WorshipConcord Journal, volume 1, number 10 — December 2009

+++

 

Worship in the Old Testament

 

How did God’s people worship during the days before the birth of Christ? The Worship of God’s people in the Old Testament is a complicated question. In large part it depends on which period we are referring to.

One thing seems to be clear, that what was common to most cultures in the ancient Near East and the Mediterranean world was a twofold combination of sacred space and sacrifice. The worship of the ancient Hebrews and the Israelites had this twofold focus in common with other cultures.

Beyond this twofold generalization, however, we can say that the specific meanings of sacred space and sacrifice varied across cultures. This is particularly true of the worship of God’s people as this is described in the Old Testament. Other Near Eastern and Mediterranean cultures worshiped multiple deities. There was a plurality of sacred spaces in the form of multiple temples spread all across the region, with numerous and varied sacrificial practices.

The Israelites on the other hand were monotheistic. They worshiped only the one God who created the heavens and the earth. And they worshiped him in one place, first in the tent of meeting built by Moses during the post-Exodus wandering in the wilderness, then in the temple built by King Solomon in Jerusalem. While from time to time there were other competing “sacred” spaces, the point of view we have in the Old Testament identifies the temple in Jersualem as the sacred space set apart for the worship of God’s people.

The first reference to worship in the Old Testament already appears in Genesis 4, when Abel and Cain offered sacrifices to God. “Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering” (Genesis 4.3-4).

While it is not immediately apparent in this text why God accepted Abel’s offering but did not accept Cain’s, Hebrews 11.4 helps us more clearly to understand it. “By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks.” From this perspective, faith is of the essence of worship. This is an important point to remember.

Noah made a burnt offering when God brought an end to the flood and established the covenant with Noah and the rest of humankind never again to destroy all of humanity by means of a flood (Genesis 8.20–9.17). To seal this covenant with a visible sign, God placed the rainbow in the sky, to remind us of his promise.

God instructed Abraham to offer his son Isaac as a burnt offering. Just the thought of it is absolutely chilling. How do you reconcile the love of a father for his son with absolute obedience to God? On the surface it’s a real conundrum, since from the beginning the taking of human life by another human was forbidden by God. Yet God made this demand of Abraham. The opening of the narrative tells us why. “. . . God tested Abraham . . .” (Genesis 22.1). The Letter to the Hebrews (11.17-19) unfolds the mystery of Abraham’s obedience by helping us to understand how Abraham trusted that God would restore his son by raising him from the dead, a perspective that clearly points to Christ on several levels. After passing the test, Abraham took a ram and sacrificed it as an offering to God in the place of Isaac.

While each of the preceding examples offers its own peculiar complexities for us to make sense of with regard to worship in the Old Testament, Moses certainly complicates the question to the ‘n’th degree. Until this point, sacred space was typically identified with places where God manifested himself to the patriarchs or to other individuals, who would then respond to the divine appearance (theophany) by building an altar and sacrificing. There was not yet a single place that could be identified as the only sacred space set apart for the worship of all of God’s people.

Moses offered a less individualized, more unified worship experience for the people of God. This unified experience of worship was located around the sacred space of the tent of meeting, where God himself would manifest his presence and speak directly with Moses, “face to face, as a man speaks to his friend” (Exodus 25–31; 33.7-11).

It’s significant that instructions for the celebration of Passover (Exodus 12) were given before the detailed instructions for the tent of meeting. A specific rite for family worship was given to God’s people before (and as!) they left Egypt. What unified them in the use of this rite was not the location, but that they all celebrated Passover according to the same precise details—what kind of lamb, how to prepare the lamb, what kind of herbs and vegetables were to be eaten, how to prepare the bread (violations of which were grounds for exclusion from the people of God!), even how to dress while eating it.

In addition to the hearth and home nature of Passover as it was to be observed by future generations within the family setting, Moses was instrumental in receiving specific details for the corporate worship of God’s people (the Book of Leviticus, e.g.). While these details were initially applied to their worship as it was focused on God’s presence in the tent of meeting, in particular the most holy inner part of the tent where the ark of the covenant resided, the details also anticipated the more permanent sacred space of the Jerusalem temple.

Six different offerings were prescribed in detail—the whole burnt offering (‘olah), the grain offering (min-khah), the peace offering (zevakh shelamim), the sin offering (chatat) that was made for unintentional sins, the graded sin offering, and the guilt offering (asham). Detailed prescriptions accompanied these various offerings, including instructions for the killing of bulls, heifers, goats, and lambs. There were specific instructions for burning grain offerings, specific pieces of animals (entrails and various body parts, fat portions, etc.), what could be kept and eaten by the priests, and what could not be eaten.

And there was the pouring and the sprinkling of blood (more allusion to Christ’s sacrifice and the “sprinkling” of Holy Baptism). There was a lot of blood. Probably the most dramatic of all the sacrifices in the Old Testament was the whole burnt offering. During the priest’s enactment of this sacrifice, the entire animal was consumed in the fire.

A constant, unbroken line of smoke ascending into heaven was a visible sign to the people that the sacrificial system of the temple was functioning to propitiate God’s wrath against the sin of his people. The danger, of course, was in trusting in the ritual act of sacrifice without having a repentant heart that embraced God’s mercy by faith. The prophets railed against this. They did not criticize the ritual acts themselves (Jeremiah 33; Ezekiel 20.40; 45.17), but a misdirected attitude that committed blatant idolatry or sought to appease the anger of God through sacrifice without repentance (Isaiah 56.7; Jeremiah 7.9-10; 19.4; Hosea 6.6).

Such an approach to sacred space and sacrifice made Israel’s worship indistinguishable from other ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean cultures. This is why the prophets were constantly calling God’s people to circumcise their hearts, a powerful metaphor for repentance and faith (Jeremiah 4.1-4).

No discussion of worship in the Old Testament would be complete without some mention of the Book of Psalms. The Psalms were the hymn book of the Old Testament people of God. Several of the psalms refer to going up to the temple, or dwelling in the house of the LORD, or some other such reference (Psalm 27, 29, 42, 43, 47, 66, 68, 84, 95, 96, 99, 100, 116, 118, 122, 132, 134, 135, 149, 150).

Psalm 150 provides us with an example of diversity of music in the worship of the temple. The psalm begins by exhorting the faithful to “Praise God in his sanctuary!” So the beginning premise of this psalm was the worship life of God’s people in the Jerusalem temple.

As I have already pointed out, in the Torah there were dozens of specifically prescribed forms for the liturgy of the priests and the people. The sacrifices were prescribed in minute detail. The clothing of the priests was prescribed in minute detail (even down to the color and shape of their underwear!). The use of incense was prescribed in minute detail. There was a specific form or structure of worship that God in his wisdom prescribed for his people.

Psalms 149 and 150 also reveal that there was an element of freedom in the execution of the worship of God’s people that went along with all the prescribed forms. In Psalm 150 the psalmist exhorts God’s people: “Praise him with trumpet sound; praise him with lute and harp! Praise him with tambourine and dance; praise him with strings and pipe! Praise him with sounding cymbals; praise him with loud clashing cymbals! Let everything that has breath praise the LORD! Praise the LORD!”

Now, this is not just referring to the private devotion of God’s people at home. Nor can it be rationalized that this only refers to the processions that took place before arriving at the temple, as if it would have been okay to have this kind of diversity outside the temple, but not inside the temple. This exhortation refers to freedom and diversity in the execution of the public worship of God’s people in the Jerusalem temple!

I really didn’t intend for this brief survey of worship in the Old Testament to be comprehensive. It is just a brief survey. There are many other ways of referring to this worship that I have chosen not to go into—for example, covenant (berith), vertical typology (what is done on earth is patterned after what is done in heaven), sacramental (the gracious promises of God attached to the physical means of ritual acts), remembrance (God’s gracious remembrance of his own promises to his people; zachar).

All of these are also aspects of the worship of God’s people in the Old Testament, and they point to the fulfillment of what they promised in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. I chose to focus on the twofold structure of sacred space and sacrifice for its simplicity, and for the fact that this structure also seems to encompass all other aspects of worship in the Old Testament.

The simple twofold structure of worship in the Old Testament, sacred space and sacrifice, are both referenced to Christ in the New Testament. From the perspective of the church, all of the offerings in the Old Testament are shadows of the things to come—the sacrificial Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, the ritual bath of Holy Baptism, and the ritual meal of the Lord’s Supper. In the next issue of the WorshipConcord Journal we will explore worship in the New Testament.

Peace

James Alan Waddell

[A small portion of this article was adapted from A Simplified Guide to Worshiping As Lutherans (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009)]

 

+ sdg +

WorshipConcord Journal, volume 1, number 9 — November 2009

+++

Observations and Comments on the LCMS Theses on Worship

The first thing that needs to be said about the Theses on Worship prepared by the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod Council of Presidents is that this is a document that is long overdue. The COP is to be commended for its leadership of the church in providing these theses for study, reflection, and furthering the conversation.

The President of the LCMS, the Rev. Dr. Gerald Kieschnick, wrote in his cover letter to the Theses:

The Council of Presidents is keenly aware of the diversity of worship practices in LCMS congregations. This diversity in many instances has resulted in disharmony and even polarization. In order to foster God-pleasing harmony on this matter, the COP encourages pastors, worship leaders, musicians, and other church leaders to engage in prayerful conversation with one another, in submission to God’s Holy Word and the Lutheran Confessions.

To that end and to assist with that process, the Council of Presidents presents these succinct but significant “Theses on Worship.”

There are eight theses. Four of the eight theses are subdivided into additional statements, which appear to serve as minor premises to the major premises of the theses themselves. All of the theses have supporting texts from Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. This approach of using theses with supporting documentation is deeply rooted in Lutheran tradition. It is a time-honored approach that has much value in terms of clearly communicating specific teachings of the church. The weakness of this approach, however, is that it risks proof-texting sources that may or may not support a given thesis. Nonetheless, this is not intended as a blanket criticism of the Theses on Worship or of the specific texts used in support of the Theses. It is only stated here as a methodological caveat.

Thesis I. Worship is not an adiaphoron.

 This is the major premise of Thesis I. For our readers who do not know what an adiaphoron is, an adiaphoron according to the Lutheran Confessions is something that is neither commanded nor forbidden by God (Formula of Concord, Epitome X.1; Solid Declaration X.1). This is not clearly stated in Thesis I. It is important that the definition of the term adiaphoron be stated plainly, because in the discussion today, there are different understandings of what an adiaphoron is, and when and how the term adiaphora (pl.) should be applied to our understanding of worship.

The simple statement that “Worship is not an adiaphron” is only partly true. This statement without qualification can be misleading.

Thesis I is subdivided into four minor premises. Subpart I.A. states that “Worship is commanded by God.” This aligns Thesis I behind the Third Commandment (Exodus 20.8-11; Deuteronomy 5.12-15), although this Commandment is not quoted in the supporting texts.

Subpart I.B. states that “The highest form of worship is faith.” This is well stated and clearly supported by the quoted texts.

Subpart I.C. states that “Worship is Trinitarian, and centered on Jesus Christ.” This is well stated. The essence of Christian faith is belief in the Triune God, and Christian worship is Christ-centered. We come to worship to have our sins forgiven. Forgiveness is given because of God’s grace in giving his Son to die for us on the cross. Some of the supporting texts for Subpart I.C. appear to be incomplete or not relevant.

Subpart I.D. states that “The means by which faith is created and nurtured are essential to worship.” This subpart and its supporting texts refer to the means of grace, those things that are given by God. It is true that these things are not an adiaphoron.

To the extent that the thesis itself, the subparts, and the supporting texts refer to the biblical command to worship, then Thesis I is correct. Worship is indeed commanded by God. It is also true that what is given by God in the means of grace, the Gospel and the sacraments, these are essential to worship and are not an adiaphoron.

The simple statement that “Worship is not an adiaphoron” must be qualified, however. It is potentially misleading because there are two parts to worship. There are those things that are commanded and given by God and are of the essence of worship, as Thesis I clearly states. But worship also has another aspect to it. That other aspect, not addressed under the thesis that “Worship is not an adiaphoron,” is that there are also external forms of worship. This is what the Augsburg Confession refers to as things that are instituted by human beings (AC VII), and what the Formula of Concord refers to as things that are neither commanded nor forbidden by God (FC X). This confessional distinction regarding worship and adiaphora is not made in Thesis I. Consequently, while making statements that are true, Thesis I can be misleading.

Thesis II. The Scriptures and Confessions give the people of God considerable freedom in choosing those forms, rites, and ceremonies that aid the worship of God.

This thesis, while not explicitly using the word “adiaphoron,” moves in the direction of balancing the potential ambiguity of Thesis I.

Thesis II is divided into two subparts. Subpart II.A. states that “Neither the Scriptures nor the Confessions prescribe forms, rites or ceremonies for worship.” While not using the word “adiaphoron,” this subpart in effect states the confessional definition of the term. Forms, rites, and ceremonies for worship are things “neither commanded nor forbidden in the Word of God” (FC Ep X.1; FC SD X.1). This leaves me wondering why the COP has avoided the use of the word adiaphora with reference to worship in its Theses. Avoiding the use of this word, simply because there are those who abuse it or because there are those who do not like it (note: I am assuming this is why the COP is avoiding it), does not help us answer the question. This is somewhat problematic, especially since the Confessions plainly refer to humanly instituted rites and ceremonies in worship as adiaphora, and since Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, and Martin Chemnitz in their writings also referred to them as adiaphora. It seems to me that the confessional definition of adiaphora and the application of this definition to our theology of worship needs to be a part of the conversation.

Subpart II.B. states that “The liturgy, a true service, is that which aids both the proclamation and the hearing of the Gospel for the sake of faith, that is, true worship.” This is an outstanding statement. “The liturgy,” as this is defined in terms of humanly instituted forms, rites, and ceremonies (AC VII), “is that which aids both the proclamation and the hearing of the Gospel for the sake of faith.” If any humanly instituted form, rite or ceremony of worship does not aid this proclamation and hearing of the Gospel, it must be discarded; it must not be used. Subpart II.B. is an outstanding statement of the primary purpose of liturgy, a purpose that should not be dismissed or treated lightly.

Freedom to choose “forms, rites, and ceremonies that aid the worship of God” according to the Lutheran Confessions is based on two things, the faith that is born from the Gospel of Christ, and the realization that humanly instituted ceremonies in worship are adiaphora. While the language of “the proclamation and the hearing of the Gospel for the sake of faith” is present in this thesis, again the confessional language of adiaphora is missing. The true and proper teaching of adiaphora (which does not include arbitrary license) needs to be embraced and confessed openly with confidence as it is in the Formula of Concord.

Thesis III. The liturgy of the Church builds a framework for the worshiper to live the life of faith.

Faith and life are inseparably linked. Liturgy that allows us to speak of faith and not of life is not liturgy. Thesis III makes a solid statement.

Subpart III.A. states that “Liturgy of the Church teaches the full counsel of God.” Subpart III.B. states that “The elements of liturgy, (ordo), tell the full story of salvation.” These two subparts can be taken together, because they say essentially the same thing. The tradition of using the lectionary and the church year is of great value for the church. While we may quibble about the number of years and the specific Scriptures to be used, the use of the lectionary is a great blessing. The use of some form of lectionary helps insure that the full counsel of God and the full story of salvation will be proclaimed.

This is a form of discipline in liturgical practice that is a great good for God’s people. It guards against the neglect of Scripture and it gives God’s people as broad an exposure as possible to the biblical narratives. The Scriptures teach that “faith comes from hearing, and hearing from the Word of God.” That liturgy of the church which builds a framework for the worshiper to live the life of faith is a liturgy that builds with the Word of God.

Subpart III.C. states that “The liturgy of the Church moves worshipers into the world to live for and to proclaim the Good News to others. The Gospel is inherently incarnational, that is, Christ is present with his people where his Word is purely preached and his sacraments are given according to his Word. The Gospel is also missional. Through the church’s liturgy we were adopted into God’s family when we were baptized. Through Baptism liturgy also makes us missionally aware and empowered. Jesus said, “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you” (Matthew 28.19-20). Disciples make more disciples. Thesis III is correct. Because the Gospel is inherently incarnational and because liturgy is Christ-centered, the church’s liturgy builds the right framework for living beyond ourselves in missional awareness and empowers us to do this.

Thesis IV. Imposing a certain form, rite or ceremony on the Church burdens men’s consciences, thereby militating against the Gospel.

This thesis is consistent with Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions, and the writings of Luther, Melanchthon, Chemnitz. Chemnitz wrote against requiring “a certain form in set words.”

The imposition of a certain form betrays the requirement of the law. The law curbs the excesses of our human predilections. The law reflects the depravity of our human condition. The law directs us on paths of action that are pleasing to God. In short, the law always accuses. And when the law accuses with regard to the practice or the omission of some ceremony, the conscience is burdened.

The burdening of consciences is an issue that is virtually absent from the discussion today. It is even true that consciences are trampled because of insensitivity and boorishness on both ends of the argument. The burdening of consciences in liturgical matters was something the reformers repeatedly warned against. The COP is to be commended for including it as one of the theses.

Thesis V. Great care is necessary in choosing forms, rites, and ceremonies because they either support or hinder true worship. There are no “neutral” forms.

This thesis is well stated. While the external forms of worship are adiaphorous by nature according to our Lutheran tradition, that does not mean “anything goes.” Proper discretion is crucial when choosing forms, rites, and ceremonies.

Subpart V.A. states that “Forms of true worship are in accord with the Word of God.” Scripture is the primary norming authority for all theology and practice in the church. Consequently, the statement asserted here is absolutely correct. Luther once wrote, “What is changed according to God’s Word is no innovation.”

Subpart V.B. states that “Forms of true worship help to preserve order.” The Lutheran Confessions use the term “order” with reference to three things—order in antithesis to disorder, order with reference to the words of institution in the Sacrament of the Altar, and order with reference to all the humanly instituted rites and ceremonies in liturgy. Each use of the term “order” must be understood in its own context, but one thing is clear: the preservation of order is very much a part of the Lutheran point of view on worship.

Subpart V.C. states that “Forms of true worship do not burden the consciences of the people of God.” This appears simply to reiterate what was already stated in Thesis IV.

Subpart V.D. states that “Forms of true worship are edifying to the local congregation and therefore also to the surrounding community.” The issue of local inculturation of liturgical forms is important, and I am glad the COP has included it. Luther was also concerned with this problem, as is evident from what he wrote in his German Mass in 1526.

Subpart V.E. states that “Forms of true worship teach the faith.” This echoes what the Confessions say, that “ceremonies should serve the purpose of teaching the people what they need to know about Christ” (AC XXIV.2-3).

All of these subparts of Thesis V appear to articulate the purpose of worship. If this is an accurate observation, then there are a number of purposes of worship according to the Lutheran Confessions that should be added to these subparts of Thesis V, namely, the delivery of the Gospel, the edification of the church in the Gospel, and the avoidance of frivolity and offense (although there is a reference to “useless and foolish spectacles” in one of the supporting texts for Subpart V.B; see FC X).

Thesis VI. Uniformity in forms, rites and ceremonies while desirable, is not essential to the unity of the Church.

This thesis is consistent with Augsburg Confession Article VII.

While it is true that uniformity of worship is not necessary for the true unity of the church, more could have been said here to address the extent to which uniformity is desirable for the harmony of the church. And yet neither should the argument for harmony be used to impose a certain form of worship or to bind consciences. The acceptance of a certain amount of diversity in worship practices is biblical, it is Christian, and it is very much a part of our Lutheran tradition.

Thesis VII. The polarization that is affecting the Church concerning the issue of forms, rites and ceremonies is sinful and hinders the proclamation of the Gospel.

This thesis could not be stated more clearly.

Some have argued that we should not ignore the liturgical traditions that developed in the church after the sixteenth century, traditions that have made important contributions to shaping the church’s self identity. This is a fair argument, but it is only fair if we also argue that we must not ignore the new directions that many in the church have taken with regard to worship today. Preserving what is given from the past is good, as long as what is used is not held to be some indispensable, ideal form. Using new forms is not wrong, and in many cases can be good, as long as the desire to use new forms does not bring with it the insistence that all other forms are ineffective or must be despised. The unity of the church is not based on these forms. But we can be sure that divisions in the church have arisen over a wrong estimation of the value of worship forms on both ends of the argument.

Thesis VIII. The people of God are commanded by God to keep talking with each other, under His Word, so that divisions are healed and the Church is united in doctrine and practice.

Amen

Concluding Comments

First let me reiterate what I said at the beginning. The LCMS Council of Presidents is to be commended for preparing these Theses on Worship for the church, and for its leadership in promoting in a positive way a fraternal conversation about an issue that has become so contentious.

There are three evident strengths of the Theses on Worship. First, the Theses define true worship in this way: “The highest form of worship is faith.” The Theses make clear that true worship is faith that seeks the forgiveness of sins from Christ, rather than a faith that seeks to please Christ with our worship. This is an important distinction, one that clearly reveals whether a congregation’s worship is biblical and Christian.

Second, the Theses on Worship exhibit a positive tone in their presentation. The Theses do not treat differing views with disrespect or sarcasm. The Theses simply attempt to present the biblical and confessional view of worship. This positive tone hopefully will invite the prayerful and thoughtful conversation in the church that the COP intends.

Third, the Theses on Worship rely on Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions alone in an effort to articulate the church’s theology and practice of worship. This is crucial, because these are the only common ground we have as Lutherans for having a constructive conversation about worship. When other authorities are added to the conversation, this is a recipe for misunderstanding, disagreement, and talking past each other. The Theses on Worship focus our attention on the only authorities that are proper to Lutheran theology and practice. This is a recipe for understanding, agreement, and constructive conversation.

Having stated what I think are some of the most positive contributions these Theses make to the conversation about worship, let me now turn to a few of what I hope are constructive criticisms. While the Theses make the clear and helpful statement that “The highest form of worship is faith,” an explicit statement of the confessional definition of “liturgy” would also be helpful (Apology XXIV.80). This definition is absent from the Theses. A clear statement of this confessional definition of liturgy would help us to make (and keep) the clear confessional distinction between liturgy in the narrow sense (what is given by God) and liturgy in the broad sense (what is instituted by human beings). Also a clearer statement, supported by the Confessions, regarding the relationship between worship and adiaphora would have been helpful. The simple statement that “Worship is not an adiaphoron,” without qualification, invites a certain amount of ambiguity.

Also missing from the COP’s Theses on Worship is any reference to the local congregation with its confessional authority and freedom to order its own rites and ceremonies in liturgy, and what this means for the local congregation’s relationship to a broader fellowship of churches. While the confessional locus for this (FC SD X.9) is included in the supporting texts for Thesis II Subpart A, it is not explicitly stated. This is an issue that deserves further exegesis of the confessional and historical texts and further discussion.

One last point. References to harmony are missing from the Theses on Worship, and the extent to which uniformity of liturgy among the churches is desirable for that harmony. This is also a point of contention in the discussion today, and I hope the absence of this point from the Theses was not a missed opportunity.

The criticisms here notwithstanding, this is an important effort by the COP to open discussion about worship differences in the LCMS and to promote harmony between those who have differing opinions about worship. May the Lord of the Church move us to have this conversation with civility and love for one another as brothers and sisters in Christ, redeemed by his blood, sanctified by his Holy Spirit.

Peace

James Alan Waddell

+ sdg +

WorshipConcord Journal, volume 1, number 8 — October 2009

+++

Appreciating the Most Important Things: A Father’s Perspective on the Value of Liturgical Traditions

One month to the day before I was ordained and began ministry at my first parish, our daughter was born. My wife and I had many major life changes all happening at this time—beginning parish ministry, the transition from academic life to the practical application of that learning, moving to a new community, meeting new friends, settling into our new home, the birth of our first child. It was enough to challenge anyone’s sanity, but we managed by God’s grace to grow through all of these new experiences.

Our daughter grew up attending church every Sunday, sitting in the pew with mom while dad presided in the liturgy and preached. It’s one of those things that goes unnoticed until you realize it, I guess, but all that time our daughter was watching and listening very carefully.

One Sunday, as she watched me remove the communion vessels from the altar and carry them to the sacristy (we had no altar guild), she asked if she could help. So to encourage this budding little five-year-old servant, I gave her a simple task, and began to teach her about the communion vessels.

Her job was to carry the paten (the small silver plate for holding the body of Christ) to the sacristy after every Communion service. One Sunday, as I was carrying some of the communion vessels to the sacristy from the altar, I heard my daughter call out behind me, “I have the piece holder, daddy.”

“The piece holder?” I asked. “Why do you call it the piece holder?”

She said to me, “Because it holds a piece of the Lord. You know, daddy, how right before communion you say ‘The piece of the Lord be with you always.”

I have to admit my initial thought when I heard our daughter refer to the paten as “the piece holder” was that she was actually saying “the ‘peace’ holder.” Either way the pun works: the true presence of the body of Christ and the peace he delivers to us as we eat his body and drink his blood for the forgiveness of our sins.

Little did our daughter realize just how true her innocent, unintended pun actually was. On that very vessel, at every Communion service, there rested the “piece” of the Lord, the true body of Christ given into death for our sin. From this “piece holder” I ministered the true body of Christ to God’s people in this little congregation in northeast Missouri.

The things we say and do, all the trappings and symbols of our worship, the vessels, the vestments, the gestures, the movements, all of it, these have a significance for God’s people of all ages. And I have come to understand that the significance of these things is often beyond what we realize.

This is to say that the traditions of Lutheran liturgy are not just nostalgic relics of a past we no longer understand or appreciate. They are good for the church. And as my daughter reminded me so many years ago, they teach young hearts and minds that Christ is present for us in our worship.

But not everyone in the church has been raised with the historic traditions of Lutheran liturgy. While some in the church have a deep appreciation for these traditions, there are many who do not. And we need not expect them to. We may teach them better to understand Lutheran liturgical traditions, and we should always do this. But must we expect everyone in every place to submit themselves, for the sake of love, to the historic liturgical traditions of Lutheranism in order to be faithful members of Lutheran congregations?

We must be honest about the reality that the times and circumstances have so radically changed that we are faced with a dilemma. Do we allow such changed times and circumstances to impact the way we worship? Or do we entrench ourselves against this kind of change in the church?

The reformers were sensitive to this issue when they wrote about the church’s confessional authority and freedom to change its worship practices “according to circumstances” (Formula of Concord, Epitome X.4) and “as the respective place, time, and persons may require it” (Luther, Latin Mass; Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent). They were able to hold such a position because of their clear understanding of what the church is.

It is also taught among us that one holy Christian church will be and remain forever. This is the assembly of all believers among whom the Gospel is preached in its purity and the holy sacraments are administered according to the Gospel. (Augsburg Confession VII)

We confess together that the identity of the church, its essence ( “This is” ), is to be located in the purity of the Gospel and the sacraments administered according to the Word of God. This is how we identify ourselves as the church. Article VII articulates the identity of the church in terms of the Gospel and the sacraments in contradistinction to humanly instituted ceremonies.

For it is sufficient for the true unity of the Christian church that the Gospel be preached in conformity with a pure understanding of it and that the sacraments be administered in accordance with the divine Word. It is not necessary for the true unity of the Christian church that the ceremonies, instituted by men, should be observed uniformly in all places. (Augsburg Confession VII)

Certainly we may come together and agree on a certain amount of uniformity in ceremonies for the sake of love and the harmony of the church. But ultimately no amount of uniformity in ceremonies “instituted by men” can ever constitute our identity as the true church. And the determination of what is “best” for the church’s edification in the Gospel with regard to humanly instituted rites and ceremonies can only be made in the local congregation, “as the respective place, time, and persons may require it.”

Luther wrote in his German Mass:

In short, this or any other order shall be so used that whenever it becomes an abuse, it shall be straightway abolished and replaced by another, even as King Hezekiah put away and destroyed the brazen serpent, though God himself had commanded it be made, because the children of Israel made an abuse of it [II Kings 18:4]. For the orders must serve for the promotion of faith and love and not be to the detriment of faith. As soon as they fail to do this, they are invalid, dead and gone; just as a good coin, when counterfeited, is canceled and changed because of the abuse, or as new shoes when they become old and uncomfortable are no longer worn, but thrown away, and new ones bought. An order is an external thing. No matter how good it is, it can be abused. Then it is no longer an order, but a disorder. No order is, therefore, valid in itself—as the popish orders were held to be until now. But the validity, value, power, and virtue of any order is in its proper use. Otherwise, it is utterly worthless and good for nothing. (American Edition of Luther’s Works, 53.90)

This, however, did not mean that Luther viewed the church’s liturgical traditions as something that could be discarded randomly. He exercised the greatest caution about these things and was reluctant to change them. The reformers’ openness to the church’s confessional authority to change the way it worships was coupled with a solid appreciation for historic traditions of liturgical practice.

It is indeed true that the significance of liturgical traditions is often beyond what we realize. And in my personal opinion the loss of these traditions in any local congregation would not be good for God’s people there. But this is only a personal opinion. It is not the doctrine of the church.

We know that it is not these traditions in and of themselves that hold the ultimate significance for the faith of a five-year-old, the kind of faith I hope I myself still have in my middle years. We know that these things are shadows, as Paul called them (Colossians 2.16-17). They point us to the ultimate gift of God in Christ’s incarnational presence among his people in the Gospel and the sacraments, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. “. . . the substance belongs to Christ.”

These are the most important things in our worship. These three: 1) the Gospel, 2) Holy Baptism, and 3) the Lord’s Supper. These are the things that give us a “piece” of heaven while we still exist here on earth, a foretaste of the feast to come. These are the things that God has given to identify us as the church. No more. No less.

The simple insight of our five-year-old daughter carrying the “piece holder” to the sacristy is a memory I will hold dear for the rest of my life. I cherish with all my heart these moments with my daughter, not just because they are memories of my daughter, but because they are moments of faith the Lord gave us to share through the traditions of our worship.

I hope that you too understand my appreciation for these traditions. Maybe even someday you also might come to have an appreciation for the historic traditions of Lutheran liturgy, if you don’t already have such an appreciation. I want you to appreciate them. I think it would be wise and good for you to appreciate them, because they promote a true and clear understanding of the Gospel for God’s people.

But I will not despise you or ridicule you or treat you as less the Christian for not appreciating historic traditions of Lutheran liturgy. In the end what binds us together as God’s people is not these traditions. What binds us together as God’s people are the Gospel and the sacraments as these have been given by the Lord.

The “piece” of the Lord be with you always,

James Alan Waddell

+ sdg +

WorshipConcord Journal, volume 1, number 7 — September 2009

+++

The following article is a revision of a segment of chapter 5, “The Restoration of Harmony in the Church,” from The Struggle to Reclaim the Liturgy in the Lutheran Church: Adiaphora in Historical, Theological and Practical Perspective (Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 2005) 128-137. It also includes material from A Simplified Guide to Worshiping As Lutherans (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009), and it engages current discussions about how to go about achieving worship harmony in the church.

“The Greatest Possible Public Concord”

The church today is engaged in conflict over its theology and practice of worship. This issue, probably more than any other, impacts the vast majority of God’s people in different ways. While conflict is not new to the church, this particular conflict demands our attention for the sake of restoring harmony among God’s people.

Well-meaning church leaders, insisting that contemporary worship is the direction the church must go in order to survive and grow, are bringing churches to abandon historic liturgical traditions and to practice contemporary forms of worship exclusively. The inadequacy of such a theological position is to be located in its trust of human forms, rather than the Gospel and the sacraments, for the efficacy and survival of the church. To correct this extreme imposition of contemporary worship forms in the churches, another extreme insists that traditional liturgical traditions are necessary for confessing the truth of the Gospel and for maintaining the unity and orthodoxy of the church. While some will not go so far as to insist on historic traditions for the “unity” of the church, they insist that it is the confessional position to require uniformity for the sake of “concord” or “harmony.” Not surprisingly, all of these positions must misread the authoritative sources, reading out of context Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, in order to advance their points of view.

The issues are highly charged with emotion, and the discourse is anything but cordial. How can the church be restored to harmony in such a context? Efforts toward restoring harmony in the church must include an honest and open discussion of hard data from the historic confessional witness, and reading those sources in their contexts, even when the hard data challenges us to reconsider our long-held assumptions about worship. An examination of the Lutheran Confessions on “the greatest possible public concord” hopefully will assist the church toward this end.

To say along with the church’s Confession that the unity of the church does not depend on conformity in humanly instituted rites and ceremonies in liturgy is not to dismiss the confessing evangelical catholic (Lutheran) concern for the public harmony of the church. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession urges the keeping of “ancient customs” for the sake of “the greatest possible public concord” (Apology XV.49-52). This text references “concord” or “harmony” (concordia) to humanly instituted rights and ceremonies in liturgy. Before discussing concord in relation to liturgical traditions, it would be helpful to explore the question: What does concordia entail in the broader context of the Book of Concord?

The second generation of evangelical reform during the latter half of the sixteenth century experienced a great deal of conflict over a number of theological issues. The first editors of the Book of Concord recounted the historical moment of the 1576 meeting in Torgau which ultimately led to the acceptance of the Formula of Concord for the unity and harmony of the church. The Preface reads:

. . . we, the Elector of Saxony, etc., with the counsel and cooperation of some of our religious partners among the electors and princes, called together, for the promotion of harmony among Christian teachers, a limited number of distinguished, trustworthy, experienced, and learned theologians at the Torgau [Castle] in the year 1576. They discussed among themselves in a Christian fashion the disputed articles and the written accord composed with reference thereto. . . .

When they had found that the explanation of the dissensions which had arisen conformed to and agreed with first of all the Word of God and then with the Augsburg Confession as well, the above-mentioned persons to whom it had been presented, freely and with due consideration, accepted, approved, and subscribed to this Book of Concord (with great joy and heartfelt thanks to God Almighty) as the correct, Christian understanding of the Augsburg Confession, and they publicly attested to the same with hearts and hands and voices. For this reason this Christian accord [christliche Vergleichung] is called and also is the unanimous and concordant confession [einmütiges und einhelliaes Bekanntnüs] not only of a few of our theologians but generally of each and every one of our ministers of church and school in our lands and territories. (Book of Concord, Preface 16)

For the second generation of confessing evangelicals, the essence of concord in the church was the mutual recognition of and agreement in the evangelical doctrine of the Augsburg Confession and its fuller expression in the entire Book of Concord. The second generation of the Reformation used concord (Einigkeit; concordes) as an expression for living in unity of doctrine. (Formula of Concord, Epitome XI.22; cf. also Formula of Concord Solid Declaration XI) They also used the term concord as an expression of enduring doctrinal unity in the church (gründlicher, beständiger Einigkeit in der Kirchen; ad solidam, diuturnam et firmam concordiam in ecclesia). (Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Rule and Norm 1, 14)

Concord in the Lutheran Confessions encompasses a number of different issues. In the context of raging theological conflict, the sixteenth-century confessing evangelicals sought Christian concord between opposing parties through a fair hearing of the evangelical position. (Augsburg Confession, Preface 23) The confessing evangelicals requested that the bishops restore concord (concordiam) by permitting the teaching of the Gospel in its purity and relaxing burdensome observances which offended consciences. (Augsburg Confession XXVIII.71 [Latin]; cf. also the context: Augsburg Confession XXVIII)

According to Philip Melanchthon, holding to traditional doctrinal formulas promoted the attainment of concord (concordia). (Apology, Preface 11) Yet the opponents of evangelical doctrine wanted neither truth nor concord (concordiam); they only wanted blood. Here concord is distinct from truth. However, truth is not some intangible abstraction. Truth is closely associated with concord, as concord entails the way in which the opposing parties treated each other. (Apology, Preface 12, 19.) Melanchthon concluded the Preface of the Apology with the prayer that God would restore evangelical churches “to a godly and lasting concord (in concordiam piam et perpetuam).” (Apology, Preface 19) This concord of evangelical churches for which Melanchthon prayed is referenced to a context of churches which were “afflicted and scattered.” Melanchthon appealed to Emperor Charles, “not to assent to the violent counsels of our opponents but to seek other honorable ways of establishing harmony [concordiae; der Einigkeit].” (Apology XXI.44) This harmony is defined in antithesis to what Melanchthon referred to as burdening “godly consciences,” wreaking “cruelty against the innocent,” and suppressing “sound doctrine.” In order to bring about “harmony,” Melanchthon urged the Emperor to the task of defending “the life and welfare of the innocent.”

In the Apology’s Article XII, on Repentance, Melanchthon referred to the consensus of the church, a concept that is closely related to harmony.

Our opponents cry out that they are the church and that they are following the consensus of the church [consensum ecclesiae]. On the contrary, here Peter also cites the consensus of the church in support of our position. “To him,” he says, “all the prophets bear testimony” that the forgiveness of sins is received through his name, etc. Surely the consensus of the prophets [consensus prophetarum] must be regarded as the consensus of the universal church [universalis ecclesiae consensus]. We concede to neither the pope nor the church the power to issue decrees against this consensus of the prophets [contra hunc consensum prophetarum]. (Apology XII.66)

Here Melanchthon refers to consensus in terms of the unified teaching of the prophets on the forgiveness of sins in Christ.

In the Epitome of the Formula of Concord the Rule and Norm reads:

Concerning the division in matters of faith that has occurred in our times, we regard as the unanimous consensus and explanation of our Christian faith and confession [für den einhelligen Consens und Erklärung unsers christlichen Glaubens und Bekenntnus; unanimem consensum et declarationem Christianae nostrae fidei et confessionis], especially against the papacy and its false worship, idolatry, and superstition, and against other sects, as our symbol for this time, the first, unaltered Augsburg Confession, which was delivered to Emperor Charles V at Augsburg in 1530 during the great diet of the empire, along with the Apology of this Confession and the Articles that were presented at Smalcald in 1537 and were signed at that time by the foremost theologians. (Formula of Concord, Epitome, Rule and Norm 4)

The “unanimous consensus” is referenced here to the Augsburg Confession, and all the doctrines held there (along with the Apology and the Smalcald Articles). This certainly echoes the great magno consensu [einträchtiglich] with which the first article of the Augsburg Confession begins. (Augsburg Confession I.1) Unity in the teachings of the faith was understood as the context out of which concord or the church’s harmony must be achieved.

Concord was also used in the Lutheran Confessions as a synonym of the bond of love between a group of individuals who constitute the church. Melanchthon wrote in response to the Roman opponents:

In the Confutation the opponents also cited against us this passage from Colossians [3:14], “Above all, clothe yourself with love, which is the bond of perfection.” From this they reason that love justifies because it makes people perfect. Although we could respond to this statement about perfection in a number of different ways, we shall simply present Paul’s meaning. He is obviously talking about love for our neighbor. There is no reason to think that Paul has attributed either justification or perfection before God to the works of the second table of the law rather than to the first.

Besides, if love is the perfect fulfillment of the law and satisfies the law, then there is no need for Christ as the propitiator. However, Paul teaches that we are acceptable on account of Christ and not on account of the observance of the law, because our observance of the law is imperfect. Thus because he clearly denies perfection to us elsewhere, we must not think that here he is speaking about the personal perfection of individuals. Instead, he is speaking about community in the church [de integritate communi ecclesiae; von Einigkeit der Kirchen]. For he says that love is a bond or unbroken chain in order to show that he is talking about linking and binding together the many members of the church with one another. In all families and communities harmony [concordia] needs to be nurtured by mutual responsibilities, and it is not possible to preserve tranquillity [tranquillitas] unless people overlook and forgive certain mistakes among themselves. In the same way, Paul urges that there be love in the church to preserve harmony [quae retineat concordiam], to bear with (if need be) the crude behavior of the brothers . . . and to overlook certain minor offenses, lest the church disintegrate into various schisms and lest enmities, factions, and heresies arise from such schisms. (Apology IV.231-232)

This is a very timely admonition for the church today. To preserve harmony, love calls the church to exercise restraint, just as it urges the church to be forgiving with its own.

In the Apology’s Articles VII and VIII on the Church, Melanchthon wrote about harmony with regard to liturgical practices, citing the Paschal Controversy of the fourth century. Epiphanius reported that the opinion of the apostles was: “Do not calculate, but celebrate it [Easter] whenever your brethren of the circumcision do; celebrate it with them at the same time, and even though they have erred, do not let this trouble you.” (Apology VII & VIII.42)

. . . there were some in the East named Audians after the originator of the dogma, who on account of this decree of the apostles contended that the Passover must be celebrated with the Jews. In refuting them Epiphanius praises the decree and says that it contains nothing which deviates from the faith or rule of the church, and he blames the Audians for misunderstanding the expression. He interprets it the same way that we do, because the apostles did not consider that it made any difference when Easter was celebrated. However, because certain prominent brothers were converts from Judaism but kept their customs, the apostles wanted the rest to follow their example for the sake of harmony [propter concordiam]. The apostles wisely admonished the reader neither to destroy the liberty of the gospel nor to impose a necessity upon consciences, for they add that one must not be troubled even if there has been an error in the calculations. (Apology VII & VIII.43-44)

In this text Melanchthon described how one group of Christians freely deferred to another group of Christians by following their example in liturgical practice “for the sake of harmony.” To apply this passage to what is happening in the church today, it seems reasonable to draw an analogy between those who were converts to the church “from Judaism but kept their customs” and those today who are converts to the church from some other Christian denomination or from a secularized culture, keeping the adiaphorous customs of their cultural background, as long as they do not contradict the Gospel and the sacraments.

Melanchthon again includes the issue of the church’s harmony in his discussion of human traditions, with explicit reference to adiaphora. In the Apology’s Article XV on Human Traditions in the Church, Melanchthon pointed out that the issue of traditions is “difficult and controversial,” and that experience teaches us “that traditions are real snares for the conscience.” Melanchthon argued for a moderate use of freedom so that the less experienced might not be offended, or in the case of an abuse of liberty actually “become more hostile to the true teaching of the gospel.” (Apology XV.49-52) Then Melanchthon wrote:

Instead, in order to foster harmony [ut propter alendam concordiam], those ancient customs should be observed that can be observed without sin or without proving to be a great burden. In this very assembly we have sufficiently shown that, for the sake of love, we will willingly observe adiaphora with others, even if such things may prove to be somewhat burdensome. (Apology XV.51-52)

Melanchthon then wrote: “We judge that the greatest possible public concord which can be maintained without offending consciences ought to be preferred to all other interests [sed publicam concordiam, quae quidem sine offensione conscientiarum fieri posset, iudicavimus omnibus aliis commodis anteferendam esse].” (Apology XV.52) It is impossible to state the issue more plainly than this.

In his 1561 Iudicium on adiaphora, Martin Chemnitz wrote with reference to the doctrine of adiaphora in relation to the concord of the church:

But let us acknowledge our weaknesses and failures, let us seek forgiveness, and let us give thanks to God, who does not deal with us according to our iniquities, but with unfathomable mercy for the sake of the glory of his name, and by the intercession of our Lord Jesus Christ he corrected our failures and he impeded and crushed the efforts of the adversaries. And let us pray for all who teach and learn by his Holy Spirit in the future, so that also in a tranquil time we may teach and learn in peace those things which are true and useful; and that we would be able to withstand persecution with its violent attacks by that good commandment in constant confession of the truth. To glorify God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is by his grace to preserve purity of doctrine and to pass it on to posterity. In this way concord is brought about by the grace of God, useful to the church and salutary to posterity. (Iudicium, 163-164)

Here Chemnitz urged concord on the basis of a common confession of the truth and the preservation of purity of doctrine in this confession.

To return to the original question, in what terms did the confessing evangelicals refer to concord or harmony in the church? The confessing evangelicals used the term concord with reference to the evangelical effort to protect its congregations from physical harm inflicted by the opponents of evangelical doctrine. However, concord was used primarily with reference to the doctrinal unity of the church. Moreover, when this doctrine is applied to the practice of the church in the church’s liturgy, harmony is urged in the use of adiaphora.

Again, it is noteworthy that in the Book of Concord humanly instituted rites and ceremonies in liturgy are in fact referenced to the concord or harmony of the church. This must never be glossed over solely for the sake of freedom. Neither should the point be pressed too far in the opposite direction in the meticulously detailed legislation of all liturgical matters in the church. Harmony means neither “anything goes” nor legalistic legislation.

Unlike concord in relation to agreement in doctrine which is required for the unity of the church, concord in relation to uniformity in rites and ceremonies can never be required for the unity of the church, since the unity of the church does not depend on such uniformity according to Augsburg Confession VII. For the sake of harmony, a certain level of uniformity may be realized in the church when local congregations voluntarily make us of similar rites and ceremonies in liturgy. According to the confessional judgment of the Lutheran tradition, nothing more may be asked.

What does this mean in terms of the church’s practice? It means the occasional foregoing of the exercise of Christian freedom for the sake of a calm existence, peace, and harmony in the church. It means that, for the sake of peace and harmony in the church, we are given to respect others when they exercise their Christian freedom, as long as this exercise of Christian freedom does not compromise the biblical and confessional marks of the church—the pure Gospel and the sacraments administered rightly. It means that this freedom is not license to do as we please. And it means that the exercise of true Christian freedom should not be attacked on the basis of having falsely made an absolute identification of humanly instituted rites and ceremonies with the pure Gospel and the right administration of the sacraments in an effort to bind consciences to a specific liturgical form.

In relation to humanly instituted rites and ceremonies in liturgy, the confessional position is that there were certain things that could be required for unity, namely, the purity of the Gospel and the sacraments administered in accordance with the divine Word (Augsburg Confession VII). There were certain things that could be given up for the sake of harmony, namely, the freedom of a congregation to go its own way with the confessional authority to order local rites and ceremonies. But ultimately it is “the greatest possible public concord” that is to be preferred to all other interests (Apology XV.52), both in terms of the church’s practice and the church’s language in discussing its practice.

This is not so easy to achieve. As I pointed out at the beginning of this article, some well-meaning leaders are bringing churches to abandon historic liturgical traditions; they do so in part because “mission” is their hermeneutical center for reading all texts of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. In response, some insist that liturgical uniformity is necessary for the unity of the church. And still others read the sources in such a way that leads them to make the claim that liturgical uniformity may be imposed not for the sake of unity, but for the sake of harmony. All of these positions erroneously read only those parts of the Confessions that support their point of view, and ignore those parts of the Confessions (and other writings from the sixteenth century) that speak against their positions.

What follows is a specific example of how a source is misread. The source is quoted at the beginning of an article published just a few years ago in a Lutheran journal. The source is quoted in such a way that the author frames the question with the predetermined answer he wants the source to give him. The article attempts to address the issue of harmony in worship practices by exploring how the sixteenth-century reformers approached this problem. It concludes that synodical polity has the authority to require liturgical uniformity for the sake of harmony among the churches. I omit the name of the article and the name of the author here, in order to remove the kind of rancor over personalities that has devolved nearly to the point of scandal in the church’s conversation about worship. So the intent here is to focus on methodology and not the person.

Notice how the way the source is cited prejudices from the outset the reading of the source to arrive at the desired answer, rather than letting the source speak for itself. I will not provide a detailed critique of the article here; I have written detailed (and I think constructive) criticisms of this author’s methodology elsewhere. I will only present a small part from the beginning of this particular article which, in my opinion, is enough to demonstrate the problem. The article begins by quoting the Augsburg Confession.

. . . 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 . . . . It is proper for the Christian assembly to keep such ordinances for the sake of love and peace, to be obedient to the bishops and parish ministers in such matters, and to observe the regulations in such a way that one does not give offence to another and so that there may be no disorder or unbecoming conduct in the church. (AC 28, 53-55)

Whenever you see an elipsis in a quote (omission of part of the text), you always have to ask what was omitted and why it was omitted. Sometimes an elipsis is perfectly innocuous, a space-saving device. Sometimes an elipsis omits vital information related to the meaning of the text.

Here is the same passage with the omitted parts in underline:

What are we to say, then, 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 it a sin to omit their observance even when this is done without offense. So St. Paul directed in I Cor. 11:5 that women should cover their heads in the assembly. He also directed that in the assembly preachers should not all speak at once, but one after another, in order.

 

It is proper for the Christian assembly to keep such ordinances for the sake of love and peace, to be obedient to the bishops and parish ministers in such matters, and to observe the regulations in such a way that one does not give offence to another and so that there may be no disorder or unbecoming conduct in the church. (Augsburg Confession XXVIII.53-55)

Here, let me add paragraph 56, which continues to add to the line of argument the emphasis that consciences are not to be burdened over the omission of rites and ceremonies.

However, consciences should not be burdened by contending that such things are necessary for salvation or that it is a sin to omit them, even when no offense is given to others, just as no one would say that a woman commits a sin if without offense to others she goes out with uncovered head.

Note that these parts of the text, that are excluded from the quote in the article in question, mention twice (for emphasis) the issue of not binding consciences when Christians exercise their freedom to omit certain ceremonies in liturgy. By leaving these parts of the text out of the quote, this leads the unsuspecting reader to agree with the hidden assumption that has prejudiced the reading of the text from the outset, the hidden assumption being that we should not omit rites and ceremonies of historic liturgical traditions. It also leads the reader (without realizing it) to agree with the desired answer already at the beginning of the article. This is unfortunate, because it is a good article citing many important sources in an attempt to make sense of what the reformers meant when they wrote about the confessional freedom and authority of the local congregation to order its own rites and ceremonies in liturgy, and how this squares with the reformers’ efforts to achieve harmony among the churches by requiring a certain amount of liturgical uniformity in local contexts—in the duchies and the principalities.

Uniformity of liturgical order is a desirable thing. It is good for the church. And it promotes harmony. The reformers spoke of their desire for the church to have a uniform liturgy. They also carefully required liturgical uniformity on local levels, in principalities and duchies. Yet, along with their explicit desire for liturgical uniformity, they were also honest about admitting the reality that complete uniformity was not always possible, and that consciences should not be burdened by the imposition of a uniform liturgy as a matter of necessity. (They actually referred to this as a doctrine of demons; cf. Chemnitz, Iudicium.) They believed that changes could be allowed in local contexts as changing times and circumstances warranted, and that what mattered most and what was absolutely non-negotiable for the church was what they confessed in Augsburg Confession VII: unity in the Gospel and the sacraments. They strove for a certain level of uniformity in the outline of the service, but they also allowed for variety in the execution of the forms. (As a footnote one might find it interesting that the order Martin Chemnitz required among the churches of the Braunschweig Woelfenbuettel Duchy was almost identical to Luther’s German Mass for Wittenberg, which did not contain many of the canticles, versicles, and responses of the Western Rite.)

Is it time for us in Lutheranism, for the sake of loving God’s people (rather than confusing them and making them the object of criticisms that are too harsh when they exercise their Christian freedom), is it time for us to consider the issue of harmony in worship? What would constitute harmony? Will we legislate that churches can no longer use contemporary forms and must only use the hymnal? How do we put that genie back in the bottle? Or will we, for the sake of love, “approve each other’s rites lest schisms and sects should result from this diversity in rites”? (Luther, Latin Mass) And note how Luther’s appeal assumes that this is not an approval of similar rites, but rites that are diverse.

Following the example of our Lutheran predecessors, a reasonable approach to harmony in our worship practices, it seems to me, would be for all pastors and lay people to recognize a basic structure of worship while also allowing for freedom in the execution of the forms. What follows is a basic structure that is faithful to Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, and one that is also connected to the historic traditions of the church. It is not a “minimalist” approach. It is a maximal approach in that it confesses the purity of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments in accordance with God’s Word, and it is faithful to historic Lutheran liturgical traditions.

I offer the following order, as one way to address the issue of worship harmony in Lutheranism, for discussion.

Preparatory Rite

• Trinitarian Invocation
• Confession of Sin & Absolution

Word

• Old Testament
• Epistle
• Gospel
• Sermon
• Nicene Creed
• Tithes & Offerings
• Prayer of the Church

Sacrament

• Lord’s Prayer
• Words of Institution
• Peace
• Distribution
• Blessing

It seems to me, that in today’s context with so much diversity in our worship practices among Lutheran congregations, some measure of uniformity is desirable for the sake of harmony in the church. The question is, what are the boundaries for a harmonious uniformity? Agreeing on the Gospel and the sacraments is necessary for the unity of the church. This, however, is not enough, in today’s context, for the harmony of God’s people. A certain level of agreement in rites and ceremonies is good for the harmony of the church. Where do we draw the lines for a harmonious uniformity?

Peace

James Alan Waddell

 

+ sdg +

The WorshipConcord Journal, volume 1, number 6 — August 2009

+++

The Importance of Integrating the Gospel and the Sacraments in Lutheran Worship

This month’s post follows up on Alan Sommer’s fine article last month: “Meeting the Resurrected Jesus: Rejoicing in the Sacraments.” Alan concluded his article by making a few points regarding the connection of Lutheran sacramental theology to our worship practice. I want to take that a bit further this month with a few comments on the importance of integrating the Word and the Sacraments in the worship service.

One of the distinctives of liturgical worship is that there is a narrative. The liturgical service is not merely a program of disparate elements that happen to occur one after another. (Now we’ll have some singing. Now we’ll have some preaching. Now we’ll pray). There is a flow that is shaped by the biblical narrative, theological truth, and pastoral care.

The Worship Narrative

What is this narrative?

• We come from our daily lives into the presence of the Triune God with praise.
• But in that presence we are aware of our utter unworthiness because of our sin, leading us to confess our sin and our sinfulness.
• God, however, answers our confession with His word of absolution, the verbal Gospel.
• We respond to this forgiveness and grace of our saving God by praising Him.
• Our relationship with God restored, He teaches us so that His Word might shape us more and more into His image. He teaches us through the Word of Scripture itself, and the Word of Scripture explained and applied in the sermon.
• We respond to this Word by confessing our faith in Him, lifting our prayers to Him and offering our lives to Him, represented in our financial offerings.
• Then He invites us in closer, through the veil, into the Holy of Holies, with a foot in heaven itself as we gather around the table. Here we are drawn into Christ’s own narrative, brought into the upper room as the narrative of the Last Supper is recited. And here the Gospel comes to us again, this time the Gospel as bread and wine, body and blood.
• Forgiven, renewed, and strengthened, we are blessed and sent back out into the world to bear His image as His disciples, to take His narrative into the narratives of our lives. 

Delivering the Goods

This narrative liturgical service is not just talking or singing about the “goods,” but is a vehicle for delivering the “goods” to the worshipper. We don’t just hear about God’s forgiveness. The narrative leads us to confess our need for it, and then delivers the forgiveness itself through the Gospel: the verbal Gospel in the absolution and the sacramental Gospel in the Lord’s Supper. These are objective proclamations and gifts, anchoring the forgiveness of our sins in the cross and resurrection week after week.

The weekly rehearsing of this narrative shapes our relationship with our Savior. We are taught that we are unworthy to stand before the Lord in our own righteousness, but that His grace absolves us of all of our sins granting us access. We are taught that, although we might praise the Lord for countless things in our lives, we reserve our greatest praise for the salvation which is ours through the cross and resurrection and given to us in the Gospel. We are taught that, although our Lord is always with us, He has invited us especially to gather in His presence in the timeless Meal of the upper room. And as surely as we eat the bread which is His body and drink the wine which is His blood, so surely have we touched God Himself, or better, God Himself as touched us. The narrative teaches us that God does indeed send us into the world, but we don’t go into that world without having first been absolved, strengthened, and taking His very presence within. In this way the narrative not only delivers the Law and Gospel goods. It serves to shape the very way we think about our life in Christ.

Do we have to worship a certain way? Does Scripture explicitly require it? Of course not. But there is a richness to this narrative structure that is just not present in what we might call “programmatic” worship. It’s not that there is anything inherently wrong with a service that is presented as a series of unconnected events. But there is something inherently right about shaping our worship so that it is an intersection of the salvation narrative and the narrative of our lives. And it is certainly right and proper to make sure that our worship becomes a vehicle for God to deliver the “goods.”

Narrative, Not Style

So perhaps instead of classifying worship as either “formal” or “informal,” or “traditional” or “contemporary,” we should instead talk about distinguishing between “narrative worship” and “programmatic worship.”  

Liturgical narrative worship does not have to be “traditional” as that word is popularly used with regard to worship. The narrative and its key components (see The Struggle to Reclaim the Liturgy in the Lutheran Church, p. 284; or A Simplified Guide to Worshiping As Lutherans, p. 121) can be accompanied by band-led singing and informal ex corde worship leading. The point is not the liturgical trees, but rather the Word and Sacrament forest. The Gospel, delivered through the narrative, will be present regardless of whether the worship leaders are robed, or whether the congregation genuflects or puts its hands in the air.

The danger for contemporary narrative worship is an uncritical imitation of a worship format that is reading from a different worship narrative. Lutheran worship should reflect and flow from Lutheran Theology, which we confess flows from the Scriptures. Our worship flows from what we confess about Christ, His work, and His gifts to the church. We affirm the importance of the means of grace not merely as a Lutheran tribal peculiarity, but because we believe that this reflects Scriptural truth about how God wishes to bless His people.

Much contemporary evangelical and Pentecost worship today is programmatic. You might say that the opening time of singing has its own mini-narrative of coming into the presence of God. In its most crass form, the quality of the worship experience is the barometer of the presence of God and how much the singing time was a “means of grace.” (I have read and heard numerous evangelical leaders decry this view of worship, but it is still very much a part of the evangelical worship experience.)

This is not to say that an extended time of singing is in itself wrong. I have participated in and led such worship times. And I can say that the Lord has blessed me richly on some of these occasions by leading me to reflect on His Word and apply it deeply in my life. Music can serve as a powerful tool for meditating on the Word and the truths derived from it.

But we want to be careful that the singing time remains servant to the Word and Sacrament, and does not overshadow it. For instance this portion of the service can lead into the confession and absolution or even serve to frame it by incorporating songs of confession and songs of forgiveness. (My song “Confession” is my attempt to incorporate the confession and absolution into the opening singing itself.  http://www.truevinemusic.com/confession.htm )

Integrating the Word and Sacrament in worship means planning the worship service with an awareness of the worship narrative. We don’t want to incorporate components and events that will distract from the narrative. Instead we want to choose songs and hymns that complement, support, and draw attention to the narrative.

And this is where there is a need for more contemporary worship songs. There are many contemporary praise songs, and quite a few that point to the cross and the empty tomb, but a meager few that really wrestle with Law and Gospel, that lead to or from the Font, or that plumb the depths of the Eucharist. I would love to see a forum for the commissioning and promotion of quality contemporary worship songs that fill these gaps. (Frankly I find it embarrassing that the Lutheran Church with its strong musical heritage is not leading the charge in the commissioning of such music. This would be a service and blessing not only to our own church body, but also to all of Christendom.)

Week after week the Lord gathers his people. He does so not merely to tell us about the rich treasures He has won for us by His cross and empty tomb. He gathers to deliver these treasures into the brokenness of our lives. By careful incorporation of Word and Sacrament into the Worship Service, as worship leaders we serve our Lord that He might serve His people.

Michael A. Schmid

+ sdg +

WorshipConcord Journal, volume 1, number 5 — July 2009

+++

Meeting the Resurrected Jesus: Rejoicing in the Sacraments

 

I love the stories of the resurrection appearances of Jesus.  When Jesus spoke Mary’s name in John 20:16, her sorrow was turned to joy, and she raced off to tell the disciples that she had seen the Lord. 

In Luke 24:31, when the two disciples on the road to Emmaus had their eyes opened and recognized that Jesus was alive and was with them, they raced the seven miles back to Jerusalem to share the news with the other disciples.

 Thomas was given renewed faith in his encounter with Jesus, and Peter was forgiven and restored.  All these people encountered the risen Lord, and His presence in their lives gave them hope and strength.

 Wouldn’t it be great if the Lord Jesus would call us by name and strengthen us in a very personal way?  Wouldn’t it be so comforting and encouraging if the Lord would share a meal with us, like He did with the two disciples in Emmaus?

 As a matter of fact, Jesus does those very things for us, in a different way.  While we do not see Jesus with our physical eyes yet, He does come to us in very personal and powerful ways.  In Baptism and in the Lord’s Supper, Jesus comes to His people and does marvelous things.

These two sacraments have always held prominent positions in Lutheran theology and life.  Sections on Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are included in the Augsburg Confession, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles, the Small Catechism, the Large Catechism, and the Formula of Concord has a section regarding the Lord’s Supper.  There is a lot of space devoted to talking about these precious means of grace.

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper also hold prominent positions in the way we worship as Lutheran Christians.  The reformers stated that “we do not abolish the Mass but religiously keep and defend it.  In our churches Mass is celebrated every Sunday and on other festivals, when the sacrament is offered to those who wish for it after they have been examined and absolved”  (Apology, XXIV).

Why are these sacraments held in such high regard in Lutheran circles?  It is because, along with the spoken word of the Gospel, in the sacraments God meets us with His grace.  These are grace places, and they should be prominent in our corporate worship.  If we are a grace based Christian movement or denomination or congregation, then these means of grace deserve to be in the spotlight.  We need God’s grace much more than we know.

Let’s do a quick review of basic Lutheran teaching about Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.  Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are defined as sacraments in Lutheran churches.   Because the word “sacrament” is not found in the Bible, church bodies have given the word different definitions over the years.  For Lutherans, a sacrament is defined as:

• A sacred act instituted by Jesus the Christ
• Where God connects His Word of grace to a visible element (bread, wine, or water)
• And which brings forgiveness, grace, and mercy to the one receiving it.

 If we use this definition, then, we discover that there are two sacraments: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.  Jesus instituted both Baptism and the Supper; in other words, he commanded that they be done.

“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19 ^NIV).

“Take and eat; this is my body.”   ²⁷ Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you.   ²⁸ This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mat 26 26-28  ^NIV).

The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,  ²⁴ and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”  ²⁵ In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me”  (1Co 11 23-25  ^NIV).

Each of these sacraments uses visible elements. In Baptism, water is used. In the Lord’s Supper, bread and wine are the earthly elements.

Finally, as we see in the following Bible verses, God’s Word brings the promise of forgiveness and salvation in these two sacraments.  Our Lord uses these earthly elements to give His grace and mercy.

Act 22 16  ^{NIV  16} “And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.”

Act 2 38  ^{NIV  38} Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Mat 26 27-28  ^{NIV  27} Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. ²⁸ This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

In Baptism, Jesus calls us by name. It is a personal, one-on-one encounter with the risen Christ. Just as Mary was given new hope when Jesus called her name outside the empty tomb, we are given forgiveness, hope, and eternal life when Jesus calls us by name in Baptism.

But to borrow the language of an infomercial, there is more, much more.   We are given the name of God when we are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.  Not only do we meet Jesus in a personal way, but we are also adopted into the family of God, his church.

In the Lord’s Supper, we also meet our risen Savior.  He tells us that we receive His body and blood along with the bread and the wine.  Even as Jesus sat with the two disciples in Emmaus, he invites us to join Him in this special meal.

This is why Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are such important experiences in Lutheran worship services.  These sacraments, along with the sermon (which delivers God’s grace in the Gospel), are the high points of the worship service.  Here Jesus, the risen Savior, calls us by name and makes us His own.  Here He feeds us with the food of forgiveness and gives us hope and strength.  They are grace places, places where the risen Christ touches His people and leads them into everlasting life.

To use a Lutheran question, what does this mean for us?  In other words, how does an understanding of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as means of grace affect our worship practice?  Let me leave you with some suggestions.

• Lutheran worship should be focused on grace, because God relates to us through the grace given us in Jesus Christ.  The Gospel should not only predominate in preaching, but also in our worship services.  The Law must speak, yes, but the Gospel is what we must hear clearly.  Therefore…
• Lutheran worship should showcase or highlight Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.  We should not try to “squeeze them in” and hurry through them.  God’s grace is much too important for us to do that.
• Good preaching will lead to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.  It will teach and remind us that God is graciously present in us because of our Baptism.  It will lead us to live in Baptism by confessing our sins and receiving forgiveness.  It will make us hungry to go to the altar and receive the body and blood of the Lord as we receive the bread and the wine, given and shed for us for the forgiveness of our sins.
• The liturgies or forms that we use are not given in the Scriptures, and should be used in ways that help people to grasp what God is doing for them in Baptism, in the Lord’s Supper. 
• When we visit other Lutheran congregations for worship, we can rejoice that we have received the same gift of Baptism and the same Supper, regardless of whether the forms and liturgies around them are familiar to us.
• We also have a responsibility to those who worship with us.  Our forms, liturgies, and music must never get in the way of God’s grace given to us here.  Jesus is present with His gifts in the Gospel and the sacraments.  That’s what really matters.

Alan J. Sommer

+ sdg +

WorshipConcord Journal, volume 1, number 4 — June 2009

+++

SINGING THE GOSPEL

“. . . we preach Christ crucified . . .” – 1 Corinthians 1:23a

Among the many fabulous scenes presented in John’s Revelation, the one I find most compelling comes fairly early in his letter. In chapters 4 and 5, John observes four “living creatures” and twenty-four elders as they sing to God that he is worthy of “glory, and honor, and power, for you created all things . . . .”

But their song is interrupted by the appearance of a scroll with seven seals, followed by the entrance of the only One worthy to open it, a Lamb who looks “as if it had been slain.” And now begins a “new song.” First, the four living creatures and the elders sing: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God . . . .”

Then the angel hosts join in: “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise.” Finally, every creature in heaven and earth joins in this new anthem to God and the crucified Lamb. And so their worship has moved beyond the praise of the great Creator to the joyful proclamation of God’s greatest work, the redemption of mankind through the death of the Son.

We, too, sing the Gospel. Like that bit of heavenly liturgy published in the Apostle’s Revelation, our songs and hymns, our preaching and creeds and offerings have a single focus: Christ crucified. Anything else misses the point.

Although the human heart, sensing the majesty of God’s creation and power, may feel moved to fear and praise the Creator’s glory, for those who know the crucified Lamb, this is an inadequate focus for worship. As described by the writer of Hebrews, our readiness to “draw near to God” and continue “meeting together” in worship is not based on a desire to praise God’s awesomeness. Rather, it is a response to “the blood of Jesus” and motivated by the fact that “our hearts [have been] sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience” (Hebrews 10:19-25).

There’s a reason Lutherans have called it “Divine Service” rather than an “Hour of Praise.” The term comes (not surprisingly) from a German word, Gottesdienst, which can be translated as “God’s service.” By its construction, the term can be understood in two different ways. It could refer to the service that God deserves from us. (Think in terms of a waiter serving the guest of honor at a banquet.) In this sense, the worship “service” is focused on the things we do for God: singing praise, bringing offerings . . . .

But, importantly, “God’s service” can also refer to the service God himself provides. Although it may initially seem disrespectful, think of God as the waiter or banquet host, and the worshipers as those who are being served.

Unfortunately, the English translation “divine service,” isn’t very clear. It is easily misunderstood to imply that the liturgy we are using or things we are doing are somehow especially “divine,” and thus acceptable to God. Far from it! As we gather in worship, the things we do for God or say to God are secondary. First and foremost are the things God, in love, does for us. This truly is divine service!

The Invocation, the first spoken element of traditional liturgies, declares God’s presence in our midst. In that simple act and those simple words (“In the name of God – the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”) the Gospel is proclaimed. The God Who Saves has invited and gathered us, and now he blesses us with his holy Name. God has the first word, a word through which he graciously serves us and our needs.

I like using the metaphor of a tennis match to explain the idea of Gottesdienst, because it visually captures the rhythm of worship. Throughout the traditional worship service, the act of “serving” moves back and forth between God and the worshipers. First, God (astonishingly!) comes to us. The Creator of all things chooses to serve his people with a great gift, placing his Name of blessing upon our gathering. As a tennis ball is then returned over the net, we respond to God’s action in the only way that makes sense, by falling to our knees and confessing our unworthiness.

Speaking through his called and ordained servants, God then serves our greatest need through the assurance of forgiveness. In response, we offer a song of praise and words of prayer. We are then once again the recipients of service through the reading of his Word, the great source of faith and growth. And on it goes, back and forth, in a deliberate and beautiful pattern of giving and responding.

But the tennis match metaphor has a significant weakness. It implies an activity played out by equals. Although our responses – our prayers and praise, confessions and offerings – are a core element of worship, they are only that: responses to the great things God is doing as we gather in his name. I am only a hungry beggar. I do not go to worship because I have something I want to say to God, or because I have to show him how much I love him. I go to worship because I am starving, and God has invited me to a feast. Perhaps surprisingly, in our fallen world, the function of divine worship is not primarily to satisfy God’s righteous desire for praise and honor. Rather, as described in the Lutheran Confessions, “The chief worship of God is to preach the Gospel” (Apology XV.42; see also Apology IV.152-154; IV.310).

Worship is a place and time in which Christ’s forgiveness is offered through readings, preaching, sacraments, song. By the Spirit’s work, it is a place and time in which this saving Gospel is received and believed. And as those things happen – as children of God are born and comforted and strengthened – it is a place and time in which we unworthy guests are invited and enabled to join the angels themselves in great songs of “praise and honor and glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.”

Timothy Frusti

+ sdg +

WorshipConcord Journal, volume 1, number 3 — May 2009

+++

Procrustes attacking a victim

Being Clear about Our Methodology, Part-2

You recall from last month’s post that we began a discussion about our methodology for reading texts. I mentioned that there are two key points we need to keep in mind when we read texts that define our theology of worship.

! What are the authoritative sources that define our Lutheran theology of worship?

! How do we read the sources?

Last month we saw that the answer to the first question is Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. Nothing too complicated really. And while this may seem to be a common sense, straightforward answer, the reality is not so simple.

In theory we may agree on this point, but in practice there are many non-Lutheran sources we draw upon to define our theology of worship. This is true on both sides of the debate. It is also one reason for so many of our difficulties, when we try to read Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions through interpretive lenses that are not historically Lutheran.

In this month’s post, we will discuss the second point, “How do we read the sources?” The principle is relatively simple: a text must be read in its context. This is again one of those points that should be obvious. But in present circumstances, it isn’t.

When I was a kid growing up we had a period of confirmation instruction in our congregation that ran from the fifth through eighth grades. We met every Wednesday after school and called it “Midweek School.” I remember when my classmates and I entered fifth grade we all received our first Bible, a no-frills King James Version, black hard cover with “HOLY BIBLE” embossed in “gold” letters across the front.

I still have it. I remember using it, but I don’t remember understanding much of it. Mostly I remember disassembling and reassembling my collection of ink pens during class, red ones, green ones, blue ones. Yes, I was a nerd . . . with black horn rimmed glasses (only occasionally taped on the corner, never in the middle) and a pen pocket. But I didn’t wear high water pants. I wore striped bell bottom pants and an army khaki shirt. It was 1969 after all. And I was a cool nerd.

In the seventh and eighth grade classes our old pastor took us through Luther’s Small Catechism, sentence by sentence, page by page. Now I’ve never claimed to have a perfect recall of past events, but my memory of Midweek School is that we memorized the Catechism, cover to cover, questions & answers and all. (And I walked to school every day uphill both ways.)

The Catechism is one of the treasures of our faith. Luther once wrote that in the Catechism we have the very least we need to know to be Christians. In this little book we have what the Bible teaches us about the Law, the Gospel, the nature of God, prayer, Holy Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, confession and absolution, the church, the office of the ministry, and how all of this relates to our daily life. The Small Catechism is truly a great treasure.

One of the elements of the Small Catechism is the way verses from Scripture are presented to support the biblical teachings outlined in the Catechism. These are usually quotations of a single verse, or two or three verses, and only rarely are they more than that. This is called “proof-texting.” When you proof-text a passage of Scripture you take it out of its context and quote it as evidence for a particular teaching.

So proof-texting is not in and of itself a bad thing. It can be useful for simple, basic instruction in the teachings of the Bible, as the Catechism presents these.

But like most things, proof-texting has a darker, seamier side. It can be abused. Proof-texting can be used to advance a point of view that a text does not hold. In other words, prooftexting can be used to promote a point of view that is not biblical or that is not historically accurate.

Texts have contexts. And reading texts in their contexts is a basic methodological principle. It’s good methodology. Reading texts in their contexts is essential for having an accurate understanding of what a text is trying to say. This is a method we must be careful to apply when we read historic sources about worship.

We aren’t always careful to do this. Taking small passages out of their contexts to support our prior assumptions about worship is something that happens too frequently in the Lutheran conversation about worship. I see it in published books, articles, blogs, and conference presentations.

While using a volume from a seminary’s library a few years ago, I found to my amazement that a previous reader had underlined sentences that supported a particular point of view on liturgy. That in itself wasn’t so amazing. But when other sentences in the same context did not support this particular point of view, and even argued against it, the underlining stopped!

Now, you might be inclined to dismiss this as just one anecdotal account. But read on. There are numerous instances of this sort of thing in the present-day conversation about worship, on both sides of the issue. By pointing these out it cannot be asserted that I build my case on anecdotal evidence. I only use them as examples of an unsound methodology.

It may seem that I am being critical of only one side. The problem here, however, is that most of what is published today on the topic of liturgy is written by one side of the debate. So by sheer dint of volume, the evidence (and hence the examples here) may seem one-sided. But again, this problem of prooftexting to support preconceived ideas about worship occurs on both ends of the debate.

This is precisely the problem addressed by the second methodological question I am addressing in this month’s article. When we are not careful to read texts in their contexts, this is misleading. It is hermeneutical legerdemain. Sorry. That means slight of hand in the way we read texts. It is a dangerous practice that ultimately contributes to the spiritual harm of God’s flock. We must always be open to the text reshaping our assumptions, rather than forcing hard data into the Procrustean bed of our prior assumptions.

Let me illustrate this for you. Procrustes was a mythical figure who attacked innocent travelers, making them lie down in one of his two beds. If the traveler happened to be too long for the bed, Procrustes would use his axe to cut off the victim’s limbs to fit the bed. If the innocent traveler was too short for the bed, Procrustes would wrack (stretch) his victim’s limbs to make them fit.

We use the myth of Procrustes as a metaphor for criticizing bad methodology. It is a metaphor for beginning a study of a topic with a set of prior assumptions, and then forcing the hard data of the historical sources to fit the construct of our assumptions, instead of allowing the sources to reshape our understanding.

What follows is an example of how proof-texting changes the meaning of a text. Some years ago a Lutheran author quoted Luther’s German Mass in an essay, attempting to demonstrate that Luther required uniformity of worship among all Lutheran churches. The author’s agenda was that he wanted to argue for the correctness of uniformity of worship, and he wanted Luther to say this for him.

I will begin my quote of the Lutheran author in the broader context of Luther’s German Mass, and then I will indicate to you where the author’s quote of the German Mass begins and ends. I do this in order to demonstrate how the author manipulated the text into saying something Luther clearly intended not to say.

This is what Luther wrote in his German Mass:

As far as possible we should observe the same rites and ceremonies, just as all Christians have the same baptism and the same sacrament [of the altar] and no one has received a special one of his own from God. That is not to say that those who already have good orders, or by the grace of God could make better ones, should discard theirs and adopt ours. For I do not propose that all of Germany should uniformly follow our Wittenberg order. Even heretofore the chapters, monasteries, and parishes were not alike in every rite. . . .

Now, the author’s quote of the German Mass begins here, immediately after the last sentence quoted above:

. . . But it would be well if the service in every principality would be held in the same manner and if the order observed in a given city would also be followed by the surrounding towns and villages . . . .

This is where the author’s quote of the German Mass stops. By pulling this little snippet out of its context, the author leaves the reader with the impression that in the German Mass Luther insisted on liturgical uniformity in all of Germany, by referring to “the service in every principality.”

Now let’s look at the rest of the context of Luther’s words immediately following what we have just read. The same (partially-quoted!) sentence continues:

. . . whether those in other principalities hold the same order or add to it ought to be a matter of free choice and not of constraint.

This part of the sentence, which is crucial for understanding Luther’s complete thought, is left out of the quotation.

This is the kind of proof-texting that misrepresents the sources in order to promote a particular assumption. And rather than letting the sources shape our assumptions, it is our assumptions that shape our methodology and our reading of the sources. But this is bad methodology driven by wrong assumptions.

Here is an example of how two excerpts from precisely the same context on worship in Formula of Concord X have been prooftexted to support opposite points of view in the debate. One scholar quoted Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration X.14, which stresses the chief article of the Christian faith, justification.

For in such a case it is no longer a matter of external adiaphora, which in their nature and essence are and remain in and of themselves free, which accordingly are not subject to either a command or a prohibition regarding their use or discontinuance. Instead, here it is above all a matter of the chief article of our Christian faith, as the Apostle testifies, “so that the truth of the gospel might always remain” [Gal. 2:5].

The other scholar quoted Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration X.15, which stresses freedom in church ceremonies.

At the same time, this also concerns the article on Christian freedom. With deep concern the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of the Holy Apostle, has commanded his church to maintain this freedom [Gal. 5:1, 13; 2:4], as we have just heard. For weakening this article and forcing human commands upon the church as necessary—as if their omission were wrong and sinful—already paves the way to idolatry.

Neither of these scholars attempted to quote both paragraphs together. They quoted them in such a way that left the impression that one could be pitted against the other. But these two concepts cannot be pitted against each other. Both the truth and the freedom of the Gospel are essential to our confession when we define our theology of worship. It is not an “either or.” It is a “both and.”

Here is another example. This time I will show you in a positive way how reading a text in its context will yield a result that our preconceived notions don’t always expect. A number of years ago now, as I was researching Article VII of the Augsburg Confession, I was struck by one particular phrase: “sacraments administered rightly.” This is in the Latin version. Here is the full sentence: “The church is the assembly of saints in which the gospel is taught purely and the sacraments are administered rightly.”

The reason this phrase, “sacraments administered rightly,” caught my attention is that I often see it used in the conversation about worship today. The phrase is usually understood to refer to historic traditional forms of liturgy. I have documented elsewhere how the phrase is understood this way in published articles and essays. I also recently heard someone make this connection publicly in a major presentation at a conference in January (2009) at a Lutheran seminary. Another way (wrongly) to understand this phrase in terms of historic liturgical forms is to refer to it as “the liturgy that the Augsburg Confession assumes.” I have seen this way of referring to the phrase in blog discussions.

So there is a very specific way that some in the Lutheran Church understand this phrase, “sacraments administered rightly.” They understand it as referring to “the historic liturgy.” And if the phrase refers to “the historic liturgy,” therefore we have theological and confessional grounds for excluding contemporary worship.

The problem with interpreting the phrase in this way is that the phrase has never been historically or theologically researched. It is only “assumed” to refer to historic liturgical forms.

So I decided to look into it. And I won’t go into the many details of my research on the phrase here. That’s available on the Concordia Seminary website in the Concordia Journal archive (October 2006). Here’s the link. http://www.csl.edu/Img/Publications/cj0ct06.pdf

What I did was this. I examined the writings of the reformers leading up to their composition of Augsburg Confession VII in June of 1530. In other words, I read Augsburg Confession VII in its broader context of similar documents from roughly the same year—the Schwabach Articles from the late summer of 1529, the Marburg Articles from October of 1529, and the Torgau Articles from the spring of 1530.

In all of these writings, when they referred to the administration or use of the sacraments, they only referred to the sacraments as they were instituted in Scripture, and never did they refer to humanly instituted rites and ceremonies in liturgy. The reformers did not use the phrase in Augsburg Confession VII, “sacraments administered rightly,” to refer to “the historic liturgy.” Consequently, the phrase cannot refer to “the liturgy that the Augsburg Confession assumes.”

So reading Augsburg Confession VII in its historic context yields a result that our prior assumptions about it do not expect.

Last month one of our readers shared a link to Luther’s Exhortation to the Livonians. In this document from the year 1525 Luther exhorted the Livonians to unity in liturgical practice. Now one could easily take from this that Luther insisted on liturgical uniformity among Christians in all places. But Luther did not do this.

In his Latin Mass of 1523 Luther made the argument that externals are free. And in his German Mass of 1526 Luther argued that uniformity of liturgy was desirable, but only on the level of the principality. This was also true of Philip Melanchthon and Martin Chemnitz.

So not only do we read a text on the basis of its own internal context. We read a text on the basis of its relationships with other texts. If Luther says something in one document, it is necessary to read what Luther writes in his other documents from the same immediate historical context to gain a fuller understanding of what he means in his individual writings. This makes the task of reading our history not so easy. But it is very rewarding in terms of being clear about what Luther (and his colleagues) actually meant.

We Lutherans are not so good at what historians call contextualization. In order to grow from simplistic, prooftexted readings of history to more complex and more accurate readings of history, we have to cultivate the discipline of reading texts in their contexts. We should read texts in their contexts, and not proof-text passages in order to assert opinions about worship that are not rooted in Scripture or the Lutheran Confessions.

I will always treasure what my old pastor gave us when he taught us the Small Catechism. And while we must always remember that the Small Catechism keeps us grounded in the simplest way, methodologically we must learn to grow beyond that simplicity into a more complex reading of historical texts.

I treasure the Small Catechism. I also treasure the sound methodology of reading texts in their contexts, when it comes to defining our theology of worship.

Peace

James Alan Waddell

+ sdg +

WorshipConcord Journal, volume 1, number 2 — April 2009

+++

Being Clear about Our Methodology, Part-1

 

Methodology is something we apply when we read texts. In order to have a sound methodology for our reading of texts that define our theology of worship, there are two key points we need to keep in mind.

! What are the authoritative sources that define our Lutheran theology of worship?

! How do we read the sources?

I originally wrote this as a single post, but it just seemed like it was too much to digest in one bite. So I divided the methodology question into two parts. This month we will discuss the first question. Next month we will discuss the second question.

The first point I want to make about our methodology when we talk about worship has to do with identifying the authoritative sources that shape our conversation about worshiping as Lutherans. Assumptions and methodology are interrelated. So selection of sources must always begin with the assumption: Lutheran theology for Lutheran worship. Now, you might think this would be a no-brainer. But in today’s context, it really isn’t.

The two most important sources for shaping our conversation about worship are Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. When it comes to worship, the only things the Scriptures prescribe are preaching the Gospel in its truth and purity and administering the sacraments according to the Gospel. Beyond this, virtually nothing else can be said.

The Scriptures do prescribe order in the church’s worship. But this is not a detailed, specific order. It is order as opposed to disorder. In a context where he is giving instructions about worship, the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.” (1 Corinthians 14.33) And, “But all things should be done decently and in order.” (1 Corinthians 14.40)

When Martin Luther reformed the church’s liturgy in 1523, he called if Formula Missae, or the Latin Mass. In 1526 Luther further reformed the church’s liturgy by translating it into German. He called it Deutsche Messe, or the German Mass. In the Latin Mass Luther wrote, “The Scriptures prescribe nothing in these matters, but allow freedom for the Spirit to act according to his own understanding as the respective place, time, and persons may require it.” So beyond the explicit prescription of the pure Gospel and the sacraments, and that worship be done in an orderly way, nothing else is prescribed.

There are several texts in the Lutheran Confessions that give us guidance about our theology of worship. The two most important texts, that is, the ones all the other texts appear to refer back to in one way or another, are Augsburg Confession VII and Formula of Concord X.

Let me quote for you AC VII:

It is also taught among us that one holy Christian church will be and remain forever. This is the assembly of all believers among whom the Gospel is preached in its purity and the holy sacraments are administered according to the Gospel. For it is sufficient for the true unity of the Christian church that the Gospel be preached in conformity with a pure understanding of it and that the sacraments be administered in accordance with the divine Word. It is not necessary for the true unity of the Christian church that the ceremonies, instituted by men, should be observed uniformly in all places. It is as Paul says in Eph. 4:4–5, “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

AC VII defines the church on the basis of the purity of the Gospel and the sacraments administered according to the Gospel. Nothing more, nothing less. And it explicitly excludes humanly instituted rites and ceremonies in liturgy from this definition. So when we gather for worshiping as Lutheran Christians, it is the Gospel and the sacraments that define who we are, not the ceremonial forms we’ve created or the forms of the songs we sing.

Now let me quote FC X. I won’t quote all of it, because it is entirely too long for the space here; the opening statement of Article X reads: “A dispute also occurred among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession over ceremonies or ecclesiastical practices that are neither commanded nor forbidden in God’s Word but that were introduced in the churches for the sake of good order and decorum.”

While there is certainly more to the context of FC X that we should carefully read and consider, the essential definition of church ceremonies in liturgy is that these are things that are neither commanded nor forbidden by God. This is biblical. It is Lutheran. And it is confessional.

These are the only authoritative sources for defining our theology of worship: Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.

If we claim that we can take Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox points of view on liturgy, sanitize them, and give them a “Lutheran spin,” then to be consistent, we must allow others to take Evangelical contemporary forms, sanitize them, and give them a “Lutheran spin.”

The flip-side is just as true. If we adopt a point of view on worship that embraces contemporary forms which do not have their origins in Lutheran theology, then we cannot criticize others for co-opting Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox points of view on worship.

We need to be clear about what precisely are the problems. On the contemporary end the problem is the uncritical adoption of contemporary forms. And I want to underscore the word uncritical. Not all uses of contemporary form are uncritical, and I want to be absolutely clear about that. But when we are uncritical about our use of contemporary form, this creates problems on several levels.

So many contemporary worship songs claim that the worshiper has chosen to worship God. I use here for example the chorus from the song, “Made to Worship,” by Chris Tomlin.

You and I were made to worship

You and I are called to love

You and I are forgiven and free

When you and I embrace surrender

When you and I choose to believe

Then you and I will see who we were meant to be

This is the chorus of the song, which means that it’s repeated between verses, and is intended to highlight what Tomlin thinks should be the central message of the song. In addition to what we might view as an attempt at expressing the Gospel, “You and I are forgiven and free” (although the basis for it isn’t explicit), there is an unbiblical emphasis. “When you and I embrace surrender When you and I choose to believe Then you and I will see who we were meant to be”.

Now we may rationalize that Joshua urged the Israelites to “choose this day whom you will serve.” (Joshua 24.15) But this is not what is meant when Evangelicals compose songs like this.

What they are referring to is the conversion of faith and the necessity of human free choice in conversion. This is a point of view on our relationship with Christ that claims for itself a specific role to play in our conversion. According to the Evangelical point of view, that role is to choose Christ.

However, Christ told his disciples: “You did not choose me, but I chose you.” (John 15.16) The Apostle Paul flatly states that, before we were made alive by the grace of Christ, we were dead in our trespasses and sins. (Ephesians 2.1-10) A corpse cannot resuscitate itself. This is not something that I can simply rationalize away, or simply dismiss as a useless metaphor. The Apostle Paul chose his words carefully; he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to choose these words.

Here the meaning of the third article of the Creed from Luther’s Small Catechism is most helpful: “I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith, even as he calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian church on earth, and keeps it in the one truth faith. . . .”

Another concern I have with many contemporary worship songs is that they contain the all-too-generic references to “God” without any clear reference to Christ or what Christ did for us on the cross for us and for our salvation. This is so because the cross and forgiveness are not at the center of the theology of those who wrote the songs.

Granted, there are a few well-written contemporary songs that are Christ-centered, Gospel-focused songs. Specific examples would be the song by Keith Getty and Stuart Townend, “In Christ Alone,” and the song by Michael Schmid of TrueVine Music, “My Saving God.” We should search carefully for songs like these and gladly use them. But there are not nearly enough of these songs and they are not so easy to find.

Where are the Lutheran poets and musicians? Why are they not making bold contributions to this genre, highlighting the purity of the Gospel and the sacraments of Holy Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as precious gifts from God?

Is it because we have failed to teach young Lutheran artists to appreciate the Gospel and the sacraments as precious gifts from God? Is it because we have failed to nurture their God-given creativity, or that we have failed to urge them to share these gifts in the service of the Gospel in Christ’s church? Or is it simply because they have chosen to appreciate Evangelical forms without recognizing that these forms can also deliver a substance that is not biblical? Or is it that we have been too harsh in our criticisms of contemporary forms, and as a result we have driven contemporary Lutheran artist-musicians to seek other outlets for expressing their God-given talents? The reality is probably some very sad combination of these problems.

Or maybe Lutheran contemporary artist-musicians are afraid to share their gifts in the church, because we’ve hammered the peg so far into the ground that we can no longer grab onto it. Have our criticisms of contemporary forms been too harsh? We must confess that they have. But I refuse to believe that we have crossed a line that we can no longer return from.

We also need to be clear about what precisely are the problems on the other end. When I talk about taking Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox points of view on liturgy, sanitizing them, and giving them a “Lutheran spin,” I am not talking about the liturgy in our hymnals. The liturgy in our hymnals should not be wrongly characterized as “Roman Catholic.” This liturgy is biblical, it is Christian, and it is a great treasure of the church, delivering the forgiveness of sins in the purity of the Gospel. This liturgy should be embraced and promoted.

There are, nevertheless, essentially two problems on this end of the debate. The first problem is the use of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theological language to define and explain our Lutheran theology of worship. But these theological systems are incompatible with the purity of the Gospel and the sacraments administered according to the Gospel as these are defined by Scripture and AC VII.

The other problem on this end of the debate is our model of confession. Some in the church today insist on exclusive use of historic traditional forms of worship, in order to “confess” against “contemporary” worship. It is an extreme reaction that seeks to correct a perceived error by confessing (or promoting) the error’s opposite.

But just like the concern we had with the uncritical adoption of contemporary forms, this point of view must take its approach from non-Lutheran sources. It is a flawed model of confession that is not to be found anywhere in Scripture or the Lutheran Confessions.

Some even go so far as to claim that there is one very specific liturgical order that the Lutheran Confessions “assume.” Or they refer to “the meaning and the intention of the Lutheran Confessions’ comments about worship” with the preconceived conclusion that the Confessions are referring to a specific liturgical form. Here I would simply ask of those who say this, which liturgy is that? Would it be Luther’s Latin Mass of 1523 or Luther’s German Mass of 1526? They are both very different, and they were both in existence already before the Augsburg Confession was presented before Emperor Charles the Fifth in 1530.

It is not the Lutheran model of confession to correct an error by confessing the error’s opposite. When I adopt this model of confession, all that happens is I end up stumbling along in the ditch on the other side. Or I poke my finger in the eye of the person who appreciates a worship form that is different from the one I appreciate.

When we do this, the only thing that really happens is that we end up blinding ourselves to the grace God has given in the Gospel and the sacraments, and the joy of sins forgiven in these precious divine gifts. The irony is that these are the very things our Lord gives to be the non-negotiables of our worship, and yet we focus more on worship forms.

Instead of loving one another as brothers and sisters in Christ, which according to the Lord is for those outside the church one of the visible marks of being Christian (John 13.34-35), we bite and devour each other over things that are neither commanded nor forbidden by God. (Galatians 5.13-26)

It is not our model of confession to correct an error by confessing the error’s opposite. The Lutheran model of confession is to confess straight ahead the truth and freedom of the Gospel, and let the chips fall where they may. “. . . we should witness an unequivocal confession and suffer in consequence what God sends us and what he lets the enemies inflict on us.” (Formula of Concord, Epitome X.6) This is our Lutheran model of confession: straightforward, unequivocal confession.

I would suggest that when we select our sources for shaping our theology of worship, we must begin with the assumption: Lutheran theology for Lutheran worship. Which means this: we look to Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions only as our authoritative sources for our theology of worship. (Formula of Concord, Epitome, Rule and Norm 1–8; Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Rule and Norm 1–20) These are the only sources that have the authority to define our theology of worship.

We should also read texts in their contexts, and not proof-text passages in order to assert opinions about worship that are not rooted in Scripture or the Lutheran Confessions. We will talk about this next month.

Peace

James Alan Waddell

+ sdg +

WorshipConcord Journal, volume 1, number 1 — March 2009

+++ 

Open to the Persuasion of Others

 

This is the first article for the WorshipConcord Journal on the WorshipConcord blog site. Having a conversation implies that we are open to the persuasion of others. Otherwise it is just a futile exercise in talking past each other and senseless frustration—”I’m right. You’re wrong. End of discussion.”

The unfortunate reality is that many blogs adopt a methodology that seeks to defeat anyone who disagrees with the specific point of view that is promoted on the blog. This is not one of those blogs. This is not a pretense for defeating disagreement over differing views on worship. I think you would agree with me that there has been just about enough of that in the church already, and that worship is too important an issue to continue to treat each other this way.

By exploring the various pages of the WorshipConcord blog site you should be able to gain a clear understanding of what WorshipConcord is. In a very small nutshell WorshipConcord is a conversation about our relationships with each other, and our shared theological values with regard to worship. It is an effort to promote harmony in the church by fostering respect among those who appreciate different worship forms. It is an effort to equip each other to make worship choices that are good for the church.

Once a month we will post a brief article on worship. Each article will be open to comments from our readers. If you are moved by something posted here, share your insights, your questions, your successes, your failures, your concerns, your hopes, your disappointments, your joys.

With that, here is the first article. . . .

JAW

 

Open to the Persuasion of Others 

 

When I was a small child growing up in west central Missouri, my family lived in a beautiful old farm house on the wooded bluffs above the Missouri River. I remember once, when my parents were remodeling the attic into a liveable room, we tore out a wall where we found that someone had carefully placed an old map between the studs. It was a map of the Louisiana Purchase.

I have many good memories like this from our home in that place—memories of my first puppy, a coal black cocker spaniel I named Smokey, the rope swing in the big old willow tree next to the barn, fishing, hunting, finding morel mushrooms in the springtime, chasing blue racer snakes around the woodpile, riding Dynamite (our Shetland pony), riding Christmas (our donkey), large black tree ants, snapping turtles, and paper wasps. In my mind I still go back there from time to time.

One of my experiences there especially stays with me. There was a huge lilac bush next to the driveway that ran from the road past the old house. The lilac bush was on the other side of the driveway opposite the front porch. I must have been about four or five years old; I can’t remember exactly. One day a rather large wasps’ nest built in the middle of this bush caught my eye. At such a young age I had not yet experienced what these buzzing creatures were capable of. So to satisfy my curiosity for more information, I tried to get a better look at the nest by moving it around with a long stick. Of course the stick wasn’t long enough (and my legs weren’t fast enough!). A single wasp flew out of the nest, landed on my forearm, and delivered a very clear message.

I gained wisdom from that experience. It wasn’t the wasp’s fault that I had a throbbing forearm. It was my approach. I eventually learned how to engage these creatures in a way that didn’t provoke a painful response. It put me on the path of a life-long process of learning openness to respect things as they are, rather than insisting that they first adjust themselves to fit my perspective before I engage with them. I learned to be cautious and to some degree fair-minded about sharing this little space in the wooded bluffs above the Missouri River with creatures that naturally belonged there.

To be fair-minded is one of the qualifications for the office of the ministry. The Greek word is epieikes (1 Timothy 3.3). It’s a word that refers to gentleness and the willingness to yield in a context of disagreement. It connotes an attitude of openness to the persuasion of others. We typically adopt a point of view that does not back down when we stand up for what we think is right, and we justify our unyielding approach by claiming for ourselves a “righteous anger.” First Timothy 3.3 suggests another way.

Openness to the persuasion of others is a characteristic that is needed in all quarters of the worship discussion today, on all sides of every issue. I can certainly imagine you reading this and wondering to yourself whether it is even possible to realign a conversation about worship that has morphed into staunch disagreements and hard feelings.

I don’t expect that we will all agree on every point, or that we must all be on the same page before we begin (or even as we continue) the discussion. This is my expectation, however—that we will treat each other with respect, and that we will craft our words (before posting them) with a view toward engaging (rather than defeating) the person who might not agree with our point of view on worship.

We should not be afraid to address the difficult issues we face in the church in direct and candid ways. Beating around the bush won’t solve our problems. A candid approach brings clarity to a discussion that has become muddled with “liturgy-speak” and slogans on both sides of the debate. In other words, we have grown accustomed to (we are stuck in the rut of) using language about worship that is unfruitful and even divisive to the church. In our conversation about worship we need to stop using language that is unnecessarily divisive.

We need to be candid with each other. That does not mean, however, that we must set aside civility to achieve this. It is our gain when we heed the Holy Spirit’s urging us to a civil discourse by being epieikes. We must be able to have a civil conversation with the person with whom we disagree on worship by being open to persuasion, as long as that persuasion is based on hard biblical and historical data. This is one of the qualifications for leadership in the church.

I also expect that we will not use language that is unnecessarily divisive. Here I am specifically thinking of two movements in Christianity that have been embraced by different sides of the worship discussion—the Liturgical Theology Movement and the Church Growth Movement. Both of these points of view have made invaluable contributions to our understanding of the church, her worship, and her mission. It is not the basic desires of these points of view that I find most problematic. It is their excesses that I take issue with.

For example, one of the fundamental desires of the Liturgical Theology Movement is to promote the use of historic liturgical forms in the church. This is a good thing. We should praise and support Liturgical Theology when it does this. The Church Growth Movement is constantly looking for fresh ways to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It emphasizes the importance of engaging the lost with the good news of forgiveness and salvation. Is this not what Christ has given us to do?

On the other hand, the excesses of these movements have everyone’s teeth on edge. One of the fundamental premises of Liturgical Theology is the lex orandi lex credendi principle. The problem is that this phrase is consistently used in a way that is inappropriately divisive. It is used to make the exclusive claim that there can be only one “authentic” way for Christians to worship. My expectation for the conversation that takes place here at the WorshipConcord Journal is that this will not happen. It is confusing to lay people and pastors alike. If we stick to the language of Scripture, then we will have a common basis for having a conversation about worship that rises above emotion and personal opinion.

Normally I translate phrases in other languages, to help the reader understand exactly what I mean. I have chosen not to translate lex orandi lex credendi here because of its ambiguity in many quarters of the worship debate; it has a number of different meanings for those who promote this principle. If I say it means one thing, there will always be someone who will say it means something else. The discussion then rapidly becomes an endless semantic chasing of one’s own tail. A quick search on the internet will confirm how difficult it is to pin down precisely what the phrase means.

If anyone is interested in pursuing this thread of the discussion, I would be happy to respond; I am open to persuasion that is based on hard biblical and historical data. Beyond this, however, application of the lex orandi lex credendi principle has a long (and consistent) track record of not respecting those who appreciate other worship forms. There is much wisdom in the familiar saying of Albert Einstein: “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” The lex orandi lex credendi principle has become part of the problem. It is an approach that seeks to defeat, rather than engage, differing points of view on worship. It does not promote discussion, and it needs to be set aside for a clearer, unambiguous approach to the questions we all have about worship.

On the other hand, the application of Church Growth principles suffers from its own excesses. The uncritical adoption of contemporary forms has the unfortunate reputation (whether real or only perceived) of following the misguided principle, “Anything goes.” This point of view also has a long (and consistent) track record of not respecting those who appreciate historic liturgical forms.

When we promote (and even require) the exclusive use of contemporary forms of worship, is this not disrespectful of those (young and old alike) whose faith is nurtured by the Gospel as it is expressed in these forms? How can we, with a clear conscience, look Grandma Schmidt in the eye and tell her that she must either leave behind the hymns and canticles and worship forms she has grown up with and lived by for decades, or leave the congregation of relationships that have seen her through the joys and the struggles of life, the birth of her children, the loss of a job, illness, and the death of loved ones? These are questions we must face together with honesty and clarity in the ways we speak to each other. This is an approach to worship that is no less problematic than the lex orandi lex credendi principle.

The “Anything Goes” approach to worship is one of the tangible excesses of the Church Growth Movement. In some instances it has led to recognizable compromises of the biblical teaching of the Gospel and the biblical teaching of the sacraments (Holy Baptism and the Lord’s Supper) in the worship songs we sing. This, too, needs to be carefully reconsidered.

And lest we are too quick to point the finger away from ourselves, we must all acknowledge some culpability. Either we have adopted one of the excesses or we have turned a blind eye to the problem (because we are “too busy” doing the Lord’s work in our own respective congregations) ignoring the problem for so long that it now festers like a chronic sore. This course of action will not make it go away. It will only make it worse. And just as we submit our physical bodies to regular physical examinations (whether willingly or reluctantly), so we also must apply ourselves to the task of solving this problem in the church. We can do this by God’s mercy and grace.

The goal of WorshipConcord is that this will be a positive resource for pastors and lay people to have a Christ-centered, Gospel-oriented, constructive conversation that will not fall off in the ditch on either side. It is an effort to provide encouragement and support for artists, musicians, pastors, and lay people to compose worship songs in contemporary forms that are good for the church and faithful to the biblical teaching of the Gospel and the sacraments.

On a blog discussion like this one, who isn’t capable of darting out of the comfort zone in reaction to something that was said (or written), to sting the perceived threat? Each one of us has the offensive Old Adam within us. The question is, can we move past this? I have one word for you—epieikes.

Peace and joy in the risen Savior!

James Alan Waddell

 

+ sdg +