shouldn’t have to sit through four or five Sunday services or two or three Bible classes before you are confident that this or that church is free from false doctrine. People need an easy sign. Historically that sign has been a uniform liturgy which all the churches of a particular church body share.
The Reformation
At the time of the Reformation you could not read a congregation’s web page or check their mission statement or doctrinal commitments every time you went to a church which was not your own. (In truth you cannot really do so today.) But there had to be a quick easy way to know what kind of church you were in. So among the evangelicals (back then Lutherans were called evangelicals) certain changes were made from the Roman Liturgy early in the Reformation which not only promoted the doctrine of grace alone but which become permanent liturgical signs to Lutherans. Early in the Reformation the Lutheran omitted prayers to the saints and even discouraged observance of many saints’ days. Similarly the early Lutherans began to insist rather rigorously that all services have some type of sermon in which the word of God was expounded. The ringing of certain bells was omitted by the Lutherans because the bells gave the impression that it was not the word of God which created the sacrament but the ringing of a bell. Lutherans began to sing hymn as a manner of teaching the gospel to each other. Especially noteworthy among Lutheran was their refusal to follow “the canon of the Mass” which were certain liturgical ceremonies which gave the impression that the Lord’s Supper was not a gift from God but a work of the priest in which Christ was re-sacrificed. Lutherans were developing a pure liturgy which was somewhat unique for its day. This liturgy became a sign by which people could tell what type of church they were in. Lutherans were identified by their liturgy.
Early
A couple of centuries later the
Lutherans found themselves defending the purity of their doctrine over against
the Reformed. The Reformed were typically followers of
The Lutheran Church Missouri
Synod had its birth because Lutherans in
While the framers of the [first LCMS] constitution remained faithful to Article VII of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession in that their demand for uniformity was not absolute, they did insist rather vigorously that the member congregations leave no stone unturned in their efforts to introduce uniform ceremonies. The constitution even goes so far as to claim that uniformity in liturgy, especially if this liturgy is increased and developed according to Lutheran standards, will be helpful in purifying the American Lutheran Church of its Reformed excrescences. [5]
Notice that the Lutherans consciously wanted use the liturgy to distinguish their church from the churches of those around them.
Uniformity of liturgical practice protects the church from error –
Today: American Evangelicalism
Today there is another force within Christianity which teaches doctrine contrary to the scriptures and robs the church of both of its doctrinal purity and unity. That is American Evangelicalism. From its beginnings, one of the false emphases of American Evangelicalism is the idea that grace is something which must be felt and experienced in order for us to be certain of it. Among the Evangelicals there is an “emphasis on the necessity of a crisis-like conversion experience.” [6] While Lutherans find God’s presence in his Word and Sacraments, it has always been common among many American Evangelicals to preach and to worship so that people are “moved physically, emotionally or intellectually by the worship experience and when they encounter God….have an undeniable sense of his presence.” [7] Consequently, both the services and the preaching of American Evangelicalism have taken on idiosyncrasies which are foreign to Lutheran doctrine and practice. Rather than focusing their efforts on teaching the word and administering the sacraments, “evangelical ministers broke with the established pattern of learned sermons and began to preach in ways designed to bring hearers to a point of crisis, at which they despaired over their sinfulness and experienced the love of God in an immediate way.” [8] American Evangelicalism downplayed creeds, the historic confessions of the church, liturgy and church ceremonies, the Sacraments, the role of the pastor in worship and the traditional earmarks of the church. Over the years, many in mainline churches especially Lutheran churches expressed alarm that American Evangelicalism in its many forms “undermined the importance of creedal subscription, ordination and liturgical order… [and] spoke a different idiom, one that was individualistic, experiential and perfectionistic, [perfectionism is the false doctrine that a Christian can achieve a type of moral perfection in this life] as opposed to the corporate, doctrinal and liturgical.” [9] The clash between many churches and American Evangelicalism was inevitable as “traditionalist Protestants resisted” it because it “blurred denominational distinctives” and expected a “generic” type of Christianity. [10] American Evangelicalism is a movement where “forms and doctrines of the faith (are) secondary to real faith and obedience, and where denominational differences were simply petty quarrels among defensive clerics.”[11] Lutherans, with their stress on the pure doctrine, do not find themselves at home in American Evangelical circles.
Lutherans and Evangelicals
Unfortunately not all Lutheran Churches have been able to resist the false doctrine of American Evangelicalism just as not all Lutherans were able to resist the forces of the Roman church at the time of the Reformation or the Reformed churches throughout the years. And the undeniable popularity of American Evangelicalism has made many well intended Lutherans crave the huge numbers of people who often flock to these Evangelical churches. So, today many Lutherans attempt to copy American Evangelicalism. The obvious “worship style” of American Evangelicalism is a worship experience in which the distinctive Lutheran flavor and any strong doctrinal stress are removed, ceremonies are deemed harmful to the spread of the gospel, pastors, by discarding their robes or stoles, tend to make themselves indistinguishable from their people and the historic liturgy is deemed culturally irrelevant. When Lutheran churches behave like our Evangelical neighbors, no matter how well intended, there is a danger that the gospel and faith will be undermined.
So Lutherans need a quick way to ascertain whether a church, even though it may bear the name Lutheran or Missouri Synod, is actually pure and unified with other Lutherans on matters of doctrine. Amazingly the needs of the church today are almost identical to the needs of the church at Walther’s time. A uniform liturgy which reflects the Lutheran understanding of grace is a quick identifying feature. C. F. W. Walther said:
Nevertheless it remains true that the Lutheran liturgy distinguishes Lutheran Worship from the worship of other churches to such an extent that the houses of worship of the latter look like mere lecture halls in which the hearers are only addressed and instructed, while our churches are in truth houses of prayer in which the Christians serve the great God publicly before the world….The objection: What would be the use of uniformity of ceremonies? – was answered with the counter question: What is the use of a flag on the battlefield? Even though a soldier cannot defeat the enemy with it, he nevertheless sees by the flag where he belongs. We ought not to refuse to walk in the footsteps of our fathers. They were so far removed from being ashamed of the good ceremonies that they publicly confess in the passage quoted: ‘It is not true that we do away with all such external ornaments.’ [12]
A uniform liturgy reflects our Catholicity
The church of today is wise to express its unity of faith and doctrine by committing itself to a uniform liturgy. The liturgy should be uniform not only within a congregation but also between congregations. And it should be uniform from one age to the next.
This uniformity is especially
important in the American context.
Catholic
To combat this tendency the
Lutheran church needs to affirm more fervently than ever exactly what our
heritage is. And paradoxically that heritage is “catholic.” Catholic (not to be
confused with Roman Catholic) means universal. It means “a qualitative
wholeness or integrity.” [13] We
are going to do things the way the church has done things for centuries. It’s
not our way. It’s not Luther’s way. It’s not the Methodist way. It’s not the Roman
Catholic way. It’s not the American way, the European way or the African way. It’s
the church’s way. It’s the way of the whole universal “catholic” church for a
long, long time. It was their desire to be “catholic” that lead the first
Lutherans to say, “At the outset it is again necessary by way of preface to
point out that we do not abolish the Mass but religiously retain and defend
it….We also keep traditional liturgical forms, such as the order of readings,
prayers, vestments, and other similar things.” [14]
The Lutheran Confessions never call themselves Lutheran. They insist that they
are Christians and express the historic view of all Christians. These
confessions of the church recognize the teaching value of historic “catholic” liturgical
customs, “People are drawn to Communion and to the
By making no changes to the liturgy the Lutherans have been able to defend their worship against the fleeting “style” of the pop market place. What we do is not something we thought up. It was given to us. It is the universal practice of the church for so long that, unless someone can show that it is seriously flawed we will not change it. We won’t change the creed, we won’t change the wording of the Lord’s Prayer, we won’t change the meanings of the Commandments, we won’t change the Catechism. And we are strongly disinclined to change the liturgy just to fit the times. We are catholic.
The Liturgy is Heavenly
Our “catholicity” of which the liturgy is an important reflection, connects us not only with Christians throughout the world and with Christians of all times and places it also connects with those saints in heaven. One of the most popular songs in the Lutheran Service book is called, “This is the Feast.” This Hymn of Praise is one of the ordinaries of the liturgy and can be sung instead of the Gloria. The song is taken largely and word for word from passages in Revelation 5, 7 and 19. In Revelation the song is sung not only by people on earth but by “the voice of many angels number thousands upon thousands and ten thousands upon ten thousands” (Revelation5:11) as well as “a great crowd that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.” (Revelation 7:9) These are the saints in heaven. So we are united in our church services with the angels and saints who sing the same songs from the Bible that we sing. The Sunday Divine Service and the historic liturgy are not the reflection or product of a certain time and place. They are nor merely contemporary – with the times. The Divine Service has a culture and world to itself made up of saints from all places and all times as well as the entire angelic host. “Therefore with angels and archangels and with all the company of heaven we laud and magnify the glorious name, evermore praising thee and saying.” So sings the church. And all God’s people sing the Sanctus in response. It’s uniform. It’s catholic. It’s the liturgy which the church has sung consistently for generations.
The Ordinaries and deep learning
People often complain that the liturgy of the church, as we find it in the LSB and other Lutheran Hymnals, tends to be the same week after week. The genius of the Christian liturgy is the balance between parts of the liturgy that change each week and parts that stay the same. The things that change each week are called the propers. They are things like the hymns, the prayers, the scriptures and the sermon itself. Some things in the liturgy of the Divine Service are the same week after week. They are called the ordinaries. They are ordinarily done. The follow a certain order. The five ancient ordinaries, all of which can trace their usage back 1500 years, are the Kyrie, the Gloria in Excelsis, the Creed, The Sanctus and the Agnus Dei. The Sanctus even predates Jesus. All of these, except the Creed, are word for word from the Bible. And the creed is not only based completely on the bible but every Christian learns and says it all life long. By saying the same four bible passages from the liturgy over and over again every week Christians subconsciously learn these passages and with them basics of the Christian faith.
The Kyrie teaches us that we must rely upon the mercy of God.
The Gloria reminds us of Christmas when God sent his Son to be our savior.
The Sanctus tells us that the Holy One of God has come to us as savior. (Hosanna means “He saves”)
The Agnus Dei tells us that Jesus shed his blood to take away our sins.
The liturgy teaches over and over again the basic truths of Christ. And even if those who attend church regularly don’t realize it they are learning the gospel by hearing the same passages of the bible again and again – consistently. Just think if every Christian in the world understood the liturgy and what it tells us. Even when the pastor has a bad sermon the liturgy expresses God’s plan of salvation. Even when the church loses its vitality the liturgy still speaks grace to people. Even during times when the gospel was lost to the church due to persistent false doctrine, there was often enough saving gospel in the liturgy for a poor troubled conscience to grab the grace spoken through it and so be sustained in the faith.
The Ordinaries and evangelism
If the church would be blessed by everyone knowing the basics of salvation then just think if every Christian in the world was able to repeat the liturgy to others so that they could come to know Jesus.
When I was in school I learned some passages which were intended to help me do evangelism. There were four or five of them which I could present at the door of someone who needed to hear of Jesus. What if I had been taught by the liturgy to organize my thoughts and speech according to the ordinaries of the Divine Service? Can you imagine the conversation?
Him: “You go to church every Sunday. Why do you do that?”
Me: “Don’t you know what Christ and Christianity are all about?”
Him: “No, I’ve heard a little about Jesus but I really don’t know. Tell me.”
Me: “OK. Here goes.
“We are all sinful and troubled. I am and I suspect that you are. So we come before God and beg his Mercy. In church we have a song in which we sing, ‘Christ have mercy.’ (Kyrie)
“God loved us and came to earth for us to show us his mercy. That’s what Christmas is. It’s the birthday of Jesus. On the first Christmas the angels sang, ‘Glory to God in the highest and on earth Peace Good will to men.’ Every week in church we sing that song. (Gloria)
“Jesus
came into
“Finally Jesus died on the cross and shed his blood to take away our sins. He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. We sing a song every Sunday in church which says exactly that.” (Agnus Dei)
Him: “It sounds like you review the story of Jesus every Sunday.”
Me: “That’s right. And so I am able to tell it to you.”
Him: “Thanks for sharing. I think I have a much better understanding of Jesus than before we talked.”
Me: “Glad to do it. If ever you want to come to church with me I can show you these four songs. I think you will find them very comforting and beautiful as well.”
Him: “Thanks. Maybe I will.”
Of course this conversation could not take place if people did not use the same historic liturgy week after week. Nor could it take place if the people of your church could not be confident that when they brought a friend they could rely upon the Sunday Service to reinforce their evangelism.
Conclusion to Part I
The uniform historic liturgy serves the church in four crucial and unique ways. First it reflects our deepest conviction that we are saved solely by the grace we have been given; that we all stand before the throne of Grace identical – purest saints. Second the uniform historic liturgy reflects our unity of doctrine and identifies those congregations which share that pure doctrine. Third it protects us from the influences of false doctrine, particularly American Evangelicalism, by avoiding the worship patterns of that false movement. Fourth, it serves our catholicity connecting us with the saints and angels and providing a tool for a vibrant and united confession and witness to a world lost in sin.
Part II: Answers to Objections
With these strong reasons why would any pastor or congregation not want to use the historic liturgy time and time again in its Sunday services? Some reasons have been suggested which I will now discuss. We will discover that these reasons are not compelling enough or convincing enough to abandon a consistent use of the historic liturgy.
The Imposition of Customs and Christian Freedom
One objection to the consistent use of a uniform liturgy – perhaps the most common – is that liturgical forms should not be imposed upon anyone. It is argued that Christian freedom should reign rather than people being forced and that unless there is a clear command in Scripture no one has the right to impose any rule on others no matter how sensible it may seem.
The Biblical Paradox
The Bible presents two principles which seem to be in conflict. The first is the principle of freedom. Against his opponents in Galatia Paul champions the wonderful evangelical truth that Christ has set us free from the law. This means primarily that we don’t have to obey the commandments of God in order to gain God’s favor. We are justified freely by his grace without the works of the Law. (Galatians 2:16) Further this principle of freedom means that no one can force upon someone else any manmade laws, regulations, ceremonies, rituals, traditions. Even circumcision cannot be forced upon someone as though this divinely established ceremony brought God’s favor with it. Paul goes so far as to assert that if you get circumcised with the hope of gaining favor you have actually lost Christ. (Galatians 4:2-4).
The second principle is the principle of love. You sacrifice your freedom in order to love others. Love is not constrained or compelled. Its actions are not imposed. It acts freely giving up the very liberty which characterizes it in order to serve others. So for the sake of love a Christian would agree to be circumcised, provided no saving value would be place upon such love. Paul, as an individual freely gave up eating meat out of love. (I Corinthians 8) He became all things to people out of love for them. (I Corinthians 9) He even violated the law of freedom when it comes to circumcision.
These two principles live in tension.
Luther
We see the same two principles at work in the thinking of Luther as he grapples with the question of liturgical freedom and liturgical uniformity. On the one hand, Luther clearly asserts liturgical freedom. "For these rites are supposed to be for Christians, i.e., children of the 'free woman' [Gal. 4:31], who observe them voluntarily and from the heart, but are free to change them how and whenever they may wish."[16] Luther does "not want to make a law, but simply to demonstrate a decent and fitting order to be used in freedom by free Christian men."[17] On the other hand, Luther sees the need for uniformity in liturgical matters and urges a sacrifice of the very freedom which Christians posses. "Let us approve each other's rites lest schisms and sects should result from this diversity of rites - as has happened in the Roman church."[18] This “approval” occurs through a process of “common consent.” As with a Paul, so with Luther, the principles of freedom and love live in a holy tension in which uniformity in ceremonies is willingly promoted and not forced.
The Confessions
Luther’s thinking is reflected in the Confessions. The Formula of Concord, wanting to protect the Freedom of the Lutherans over against the imposition of Roman worship forms, boldly asserts:
We further believe, teach and confess that the community of God in every place and at every time has the right, authority, and power to change, to reduce, or to increase ceremonies according to its circumstances, as long as it does so without frivolity and offense but in an orderly and appropriate way, as at any time may seem to be most profitable, beneficial, and salutary for good order, Christian discipline, evangelical decorum, and the edification of the church. Paul instructs us how we can with a good conscience give in and yield to the weak in faith in such external matters of indifference (Rom. 14) and demonstrates it by his own example (Acts 16:3; 21:26; I Cor. 9:10).[19]
So the church is free and will not suffer any imposition of ceremonies.
Still, the Augsburg Confession, while speaking to a situation in which the Lutherans wanted to show their commonalty with other Christians asserted the principle of uniformity for the sake of peace, order and love.
What are we to say about Sunday and other similar church ordinances and ceremonies? To this our teachers reply that bishops or pastors may make regulations so that everything in the churches is done in good order, but not as a means of obtaining God's grace or making satisfaction for sins, nor in order to bind men’s consciences by considering these things necessary services of God or counting it a sin to omit their observance even when this is done without offense. [20]
The first Lutherans were not opposed to imposing certain practices provided that such imposition were not contrary to the gospel [21] and provided such ceremonies as were imposed were not considered necessary for salvation. The Confessions understood that a congregation or group of congregations couldn’t function unless there were customs and ordinances to which all agreed. And these customs or ceremonies did not have to be proven from the bible. They just couldn’t conflict from the teachings of the Bible. Each congregation willingly accepted these customs as they were imposed by the bishops. Today it is not the bishops which typically impose such ceremonies but a collection of the congregations themselves. The imposition, however, is there.
Living with the paradox
So how are we to live within the seemingly contradictory principles of freedom and love? The solution is not for each congregation to assert its freedom in deference to their specific perceptions of distinctive needs or unique opportunities. That is precisely what the Lutherans spoke against. Nor is the solution is to find a compromise between the two as though we can live as people who are half free and half loving. Rather the solution is that love trumps freedom except a) when obedience to the law of love forces works-righteousness upon the church, or b) when the impression is given that complying with ceremonies earns salvation.
And note this well. Luther understood the quest for uniformity of ceremonies to be an act of love. “For even though from the viewpoint of faith, the external orders are free and can without scruples be changed by anyone at anytime, yet from the viewpoint of love, you are not free to use this liberty, but bound to consider the edification of the common people, as St. Paul says, I Corinthians 14[:40], "All things should be done to edify," and I Corinthians 6[:12], "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful," and I Corinthians 8[:1], "Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up."[22]
So today we, who are free, live in love and so suffer the imposition of rules and ceremonies. Think of the ordinances, ceremonies or customs that have been imposed upon us and which we all accept even though they cannot be proven from the Bible. We celebrate Christmas on December 25. The colors on the altar and pulpit vary uniformly according to the season. The day of worship is Sunday. Pastors wear certain robes. It’s actually not even in the Bible that pastors should wear shirts and shoes during church but most congregations have an unwritten policy of “no shirt, no shoes, no service.” We schedule the divine service at a certain time and expect people to come at that time. All these are ordinances that have been imposed. Without them there would be chaos.
When you think about it congregational or district constitutions and bylaws are a type of church ordinance that we have all agreed to support. You could not run a church without them. Try making decisions without have by-laws which govern meetings, who votes, who runs the meeting, how and by whom and under what circumstances motions may be made, etc. We all agree to these bylaws and expect others to follow them.
Of course no one says that salvation depends on following the rules whether they are bylaws or customs. If such were the case then such ordinances or rules should be opposed even if they were not wrong in themselves. But, no one in our circles seriously suggests that you cannot be saved without consistent use of the historic liturgy. It’s just a really good idea for the reasons mentioned above and it is something that Lutherans have, until recently, all agreed to do. The moment someone would say that salvation depends on my use of the LSB or TLH p. 15 is the time I would switch for a time to something different simply to demonstrate my freedom.
What was the liturgical practice of the Confessionalists?
Those who invoke the Confessions
and early Lutheran fathers as champions of liturgical diversity may be well
served to learn the practice of these Confessionalists. During the Reformation
huge changes were taking place in
To a man they refused to change the liturgy any more than necessary. And once pure forms were developed they insisted that all the churches use the same forms. They were ardent advocates of liturgical uniformity.
Luther visited the congregation in
1. The knights and nobility shall be diligent to see above all that God's word is preached clearly, purely and faithfully.
2. They shall diligently maintain the ceremonies of the visitation order.[23]
Two Colleagues
of Luther in
… [The pastor] shall also take an oath before the superintendent, regarding the following articles. 'I say and swear that I will not teach, preach or introduce anything new without the knowledge and will of the ministerium, nor will I introduce anything new in the realm of ceremonies or otherwise, which is contrary to God's word and this [church] order.[24]
Almost 40 years later little had changed among the Lutherans when it came to their defense of liturgical uniformity. Martin Chemnitz was the primary architect of the Formula of Concord and Jacob Andreae the man who through sheer force of will and political savvy negotiated the process behind of production of the Formula. These men produced, in 1569, “The Church Order for Braunschweig Wolfenbuettel.” This was written seven years before the Formula of Concord, the document which advocates freedom so forcefully:
And while indeed the Christian church is not bound everywhere to one certain form of ceremony, rather Christian freedom has its place in this matter, as the ancients said: Disagreement in rites does not take away agreement in faith; but because it still brings all sorts of benefit that in ceremonies, so much as it is possible, a uniformity be maintained, and that such uniformity serves to maintain unity in doctrine, and that common, simple, weak consciences be all the less troubled, rather strengthened, it is therefore viewed as good, that as much as possible a uniformity in ceremonies with neighboring reformed (that is: Reformation) churches be affected and maintained. And for this reason, henceforth all pastors in the churches of our realm, shall emphatically follow this written church order, and not depart from the same without specific, grave cause.[25]
Two years
later, in 1571
Let him retain the rites in use and received ceremonies of this church, and not presume to change anything by private decision without a common decree.[26]
David Chytraeus, another of the formulators of the Formula of Concord, was responsible for “The Wismar Address of 1572.”
Second, no one, be he who he may, whether superintendent or preacher, shall take it upon himself to change, improve or order a single thing in the church, no matter how necessary it may be considered, without the foreknowledge, consideration and approval of the entire ministerium, nor may any unknown preacher enter the pulpit without the knowledge and consent of the entire pastorate.[27]
Who imposes?
The challenge of today is really not whether or not customs should be imposed but who has the right to do so. During the sixteenth century the bishops, the theologians, the superintendents of the churches, or the ministerium (the pastors of a given place) did so. Throughout the history of the LCMS the synod as a whole imposed the customs, ceremonies and practices. In truth no “imposition” was needed as the congregations willing accepted uniformity of worship. So when the synod produced and published an English Agenda in 1935, Theodore Graebner was able to claim: “In causing this new liturgy to be printed our synod unquestionably intended to make possible a liturgical uniformity in our congregations in order that this element might be conserved during the transition from German to English.” [28]
Another example of a type of imposition made by the synod was the declaration of fellowship or the breaking of fellowship. In 1969 our synod declared fellowship with the ALC. That meant that all of us were in fellowship. We were not free to deviate from our fellowship relationships. In 1981 the LCMS broke fellowship. That meant that we were all out of fellowship. We were not free to deviate from our fellowship relationship and continue in fellowship. Of course there were pastoral concerns and everyone recognized that certain rare exceptions needed to be made at least for a time so that people could be taught and treated with patience. But we were all in fellowship or out of fellowship together.
Today each congregation seems to assert its autonomous right to establish liturgical custom as it sees fit. But such a pattern will never lead to uniformity between the congregations unless all the churches somehow find a way to come together in a friendly way so as to achieve uniformity in a loving manner. In our history it has been bishops or theologians or superintendents or the collection of congregations in the synod. But not until recent times have Lutherans simply abandoned the endeavor of achieving uniformity of ceremonies.
Why the LSB?
Some have suggested that requiring new missions to use the LSB is wrong. The fact is that the production of the LSB is a perfect example of precisely how a collection of churches should achieve liturgical uniformity. The synod as a whole commissioned a hymnal to be produced. The synod as a whole entrusted the task to certain people – actually it was a large group of experts who knew a lot more about the process of hymnal production than I do. This group produced a hymnal which the synod as a whole accepted and commended. This then was the church’s hymnal. If the whole synod which authorized, produced and accepted the hymnal would also use the hymnal we would enjoy a great deal of uniformity.
In the production of the LSB, it was the clear intent of the LCMS in Convention that this hymnal reflect the historic position of the Lutheran church and that we use this book in our attempt to strive for the greatest degree of uniformity of worship. “Resolved that the Commission on Worship bring together a forum representing the diversity of practices within the Synod (on worship)…for the purpose of increasing understanding building consensus in our doctrine and practice of worship,…And be it finally resolved that everyone heed the advice of Dr. Martin Luther who penned words that speak directly to our time and place: ‘I pray all of you my dear sirs let each one surrender his own opinions and get together in a friendly way and come to a common decision about these external matters so that there will be one uniform practice throughout your district instead of disorder.’” [29]
I will say, candidly, that there are things about the LSB which I do not like. I communicated these dislikes to the people in charge when they were producing the hymnal. I know that many others did the same. I was assured that the various committees took my input seriously. Some of my suggestions were followed, some not. I was a little frustrated because, like everyone else, I like to have my way all the time. But the LSB is still the hymnal which was produced by the LCMS in a very exhaustive process. “The Synod in convention accept(ed) the….hymnal as an official hymnal….of the Synod.” [30] It is my synod’s hymnal and therefore it is my hymnal. And it is the hymnal which has the potential of uniting us in our worship.
What the church did in the process of producing the LSB was precisely what we have done in the past. During the transition from German to English (second quarter of the twentieth century) the leaders of the LCMS expressed the desire of achieving uniformity in worship. Upon the publication in 1935 of a common liturgy and agenda in English our leaders were ecstatic over “a liturgical uniformity in our congregations.” [31] And W. G. Pollack declared, “The fond hope of having one hymnal for the churches of this body has been realized, giving us another outward manifestation of the unity of faith.” [32] This corrected a situation in which “Every church seems to have its own private service, different in whole or in part from any others. A visitor, if he can take part in the liturgy at all, is at a great disadvantage.” [33]
Obviously, it is not a sin to prefer and use the TLH or Lutheran Worship. And these hymnals are sufficiently similar to the new LSB so as not to threaten the desire for uniformity or worship. But any new mission endeavors would be wise to use the hymnal which is most recent, most commonly used, and most reflective of current efforts to achieve uniformity. So the expectation that new mission starts use the LSB consistently is nothing more than the expectation that these new missions “surrender their own opinions” and freely accept the “imposition” of a hymnal which thousands of other congregations have accepted.
There comes a time when uniformity and the desire to be just like all the other churches is no longer viewed as an imposition but a joy. When I was a little boy I wanted to choose my own food for dinner and I wanted it prepared the way I wanted. I wanted to have my way all the time. My parents patiently told me that I was part of a family, that mom chose the menu and prepared very nutritious food the way she thought best, and that I should learn to like it. I suppose I could have complained about the imposition of the will of others upon me. I chose rather to learn to love my mother’s cooking because I love my mother. My love and respect for my mother the church should be the same.
Our freedom does not mean that we can do anything we please. It means that we do not do what pleases us but that we sacrifice our desires for the sake of the church. And, as shown above, the imposition of certain ceremonies is made by the force of our sense of catholicity not by our own desires or opinions.
“Legalism”
Some have suggested that those who want to impose the use of the LSB on others are guilty of “legalism.”
The term “legalism” historically has referred to theological views or systems which teach people to seek to attain God’s acceptance through obedience to the Law. So the Pharisees were “legalistic” because they thought their works saved them. Lutherans often say that the Roman church at Luther’s time was “legalistic” since it taught that one could gain merit through certain works.
Unfortunately, many throw around the word “legalism” today to describe those who want to apply rules to a situation even if salvation is not at issue. I have found that when someone levels the charge “legalism” it’s because someone is applying a rule which they have been breaking or would like to break. I have personally been called a “legalist” because I am opposed to women pastors, because I expect my catechism kids to memorize the catechism, because I do not commune Roman Catholics, because I start the service on time, because I have chided the high school kids for running through the line at a pot luck dinner and pigging out on food before the congregations has even prayed, and for a host of other things. In each of these cases I was simply applying a rule. And in each case it was a rule which someone else did not like.
We really should stick with the historical meaning of the word “legalist” and not use it in the discussion of the uniformity of worship unless someone is actually asserting that you get to heaven through the use of the LSB.
Coercion is bad
My mother, usually during those
family dinners, was fond of an old expression: “A man convinced against his
will is of the same opinion still.”
Luther, perhaps one of the greatest change agents in the history of the church did as much. He refused to coerce. Rather, he insisted on teaching in order to effect change. Even bad practices of the church that certainly needed to be changed should, to Luther, never be changed by force. The Mass was a terrible thing. But Luther insisted that no one should be forced to do away it. Rather, change “should be left to God, and his Word should be allowed to work alone, without our work or interference.” [35] Another example of necessary change was Luther’s insistence that communion be given in both kinds. Luther agreed that “it is necessary that the sacrament should be received in both kinds.” But he quickly added that it “must not be made compulsory nor a general law.” Rather, “we must promote and practice and preach the Word, and then afterwards leave the result and execution of it entirely to the Word, giving everyone his freedom in this matter.” [36] Never force change. Let the Word do it. Again he says, “I opposed indulgences and all the papists, but never by force. I simply taught, preached, and wrote God’s Word; otherwise I did nothing. I did nothing; the Word did everything.” [37]
So, would Luther approve the action of a district in convention or a district Board of Directors insisting that “all new congregations be asked to assure the district that the LSB is being used consistently in the services of the congregation?” I believe he would for two reasons.
First, such an action on the part of the district is not imposing a change upon a congregation without first teaching. It is exactly the opposite. It is the district saying that no changes to established ceremonies should be made by new congregations until those churches have taught the rest of us and convinced us. Over 90% of the congregations in the synod conduct a “traditional service.” They use the historic liturgy. The practice of employing a uniform liturgy is the practice of the Lutheran church for almost 500 years. If bad practices would not be changed by Luther without teaching then certainly good practices should not be abandoned without teaching. The burden is never placed upon those who wish to maintain the status quo. Those who wish to deviate from this 500 year old standard are required to teach the rest of us before they initiate changes. This simply has not been done.
Second, there is one standard for Christian fellowship and another standard for monetary support and these are not the same. The first is patiently broad. The second is more narrow. The district can be very patient with churches which are struggling towards a goal and encourage these congregations. So if certain congregations in the district do not use the historic liturgy, the president of the district and other congregations should patiently teach them a better way without threats or coercion. At the founding of the Lutheran church Missouri Synod, many pastors wanted to join the synod who served congregations which used bad worship materials. These pastors were granted membership in the synod provided they made known their disapproval of the worship materials of their own congregations and expressed their intent patiently to lead their congregations in a better direction. Our founding fathers were willing to be patient with the teaching process provided they knew that teaching was taking place.
Today we are not being asked to be patient with congregations as they learn the liturgy. Today we have the phenomena of many of the new congregations in the district being founded with little intention of ever using the historic liturgy. There is no desire to be instructed. Further, these new congregations are asking for large amounts of financial support from the rest of the congregations with no assurances that the most obvious manifestation of our unity will ever be apparent in these new congregations – the use of a uniform liturgy. It might be coercive to deny the hand of fellowship while congregations are trying to change through teaching the word. It is certainly not coercive to insist that congregations, before they even exist, live up to certain standards. And it is not coercive to tell our district what type of congregation will receive district funds and what will not.
We insist that subsidized congregations practice faithful stewardship, work hard in the community, preach the gospel faithfully, subscribe to the confessions, follow the bylaws of the synod, have services and Bible classes etc. before we give them money. We even insist that subsidized congregation limit their financial need to three years and $150,000. No one calls these expectations “legalistic” “an imposition” or “coercive.” Do we not have the right to insist that they teach the liturgy and use it as well? Such expectations are not coercive. They are prudent.
I have four children who went
away to college. I helped pay for their education. It was understood that they
would perform in a certain way. They would go to class, study, hand in their
assignments, abstain from drugs, refrain from moving in with their girl friends
or boy friends and be relatively transparent with their lives as far as I was
concerned. If they did not do these things they would jeopardize my financial
support. Never did they call me coercive because I actually had expectations of
them that they behave like I expected. And my expectations were not unreasonable. I
had a friend whose father paid for a year’s study in
But aren’t we usurping the role of the District president?
Some have argued that The Board of Directors usurped to the role of the district President by “forcing” congregations to behave in a certain way as a condition to receiving funds. This is not true.
The district president is responsible for ecclesiastical supervision. His responsibility applies to pastors and congregations which already exist. He is not responsible for the oversight of the process of bringing these pastors and congregations into existence. His job is not a pleasant one in this regard. He is the one who must patiently admonish pastors and congregations to honor our commitment to walk together confessing the gospel and all its articles and engaging in proper church practices.
Apply this to pastors. If a pastor deviates from accepted biblical doctrine or practice the District President must admonish and help him so that he can return to the proper doctrine and practice. However, the district president is not responsible for the training of pastors. That duty is given typically to the seminaries of the church or to the colloquy committee.
Now apply this to congregations. If a congregation deviates from accepted biblical doctrine and practices the DP must admonish and help that church to return to the proper doctrine and practice. However, just as the DP is not responsible for the training of pastors or preparing them for the ministry so he is not responsible for bringing congregations into existence. This responsibility, according to district bylaws, is given to the Board of Directors which guides, directs and provides resources to the Missions Committee.
In fact, by insisting that only those churches be brought into existence which live up to the standards accepted by all, the Board of Directors is actually helping the District President. If all new congregations are begun with the understanding that they will use the LSB, the DP will not be forced to go to these churches at a later date and admonish or encourage them. It is prudent to prevent problems from happening in the first place rather than to try to fix them after they occur.
What about diversity?
In 2004 the LCMS passed a resolution [38] entitled “To affirm responsible use of freedom in Worship.” This resolution called for “respect for diversity in worship practices” while at the same time affirming the synod’s historic encouragement that “congregations strive for uniformity in church practice.” While some have sited this resolution as justification for not using the LSB and the historic liturgy within it, such an interpretation is clearly not possible.
First, this resolution was passed immediately on the heals of the resolution which accepted the LSB and encouraged its use. [39] The assembly had encouraged uniform worship by the approval and acceptance of the new LSB in response to previous convention resolutions that the LSB be produced in order to promote uniformity. It seems altogether unlikely that this same convention, seconds later, would encourage disuse of that same hymnal.
Second, the LCMS does not hold to a type of congregational either/or worship autonomy as though it is up to each congregation to decide whether it wants to be a hymnal church or a contemporary church. Rather, the LCMS holds to a both/and understanding of worship. So we encourage and expect uniformity through the use of an approved hymnal and at the same time we affirm responsible diversity. The historic liturgy actually accommodates this “diversity within uniformity.” As shown above certain parts of the historic liturgy are ordinaries and typically stay the same each week. But many parts of the service change. It is within these changeable parts, called propers, that a great deal of creativity and diversity can take place. Two examples will suffice.
The LSB allows for vast creativity and diversity in the singing of the introit. It provides eleven musical tones for singing the introit. It allows for other tones to be used which are not found in the hymnal. It allows for a hymn or an entire psalm to be sung in place of the introit. It provides dozens of tones for the psalm if it is substituted for the introit. It allows for the omission of the introit altogether. It allows for the confession and absolution to begin the service followed by the opening hymn in lieu of the introit. It allows for the congregation to sing the introit in unison or responsively. It allows for the introit to be sung be a soloist or a small quartet. It allows for a choir anthem in lieu of the introit. It allows for the notes of the introit to be intoned by keyboard, bells, flute or four piece rock band. It allows for the children’s choir to sing it. You could even speak the introit. There is very little which the rubrics of the hymnal do not allow when it comes to the introit. The LSB “encourages respect for diversity” in the singing of the introit. The same could be said for the gradual or for the hymns or for the sermon and many other parts of the liturgy.
The LSB also provides a large and diverse assortment of services. There are five Sunday morning divine service orders. Many believe that five is too many but the LSB was clearly sensitive to the synod’s desire for diversity. Those who want only one need use only one. Those who want diversity can use all five. Within the five options there is the possibility to substitute certain hymns for most of the parts of the liturgy. These are available in divine service 5. Other services are presented with many options and the possibility of substituting any number of hymns for the parts of the liturgy such as the Magnificat or the Te Deum. There are an infinite number of diverse options between all the possible services which the LSB provides. The vastness of the resource and its diversity are like a restaurant with a 15 page menu which frustrates the diner who finds it too big to handle. The solution is to return again and again to taste its fares. So we have diversity within uniformity.
Further, we misunderstand diversity and creativity when we suppose that these laudable goals preclude a uniform service. Actually the opposite is true. Diversity assumes a uniform norm. Diversity begins with a standard and then creatively develops alternatives within that standard. We develop variations on a theme, not the development of a whole new norm. When I was in grade school at Bethel Lutheran School of University City Missouri my basketball coach, Mr. Harry Preston, taught me how to shoot a jump shot. He taught me the proper form. I was to keep my elbow in and my arm straight. I was to square my body with the direction of the shot and use my wrist in a fluid motion. I was to follow the shot with my arm and then my body so as to get rebounds. If I deviated from his instruction he would tell me to improve my form. One day I complained and said that this shooting “style was too restrictive.” I wanted to be like Bob Cousy, immortal point guard of the Boston Celtics. Mr. Preston sat me down and said, “Bob Cousy is a great basketball player because he was taught to do things the exact proper way when he was young. His coaches laid a fundamental foundation for him by consistently encouraging him to learn a textbook approach to basketball. Once he had mastered the right way he was able to improvise. His creativity was set free. He was allowed to be a bit more diverse. But if you watch him he always returns to the basic fundamental way he was taught. Creativity without bounds is license. You have to learn the basics before you can embellish them.” That’s the way it is with the liturgy. You have to learn the basics of the uniform liturgy and make it part of you before you can embellish it with creativity. Congregations which do so are immensely blessed. So we have diversity within uniformity.
But shouldn’t we reach out to culturally diverse situations
In culturally relevant ways?
Probably the most significant argument for the use of diverse worship forms is that these forms are more effective in reaching people who do not know Jesus. It is argued that the historic Liturgy is culturally irrelevant to the many peoples who we are commissioned to reach with the Gospel and Sacraments. When people bring their unchurched or dechurched friends to Sunday services these people simply do not understand and do not relate to chanting, vestments, traditional hymns, the standard ordinaries and many other accoutrements of historic worship.
Possibly the most formidable defense of this position in our circles was produced in 2006 by a synodical task force called the “Church Planting Task Force,” appointed by Bob Scudieri, executive director of North American Ministries for the LCMS. That task force issued a report entitled, “Toward Planting Large Churches: The Summary Report of the Church Planting Task Force.” This report concluded that an effective new mission start needed three ingredients; the right person, the right place and the right plan. The right person, predictably, is a strong preacher and a good communicator with good people skills. He is a good systematic thinker and “has a certain amount of magnetism that compels quality leaders to follow and contribute to the cause.” [40] The right place is “growing communities with a high percentage of unchurched people that can fuel the fast growth of a new church start.” [41] In its discussion of “the right plan” the report relied heavily upon the work of Edward Stetzer [42] who reported on “A landmark study conducted by the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist church of over 600 church plants.” [43] The Southern Baptists and the LCMS task force agreed that:
An effective plan for planting large churches must readily engage the culture it is aiming to reach—specifically by offering culturally oriented programming from the earliest stages, through launch and into the life of the church. Indeed, allowing ministry programming to be shaped and stylized by the findings of the planter’s cultural exegesis needs to be a prominent piece of any strategic plan as well as a core value in the ongoing life of the new community of faith. [44]
Given its “culturally oriented
programming,” (and that includes worship) shaped by the “cultural exegesis” of
the “planter,” the congregation’s “style” of worship will reflect neither the
church’s catholicity nor the theological unity which a group of congregations
may have historically enjoyed. Rather, effective starts must involve a
consideration of “the unique cultural needs, values and lifestyle of the right
place.” [45] So, Stetzer
also concluded, among other things, that, “Contemporary or ‘seeker’ worship
styles led to significantly larger church starts. Contemporary worship style
led to a mean attendance four times larger than those with a liturgical worship
style by year four.” [46] With
the use of this kind of data, it is understandable that many congregations and
particularly mission starts are encouraged by synodical or district leaders not
to use the hymnal in their worship, but to favor rather strongly a
“contemporary worship style.” The sentiment is articulated nicely by Michael Ruhl,
Director for the
Worship is the response we make to God within the relationship that God initiates with us in Christ…People yearn for a worship experience that is pure and simple worship…worship that is focused on God and is expressed in the heart-language of their culture. Such biblical, authentic worship in Spirit and in truth, rich in diverse expression, will then “fuel” the church in its mission of making disciples in the mission field. [47]
Elsewhere in our synod it is argued that that there are two kinds of congregations and two kinds of pastors in our church. Traditional or “village churches” are fine for established traditional Lutherans but a “camp church” approach is more appropriate for new missions since these “camp churches” will be more open to the cultural desires of a given “place.” [48] Similarly pastors are often divided into the categories of “guardians” and “missionaries.” [49] The former are fine for the task of pastoring “village churches.” The latter, admittedly a “very small subset” [50] of all pastors, are needed for new mission starts.
How are we to respond to this argument?
The implications of this view
We need to consider the
implications of this view. First, those who advocate this view are sincerely
motivated to bring people into the
That we his saving health may know,
His gracious will and pleasure,
And also to the nations show
Christ’s riches without measure,
And unto God convert them. [51]
Second, how extensive is the use of hymnals in this paradigm? The rejection or disuse of the historic liturgy or the LSB, in this paradigm, is not the idiosyncratic choice of a couple of cutting edge congregations. Rather, most if not all of the congregations begun with this paradigm will not use the hymnal at all unless its use is deemed culturally relevant to the unchurched in a given place. And since the purpose of starting a new mission is to reach the unchurched - people who have no disposition toward or understanding of hymnals or the historic liturgy - few if any mission starts will use the hymnal.
Third, how often will hymnals be used by those who employ this paradigm? The answer appears to be, “not at all.” The cultural liabilities of the hymnal, in this view, do not change from week to week. Once the historic liturgy is deemed culturally irrelevant to a new mission its use will be precluded altogether. Perhaps certain hymns or songs from the hymnal may be used in such a context but the LSB as a book and the historic liturgy will go unused.
Fourth, of late, quite a bit of discussion has surrounded the word “consistently” in our discussion of liturgical usage. This discussion has occurred because the December 2006 motion of the BoD of the Minnesota South district of the LCMS regarding use of the LSB in mission starts stated, “Resolved that all new congregations be asked to assure the district that the LSB is being used consistently in the services of the congregation.” While the word may be open to various nuances it seems to me that the discussion misses the point. When the liturgy is never used, it matters little whether “consistently” means “all the time,” “frequently,” “time after time,” “most of the time” or “a certain percentage of the time.” New mission starts are frequently begun with the intention of not using the LSB or any hymnal at all. The discussion should not be about the nuances of a single term. The BoD could have said “frequently,” “regularly,” “faithfully,” or “often” and we could have had the discussion as to the precise nuances of these words. What we need is a discussion about the issue of the relationship between starting new missions and the use of the historic liturgy as contained in the LSB. That discussion follows.
In response to the “Effective
I believe that the argument that the mission of the church is more effectively carried out by discarding or minimizing the use of the liturgy in certain cultural contexts fails.
The Divine Service and American Evangelicalism
First, the argument is based on the presuppositions of American Evangelicalism. One has to question wisdom of relying upon the research of Southern Baptists in drawing conclusions about the relative wisdom of using historical liturgical worship to start Lutheran congregations. Southern Baptists are non-creedal and typically non-liturgical. Baptists believe neither that the Body and Blood of Jesus are truly present in the bread and wine of the sacrament nor that forgiveness of sins is imparted to people through the sacrament. Further, Baptists do not believe in the inherent power of the Gospel – that the word of God has power apart from its speaker, the hearer or the cultural context in which it is spoken. Finally, Baptists typically have themselves been deeply entrenched within the broad confines of American Evangelicalism discussed above. Recall that the purpose of worship within American evangelicals is to be “moved physically, emotionally or intellectually by the worship experience.” [52] By Baptist/American Evangelical standards the use of the liturgical divine service would be completely ineffective. If the purpose of worship is to move people emotionally and to provide a culturally relevant experience then the historic liturgy probably is not the best choice. Unfortunately it is precisely this Baptistic theology which drives the argument against the use of the liturgy even when Lutherans do the talking. Notice that in the argument above Lutherans have misdefined worship as, “the response we make to God.”
Of course, that is not the purpose of worship among Confessional Lutherans. To Lutherans “The service and worship of the Gospel is to receive good things from God.” [53] These “good things” are precisely the things Baptists disparage or deny – body and blood, a powerful gospel, and the forgiveness of sins. The question becomes one of theology and not merely of culture. Should we give that type of service which Baptists and American Evangelicals would like or should we use a service more consistent with our Lutheran theology? And remember that the historic liturgy is precisely that unifying agent which distinguishes Lutheranism from American Evangelicalism.
The Divine Service and “Culture”
Second, the “mission argument” seems to misunderstand the nature of the divine Service from a cultural perspective. The Divine Service is not a piece of communication about God which is bound to a certain culture. If that were the case then it might make some sense to adjust our worship according to whatever cultural context a specific congregation finds itself. But the divine service is not limited to a specific culture. It is not European, African or Asian although all three continents played a role in its development. Among the first Lutherans the only thing German about the Divine Service was Luther’s insistence that it be translated in the mother tongue of the people he served. But the Divine service itself is no more German than it is American. It is trans-cultural, inter-cultural, cross-cultural and non-cultural. God’s culture is the church in her catholicity. It’s the church’s culture.
Obviously God’s Word needs to be
put into the language of those who would hear it but that does not necessitate
discarding the liturgy. The liturgy has been translated into literally hundreds
of languages over the years. And remarkably the church throughout the ages and
throughout the world has grown and prospered by God’s grace even though the
liturgy of the divine service has been in use. So today Christians from
The Divine Service and the power of the Word
Third, the disuse of the divine service and the liturgy is predicated on the conviction that that Word of God is partially dependent upon both the speaker and the hearers for its effectiveness. Lutherans have always joyfully confessed that the Word of God has a power and effectiveness apart from speaker, hearer or context. In fact, it is not the cultural context which determines the message but the message of Christ which effects the cultural. “At whatever time God’s Word is taught, preached, heard, read, or pondered, there the person, the day, and the work are sanctified by it not on account of the external work but on account of the Word which makes us all saints.” [54] Notice that Luther does not say, “At whatever time a highly trained church planter has done a cultural exegesis and placed the word of God into the cultural heart language of the target audience there the person, the day, and the work are sanctified.” Such a mission theory is reminiscent of Paul Tillich who said:
The Word depends not only upon the meaning of the words of preaching alone but also upon the power with which these words are spoken. And it depends not only upon the understanding of the listener alone but also upon his existential reception of the content. Nor does the Word depend upon the preacher or listener alone but on the correlation. These four factors and their interdependence constitute the ‘constellation’ on which human words may become the Word, divine self-manifestation. They may and they may not become the word.” [55]
Herman Preus is certainly correct in stating, “Had Luther used the Word with that kind of apologetic uncertainty, there would hardly have been a reformation.” [56] Consider the words of Arthur Just:
We dare not be seduced into thinking that the kingdom comes by our own relevant production and performance. We must always maintain that the Kingdom is hidden under the humble means of God’s proclamation…in Jesus Christ through simple words, simple water, simple bread, and wine. [57]
Lutherans have always believed that the word of God sanctifies the place of its proclamation. The Word in the liturgy rather than its cultural relevance has this wonderful effect. “Places, times, persons, and the entire outward order of worship have therefore been instituted and appointed in order that God’s Word may exert its power publicly.” [58] We dare not say or do anything which suggests even slightly that the most humble, uncreative, non-innovative and unimaginative pastor who preaches the word of God and administers the sacraments and uses the liturgy is somehow deficient in his ministry simply because if he is neither capable nor particularly inclined to do a “cultural exegesis.” In today’s cultural context, the use of a uniform liturgy is a confession against that theology which makes more of the word of God in the hands of some than it does in the hands of others.
The Divine Service in the life of the congregation
Finally, the “mission argument” misunderstands the use of the Divine service in the life of the congregation. The people of the Christian congregation are a royal priesthood. As such, among other things, they proclaim the glories of him who called us out of darkness into his marvelous light. (I Peter 2:9) This proclamation takes place in a thousand contexts. Christians confess their Lord to family and friend, to their children and to strangers, to co-workers and even to each other. This royal priesthood needs both the encouragement and the knowledge of the faith to speak God’s word as their various vocations, circumstances and opportunities warrant. This constant and endless confession of the faith takes place in coffee houses and at workplaces, at block parties, on airplanes and at family gatherings. It happens everywhere. Pastors provide opportunities for the royal priesthood to bring their friends to learn more about Christ at the various Bible classes which congregations offer. These Christians speak God’s word in jargon and vernacular which is laced with expressions unique to specific and unique cultural settings. That’s the way we communicate. And, typically, these conversations take place everywhere – except the divine service.
All Christians should invite their friends to learn about Jesus. Invite them to Bible class. Invite them to your homes for dinner and have devotions. Just talk to them. These conversational confessions of the faith occur 24 hours a day 6 days a week and 23 hours a day one day a week. For a single hour of a single day each week all the Christians in a given place stop the work of making a confession out in the world – the world with its various languages, cultures, heart languages, felt needs, sorrows, false hopes, and diverse antagonisms against God. Christians take this brief time each week to celebrate what they and only thy have – the gospel and the sacraments. These gifts from God are bestowed through the divine service. Its language is not the language of the world or the culture. It’s language is not intended to be understood by “seekers” or the uninitiated. Its language is understood and shared by all Christians. They speak from God and to each other for that brief and blissful hour the language of the liturgy.
The Liturgical divine service should not be altered to appeal to the world. When Paul claimed to be all things to all men he was not speaking about worship. He was speaking about the manner in which he as an individual confessed the faith outside of the worship context. And we should do the same. In all contexts and all cultures be all things to all men – except that context where all people are united by that which transcends culture – the Divine Service. The Divine service is not primarily an evangelistic “outreach” tool. It is the time and place where God feeds his people.
Conclusion
The reasons which commend a consistent and uniform use of a common divine service are compelling. The reasons which have been marshaled against a uniform divine service are not. They may be offered by sincere people who have a sincere conviction and they may appear to be winsome and even Lutheran. Upon examination these arguments are simply not strong enough to overturn a pattern and custom which, until recently, has been held by our churches for more than a millennium.
Rather than argue about ways in
which we can somehow not use the divine service we should heed the words of
Charles Porterfield Krauth the great nineteenth century Lutheran theologian of
Easter 2008
[1] Apology of the Augsburg Confession Article IV paragraphs 49, 154, 310, Kolb pp. 128, 144, Tappert, The Book of Concord, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959) p. 155.
[2] Luther’s Works Volume 53, p. 61.
[3] Ibid. p. 47.
[4] Missouri Synod Western District Proceedings, 1855 in Moving Frontiers, Ed. Carl Meyer, (St. Louis: CPH, 1964) 242
[5] Carl Mundinger, in Government in the
[6] Paul K.
Conkin, The Uneasy Center: Reformed Christianity in Antebellum
[7] George Barna, The Habits of Highly Effective Churches (Ventura CA: Regal Books, 1999) 87-88.
[8] D. G.
Hart, That Old-Time Religion in Modern
[9] D. G. Hart, The Lost Soul of American Protestantism, (Lanham, MD Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2002) 21
[10] Hart, p. xxiv.
[11] Hart, p. 14.
[12] C. F. W. Walther “Adiaphora Essays” “Essays for the church,” (CPH 1992) I, 194
[13] Kurt Marquart, The Church and Her Fellowship, Ministry and Governance (Ft. Wayne: International Foundation for Lutheran Confessional Research, 1990) p. 26.
[14] AC Ap XXIV 1, Kolb 258
[15] AC XXIV paragraph 1-3, Kolb p. 68.
[16] Luther’s Works 53:31.
[17] Ibid.34.
[18] Ibid.31.
[19] FC SD X, 9 Tappert 612.
[20] AC XXVIII, 53,Tappert p. 90
[21] AC XXVIII, 34 Tappert p. 86
[22] Luther’s Works 53:47.
[23] Die Evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des XVI
Jahrhunderts, herausgegeben von Dr. Emil Sehling.
[24] Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des
sechszehnten Jahrhunderts. Urkunden und Regesten zur Geschichte des Rechts und
der Verfassung der evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland. Herausgegeben von Dr.
Aemilius Ludwig Richter, ord. Professor der Rechte zu Berlin, Erster Band. Vom
Anfang der Reformation bis zur Begruendung der Consistorialverfassung im Jahre
1542.
[25] Sehling VI.1, 139-40.
[26] Sehling VI.1, 471,
[27] Sehling V, 313.
[28]
Theodore Graebner “Our Liturgical Chaos,” in The Problem of Lutheran
[29] Proceedings, 1998 Convention of the LCMS p. 109-110.
[30]
[31]
Theodore Graebner “Our Liturgical Chaos,” in The Problem of Lutheran
[32] W. G.
Pollack, “Reports and Memorials (
[33] W. G. Pollack, “our Uncommon Service” Lutheran Witness 44(July 14, 1925)) 222
[34] Matthew
Harrison, Christ Have Mercy: How To Put your Faith into Action (
[35] Luther’s Works Volume 51, p. 76.
[36] Ibid. p. 90.
[37] Ibid. p. 77.
[38] LCMS Convention Proceedings, resolution 2-04 (2004) p. 124
[39] LCMS Convention Proceedings, Resolution 2-03 (2004) 124.
[40] Toward Planting Large Churches: The Summary Report of the Church Planting task force.” 10
[41] Ibid. 13, emphasis theirs.
[42] Edward J. Stetzer, “An Analysis of the Church Planting Process and Other Selected Factors on the Attendance of SBC Church Plants,” A NAMB self study (North American Mission Board, 2003).
[43] Toward Planting, 16
[44] Ibid. 17
[45] Ibid. 16.
[46] Ibid. 22.
[47] Michael Ruhl in an interview with David Luecke, “Center Appointment Supports Worship Diversity,” Jesus First 51 (August 2006) 6.
[48] David Luecke Evangelical Style and Lutheran Substance (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1989) pp. 53-56.
[49] David Luecke, “Missionaries, Guardians View Faithfulness Differently,” Jesus First, 27 (0ctober 2002) 8.
[50] Toward Planting, 13.
[51] Martin
Luther, “May God Bestow on us His Grace” Lutheran Service Book (
[52] George Barna, The Habits of Highly Effective Churches (Ventura CA: Regal Books, 1999) 87-88.
[53] Apology of the Augsburg Confession Article IV paragraph, 310, Tappert, The Book of Concord, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959) p. 155.
[54] Ibid. 377
[55] Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, Volume I, p. 648
[56] Herman Preus “The Written spoken and Signed Word” Concordia Theological Monthly XXVI (September, 1955) 648.
[57] Arthur
Just, Heaven on Earth: The Gifts of Christ in the Divine service (
[58] LC Ten Commandments 94, Tappert 378
[59] Charles Porterfield Krauth, The Conservative Reformation and its Theology (Augsburg, Minneapolis 1963) p. 200. Originally published by (J. & B. Lippincott & Co. 1871).