+++
The Biblical and Confessional Definition of the Church: A Brief Liturgical Ecclesiology
This month’s issue of the WorshipConcord Journal is in a very small way a response to a point Kent Burreson made at the beginning of last month’s article. Dr. Burreson began his article with these words: “As a result of having just recently attended the Model Theological Conference on worship . . . I have become even more aware that debates about worship in the church are ultimately debates about the church itself and its life. Or at least they ought to be!”
So here we will explore the biblical and confessional definition of the church. I want to explore this with you because I agree with Dr. Burreson, that the liturgy question is so closely connected to the question of the church.
So it is necessary that we ask what it is precisely that defines the church. How do we recognize the presence of the church? Do we recognize the church as a building with a steeple and a cross on top? Do we recognize the presence of the church by the way we worship?
There are three points I want to discuss in order to arrive at the biblical and confessional definition of the church. First we need to examine the sources to see what is and what is not of the essence of the church. Then I want to explore the question, Who has the confessional authority and freedom to order the church’s rites and ceremonies?
As we define the church on the basis of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, and clarify precisely what is of the essence of the church, I want to ask the following questions. What is of the essence of the church? Is liturgy of the essence of the church? Some say it is. Some say it isn’t. How do we know whether it is or isn’t?
Is the church defined liturgically? Some say it is. Some say it isn’t. How do we know whether it is or isn’t? Is the church defined liturgically? If it is, what does that mean for our theology and practice of liturgy? Does it mean complete liturgical conformity in all Lutheran congregations? And does that mean no freedom in liturgical practice? Some in the Missouri Synod have said this. Is the church defined liturgically? If it is not, what does that mean for our theology and practice of liturgy? Does it mean, ‘Adiaphora, therefore freedom’? Does it mean anything goes? With no consideration for our life together in the church catholic?
How do we define the church? We are not Schleiermachians, defining the church on the basis of our feelings and emotions, ‘We-all-believe-in-Jesus-so-can’t-we-all-just-get-along,’ kind of definition of the church. Neither are we Calvinists, taking a low view of the sacraments, or holding that some are predestined to heaven while others are predestined to hell. So, how do we define the church? Or better, how do Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions define the church? We do not look to tradition or personal opinion to define the church. The Bible uses a variety of metaphors to describe the church—the church is the body of Christ, the family of God, the household of faith. Scripture defines the church as . . .
“. . . God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3.15). In his Examination of the Council of Trent Martin Chemnitz, when he discussed the place of traditions in the church, helps us to understand that the church is the pillar of the truth, but not in the sense that the church is the source of all truth. According to Chemnitz the church is the pillar of the truth in the sense that the church is the repository of the apostolic Scriptures and is faithful to transmit these apostolic Scriptures from generation to generation.
The Apostle Paul wrote in Ephesians 2: “. . . you are . . . members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone” (Ephesians 2.20). And in 1 Corinthians 12: “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body — whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free . . . you are the body of Christ” (1 Corinthians 12.13, 27). “The body of Christ,” “the pillar and foundation of the truth,” “God’s household.” These are all prominent metaphors in the New Testament for describing Christ’s church.
How do the Lutheran Confessions define the church? Again, I want to reiterate that the reason we need to have this discussion about how Scripture and the Confessions define the church, is because there are some who are claiming that liturgy is of the essence of the church, and that the church is defined liturgically. But is this actually so?
The Augsburg Confession defines the church in Article 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 [ satis est ] 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 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).
How does Augsburg Confession VII define the church? I hope you noticed that this confession is explicit about excluding humanly instituted rites and ceremonies in liturgy from its definition of the church. So, how does Article VII define the church? It gives three and only three marks for recognizing the presence of the church. These are the three biblical and confessional marks of the church: Holy Gospel, Holy Baptism, Holy Communion. Let’s take each of these in turn.
Holy Gospel. Article VII actually refers to the purity of the Gospel as one of the three marks of the church. Christ crucified for the forgiveness of our sin. Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15.3-4). This is the purity of the Gospel: salvation by grace alone through faith alone for Christ’s sake. In the Acts of the Apostles Peter preached: “There is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” And to the Corinthians Paul wrote, “We proclaim a crucified Messiah.”
Salvation is neither earned nor deserved. It is not something that we can attain to. It is not something we can acquire by making a decision for Christ. It is not something we deserve because we are naturally born children of God.
Salvation is pure and simple gift of God. Our Father in heaven gives us his salvation because he loves us. Period. He doesn’t give us his salvation because we are special, or because we love him, or because there is something in us that compels him to save us. Our Father in heaven gives us his salvation because of his love for us, and for no other reason. This is why he gave his Son to die on the cross for us. It is his unconditional gift. This is the purity of the Gospel.
“For it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves; it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2.8-9).
The highest way of worshiping Christ is to seek forgiveness of sins from him. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession gives the example of the repentant woman who washed Jesus’ feet with her tears, and wiped them dry with her hair. Melanchthon wrote in Article IV of the Apology:
The woman came, believing that she should seek the forgiveness of sins from Christ. This is the highest way of worshiping Christ. Nothing greater could she ascribe to him. By looking for the forgiveness of sins from him, she truly acknowledged him as the Messiah. Truly to believe means to think of Christ in this way, and in this way to worship and take hold of him (Apology IV.154).
The purity of the Gospel is the first identifying mark of the church. According to Article VII of the Augsburg Confession, there are two, and only two, others.
In addition to the pure Gospel the only other two marks of the church are the sacraments administered in accordance with the Word of God: Holy Baptism and Holy Communion. These are what tell us that the church exists in any given place. Where these are missing, there is no church.
Holy Baptism is simple water combined with the promise of God’s Word. It is the gift of faith. It is not a good work we do. Baptism is God’s work of pure grace on the depraved sinner. The clearest text from the Bible for demonstrating God’s action in Baptism is Titus chapter 3, where the Apostle wrote:
But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life” (Titus 3.4-7).
Holy Communion is the third identifying mark of the church. It is the true body and blood of Christ given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins. “Take and eat; this is my body. . . . Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26.26-28).
These are the identifying marks of the church. There are no others. This is what we believe, teach, and confess. Holy Gospel. Holy Baptism. Holy Communion.
Luther wrote in his 1530 Commentary on Psalm 117: “Wherever one finds the Gospel, Baptism, and the Sacrament, there is His church, and in that place there are certainly living saints.”
And Melanchthon wrote in the Apology: “. . . the church . . . has its external marks, so that it can be recognized, namely, the pure teaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments in harmony with the gospel of Christ” (Ap VII & VIII.5). What renders the church externally recognizable are the Gospel and the sacraments, not humanly instituted rites and ceremonies in liturgy, a point which is repeatedly and consistently stressed throughout the Lutheran Confessions.
In Augsburg Confession Article VII we confess together with the whole church: “. . . 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. . .” (AC VII.2).
Hermann Sasse wrote in very clear and unmistakable terms, that the true marks of the church are the Gospel and the sacraments. Sasse wrote the following in a 1961 letter to Lutheran pastors titled, ‘Article VII of the Augsburg Confession in the Present Crisis of Lutheranism,’ published in English translation in We Confess the Church: “. . . the Gospel and the sacraments as the notae ecclesiae (‘the marks of the church’) [are] the only marks by which we can in faith recognize the presence of the church. . . .” Sasse was consistent on this point. While Sasse extolled the great blessings of historic liturgical traditions in the church, he was careful to distinguish the Gospel and the sacraments on the one hand from humanly instituted rites and ceremonies in liturgy on the other hand. Sasse distinguished between the two, because he honestly confessed with Article VII that the unity of the church did not depend on “ceremonies, instituted by men . . . [being] observed uniformly in all places.” For Sasse what renders the church externally recognizable are the Gospel and the sacraments.
Sasse again in ‘Article VII of the Augsburg Confession in the Present Crisis of Lutheranism’:
The true unity of the church, of which Article VII speaks, is both an article of faith and a reality in the world. It is the unity which binds together all those, wherever they may be in the world from the rising to the setting of the sun, who truly believe, who have one Christ, one Holy Spirit, one Gospel, one Baptism, and one Sacrament of the Altar, whether they have or do not have the same ceremonies or traditions. They have one Christ and one Holy Spirit because they have one Gospel, one Baptism, and one Sacrament of the Altar.
Sasse identified the Gospel and the sacraments as the only marks of the church, and in addition to writing against the lex orandi lex credendi principle, Sasse consistently maintained that liturgy was not of the essence of the church.
Here I will share with you several quotes from Luther and Sasse, regarding those things which are not marks of the church. But I want to begin by returning again to Augsburg Confession VII, just as a reminder, so that we are absolutely clear about what we confess. “. . . it is not necessary [ nicht not ] for the true unity of the Christian church that ceremonies, instituted by men, should be observed uniformly in all places. . .” (AC VII.2).
To demonstrate the consistency in Sasse’s thought, let me quote from Here We Stand, a book written by Sasse and published in 1934.
The unity of the historic church is not achieved through conformity in rites and ceremonies, nor through identical organization and life patterns nor even through uniformity in theological thought-forms and opinions. Such unity is only achieved when, in the joyful assurance of our faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, we are one in our understanding of what His saving Gospel is, and one in our understanding of what He gives us in His sacraments. ‘For the true unity of the church, it is enough,’ the Augsburg Confession states. It is, indeed, enough. But it is also necessary.
Liturgy is not of the essence of the church. Consequently we cannot say that the church is defined liturgically. While Sasse was a champion of historic liturgical forms, he was not a slave to the liturgy. On the contrary, Sasse confessed genuine Gospel freedom in the church’s use of liturgy. However, Sasse was careful not to turn this freedom into the license it has become today. Sasse’s words serve as a poignant reminder to us, on the one hand not to turn uniformity of liturgy into a requirement for unity in the church, and on the other hand not to diminish the necessity of the right teaching of the Gospel and the sacraments for the true unity of the church.
As Sasse also wrote in “Article VII of the Augsburg Confession in the Present Crisis of Lutheranism”: “the great satis est, it is sufficient . . . involves a necesse est, it is necessary” . . . to be “one in our understanding of what His saving Gospel is, and one in our understanding of what He gives us in His sacraments.”
Luther clearly articulated the biblical definition of the church in the face of Roman Catholic opposition, who claimed that the confessing evangelicals from Wittenberg were not the church. In his 1541 essay, ‘Against Hanswurst,’ Luther wrote:
The church is a high, deep, hidden thing, which one may neither perceive nor see, but must grasp only by faith, through baptism, sacrament, and word. Human doctrine, ceremonies, tonsures, long robes, miters, and all the pomp of popery only lead far away from it into hell—still less are they signs of the church. Naked children, men, women, farmers, citizens who possess no tonsures, miters, or priestly vestments, also belong to the church.
There is a flip-side to this. We cannot say that none of these things may be used in the church. They may. They become problematic when we require their use, or when we insist that they not be used. Luther addressed both of these problems already in his 1525 essay, ‘Against the Heavenly Prophets’:
The Pope destroys freedom in commanding outright that the sacrament is to be elevated, and would have it a statute and a law. He who refrains from keeping his law sins. The factious spirit destroys freedom in forbidding outright that the sacrament be elevated, and would have it a prohibition, a statute, and a law. He who does not act in accordance with this law sins. Here Christ is driven away by both parties. . . . One errs on the left side, the other on the right, and neither remains on the path of true freedom.
The application of Luther’s insights 500 years ago to today’s context in the Missouri Synod presses hard against our collective conscience, and demands repentant reconsideration of the path we have been walking on.
Who has the confessional authority to make changes in the church’s liturgy? Is it the pastor? Is it the Board of Elders? The worship committee? The voters’ assembly? Or is it the Synod in convention? The Commission on Worship? The faculty of our seminaries? Here I will examine briefly the question whether it is the local congregation or the larger church body that has the confessional authority and freedom to order liturgical rites and ceremonies in the church.
In his classic work, The Structure of Lutheranism, Werner Elert discussed how the Formula of Concord combated the idea that by bringing about uniformity in liturgy the two opposing parties in the Reformation could be brought into theological agreement. Elert wrote:
. . . the principle expressed by the Formula of Concord [is] ‘that the community of God in every place and at every time [that is, in every local congregation] has the right, authority, and power to change, reduce, or increase’ external customs (X, 9) . . . .
This is from The Structure of Lutheranism, page 333. The word the Formula of Concord uses, which is translated “community of God” and which Elert identified as the local congregation, is Gemeine. Let’s look at Solid Declaration Article X, paragraph 9:
Therefore, we believe, teach, and confess that the community of God [ Die Gemeine Gottes ] in every time and place has the right, power, and authority to change, reduce, or expand such practices according to circumstances [ nach derselben Gelegenheit ] in an orderly and appropriate manner, without frivolity or offense, as seems most useful, beneficial, and best for good order, Christian discipline, evangelical decorum, and the building up of the church.
To keep this brief, I want to make two points about this passage. The first point is that Die Gemeine Gottes, which is translated “the community of God,” refers to the local congregation. This is clearly demonstrated both by parallel passages and by synonyms of Gemeine in the Lutheran Confessions (like Versamblung in the Large Catechism). This particular passage in Formula of Concord X demonstrates that the local congregation has the confessional authority and freedom to order its own humanly instituted rites and ceremonies in liturgy.
The other point I want to make about this passage is with regard to the phrase, nach derselben Gelegenheit. Nach derselben Gelegenheit means “according to its own circumstances.” In addition to the correct understanding of Gemeine as local congregation at Article X paragraph 9, nach derselben Gelegenheit further emphasizes the confessional authority of the local congregation to order its own rites and ceremonies in liturgy, according to its own circumstances in the local context. This is our confession. This is what we subscribe as pastors and teachers of the church.
I want to share with you one more passage from the Confessions to demonstrate this point. In Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration Article X paragraph 25 we have the following.
From this explanation everyone can understand what a Christian community [ was einer christlichen Gemein; Latin: quid unamquamque ecclesiam ] and every individual Christian, particularly pastors, may do or omit in regard to indifferent things without injury to their consciences, especially in a time when confession is necessary, so that they do not arouse God’s wrath, do not violate love, do not strengthen the enemies of God’s Word, and do not offend the weak in faith.
Both the German, was einer christlichen Gemein, and the Latin, quid unamquamque ecclesiam, highlight our confession that it is the local congregation which has the confessional authority and freedom, not autonomy, but confessional authority and genuine Gospel freedom to order its own humanly instituted rites and ceremonies in liturgy, according to its own circumstances, for the building up of the church.
In a discussion of the relationship between sacraments and ceremonies in his Examination of the Council of Trent, Martin Chemnitz wrote this:
Nor should it be thought that such ceremonies belong to the integrity and genuineness of the sacraments, much less that they are necessary for this, but they are to be considered as indifferent rites, which, if they cease to be useful for edification . . . , must either be corrected or changed or, after the example of the brazen serpent, be abrogated and wholly taken away. Those rites also which are retained should remain what in fact they are—indifferent ceremonies, in order that they may not become snares of consciences but be freely observed without any idea that they are necessary.
Chemnitz then wrote that “barring offense [these things] can be omitted or be changed or abrogated by the direction and consent of the church” and that “churches [should not] be condemned on account of differences in rites of this kind or if, in omitting or changing them, they use their liberty according to the . . . rule of Paul.” The rule of Paul Chemnitz refers to has to do with the edification of the church in matters of worship. In Romans 14 Paul urged the strong not to judge the weak in matters of conscience. And in 1 Corinthians 14 Paul gave the Corinthians explicit directives about worship and instructs that “everything should be done decently and in an orderly way.”
In 1561 Chemnitz wrote a Latin document, the short title of which is Iudicium. Iudicium means “Judgment,” and in this document are Chemnitz’s best theological “judgments” on a number of controversial matters of his day. One of these controversies was over the church’s theology of adiaphora, or “things that are neither commanded nor forbidden by God, as the Confessions define it. Regarding adiaphora Chemnitz wrote this in his Iudicium:
. . . when a godly consensus in purity of doctrine is retained, when faith is kept inviolate, and when Christian truth resides in those rites which are according to their nature matters of adiaphora, there can be diversity as long as this does not cause scandal, for the sake of the edification of each church.
Now, having said all that, there is a flip-side to our confession that the local congregation has the authority and freedom to order its own rites and ceremonies in liturgy. The flip-side being, that there is a (small-c) catholic context, that we must not ignore.
Arthur Carl Piepkorn once wrote that: “[The Confessions] stand in a continuous chain of Catholic witness. The Reformation and post-Reformation periods possess per se no superior authority. We are Catholic Christians first. Western Catholics second. Lutherans third.” Hermann Sasse agreed with Piepkorn on this point. In other words, the Lutheran church does not exist in a vacuum. We are not an a-historical church. We have a history. To ignore that history, or to act as if it did not exist, is to make ourselves to be the standard of theology and practice in the church, and it is to open ourselves to the very real risk of repeating the theological errors of the past, and jeopardizing the salvation of God’s people in the process. This is the kind of hybris that chafes beneath the unifying principle of accountability. But accountability is a direct corollary of catholicity. We are accountable to each other. We do not hold to anything goes. Neither do we legislate uniformity.
Luther, Melanchthon and Chemnitz strove for liturgical uniformity among all the churches. But they only sought this uniformity insofar as it was possible. Because they understood the identity of the church to be located in the purity of the Gospel and the sacraments administered in accordance with the divine Word, they were careful not to require liturgical uniformity or to impose it legalistically on a broad scale. They honestly recognized the confessional authority and freedom of the local congregation to order its own rites and ceremonies in liturgy in a broader confessing evangelical catholic context.
Peace
James Alan Waddell
+ sdg +
Pingback: WorshipConcord Journal « WorshipConcord
Thank you, James, for the repeated emphasis of what is central to worship, gospel as defined by Scripture and the sacraments, and what is peripheral. The question, it seems to me, Is the peripheral transparent for the central? Does the peripheral obscure the central or does it let it come through loudly and clearly? It is therefore important, so it seems to me, that the peripheral be normed and tested by the central. Whatever communicates clearly word and sacrament is adopted and retained; whatever obscure the these, is discarded. Thanks again and blessings. Jakob Heckert
Thanks for the comment, Jakob. I think the repeated emphasis is necessary, because the broader discussion in Lutheranism seems to accept the biblically and confessionally indefensible notion that liturgy is one of the identifying marks of the church.
And I think you are quite right when you talk about the transparency of “peripherals” as you call them. Do these “peripherals” give us a clear vision of God’s grace in the Gospel and the sacraments? That’s a key question. JAW
James, you argued in this post that “Gemeine” refers to a local congregation. I find that position appealing, but I do wonder if it tells the whole story. If I remember correctly, Chemnitz set up church orders for the churches in Braunschweig (Brunswick), and the church orders stipulated the form of worship for the congregations.
If so, then we have an interesting little quandry (and case study!). Either “Gemeine” was understood in terms of the group of congregations under common ecclesiastical-political governance in a particular locale (“Ort”), or we have an example of congregations submitting to a set worship order despite their freedom in the Gospel. Thoughts?
Hi David. An insightful comment, as I have come to expect it from you! There is no question that Gemeine refers to the local congregation. No amount of linguistic legerdemain (and that does go on in this discussion) will allow us to wiggle free of it. It is there, and it is very much a part of our confession of humanly instituted rites and ceremonies in the church (adiaphora).
So, having said that, it remains for us to then put it into practice. That’s the rub. It isn’t just a matter of the local congregation doing whatever it wants, because Article X won’t allow that either.
You mention what Chemnitz did as superintendent of the Braunschweig-Woelfenbuettel duchy. The church orders Chemnitz prepared for the BW duchy were accompanied by a corpus doctrinae, a clearly articulated theological basis for doing the orders Chemnitz prepared. In this corpus doctrinae Chemintz required full observance of all the church orders (Sunday mass, funerals, weddings, baptisms, etc.) without deviation on the part of all congregations of the duchy. He required this. And the congregations willingly submitted. (to be continued)
(continued from previous comment) There are two issues that need to be addressed here. The first issue has to do with the extent of Chemnitz’s authority to require these orders without deviation on the part of the congregations who willingly submitted. As you point out, David, this was a local requirement, and was not a requirement on the scale of all Christendom, or even the entire German nation. This is consistent with Luther’s view of liturgical uniformity as he expressed this in his Latin Mass and his German Mass.
What does it mean that this was “a local requirement”? The practice in the sixteenth century apparently was that the local duchies and principalities, each of which had a cluster of congregations in its purview, larger churches in the urban centers and smaller churches in the rural areas, sought to maintain order in their respective realms by requiring liturgical uniformity in their local contexts.
This segues nicely into the second point that needs to be addressed in relation to this question. The second point has to do with the socio-political environment in the sixteenth century. We are talking about the Holy Roman Empire and divine right monarchy. There was one emperor, and literally thousands of princes ruling under the authority of the one emperor. At the time of the Reformation this was Charles V. We’re talking about a socio-political construct, a ruling system, that defined the identity of masses of people and shaped the way they thought about the world. Luther’s doctrine of the two kingdoms was like a brilliant light in this context. But the doctrine of the two kingdoms allowed for the participation of the state in the affairs of the church. Church superintendents were appointed by princes. Princes demanded order for the sake of peace in their respective local realms. This local effort to ensure order took the form of both political protections (military forces) and religious practices (uniform liturgies among the local constellation of churches).
How do we apply this kind of scenario to today’s context in the twenty-first century? Western divine-right monarchy disappeared with the political revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries. What took its place? Democracy, or at least (at first) an expanded oligarchy (rule by white landowners). Now it is more like a full-fledged democracy. This is a completely different socio-political frame of reference.
We have nothing like the hundreds of local duchies and principalities of sixteenth-century Germany at the time of the Reformation. Nothing like Chemnitz’s Braunschweig-Woelfenbuettel duchy. As I have argued before, there may be an analogy along the lines of larger circuits, or two or three smaller circuits combined (in LCMS polity terms). So if we follow the example of Chemnitz and the B-W duchy, this is what we have.
I’m open to suggestions, but we have to take into consideration that Luther, Melanchthon, Chemnitz, et al. were not willing to reguire liturgical uniformity on the scale of the entire German nation; analogy: the entire Missouri Synod. We also have to take into consideration that one of the reasons our reformer predecessors were unwilling to require liturgical uniformity on such a scale, was because they were sensitive to the unknown variable that changing times and circumstances would bring, and which they were humble enough to concede that they were unable to anticipate.
James, thanks for the response. You’ve zeroed in on geography: a duchy or two in analogy to circuits in the LCMS, the entire German nation in analogy to the entire LCMS. Just to play the devil’s advocate, I do think there is another way to understand this. One might argue that ecclesiastical-political governance (not geography) is the relevant feature. Congregations in Braunschweig stood under governance of the city council; those in the duchy stood under governance of the duke; hence each had separate church orders. If that is the case, then, in fact, our common ‘governance’ in the LCMS argues for uniformity among all LCMS congregations. Which, incidentally, might be why the earliest constitutions of the LCMS strongly urged such uniformity! (Again, I’m playing devil’s advocate.)
Yes, and a welcome devil’s advocate you are! I guess it boils down to whether uniformity of liturgy is to be imposed, as some are bold to argue in the LCMS on the basis of a misreading of our history and our Confessions, or if it is to be agreed upon by consensus, as you allude to and as Kent Burreson promoted in his article in February.
The consensus approach is the Gospel approach. The imposition approach, I’m afraid, is subject to the arrogance of the law, even the opinio legis (or the inbred inclinations of the Old Adam) as our theological predecessor’s called it, which includes the sinful desire to control the lives of others for the sake of some imaginary purity or “perfect” church. The church militant will remain so until she is perfected in glory, and not before, like a fine wine. : )
So it seems to me, again, that it all boils down to our approach to consensus, and how we engage in this process.
James,
You wrote: “What renders the church externally recognizable are the Gospel and the sacraments, not humanly instituted rites and ceremonies in liturgy . . .”
I think that part of what we in the Church struggle with is a reality that both of the following questions can be answered “yes”:
1) Is liturgy humanly instituted rites and ceremonies?
2) Is liturgy the Gospel and the sacraments?
It seems to me that the fear of adapting liturgy is that the Gospel and the sacraments will lose purity. And the fear of *not* adapting liturgy is that its form(s) will interfere with communicating the Gospel or simply become an outward act.
And it’s probably fear that is really at the heart of most of our so-called worship wars.
Tim
Yes, you’re right, Tim. Fear is at the heart of all human sin, so it shouldn’t be a surprise that it drives a major part of the (non)discussion on worship. You are quite right about these two questions. That we answer “yes” to both reflects one of the key paradoxes of being Lutheran. The issue becomes, how do we hold these two questions together without confusing them? It’s when we attempt to resolve the paradox that we fall off in the ditch on either side. If we try to resolve the paradox by imposing liturgical uniformity from above, then we fall off in the ditch on the side of legalism. If we try to resolve the paradox by adopting anything-goes in the local congregation, then we fall off in the ditch on the side of license.
I’m going to say something that is wholly consistent with our Lutheran identity, but at the same time is wholly unsatisfactory to our Old Adam (the controlling fear monger). We do not have to resolve the tension between these two questions. Unity and identity are defined by #2: “Is liturgy the Gospel and the sacraments?” Yes. Harmony between brothers and sisters in Christ (but not unity and identity) is defined by #1: “Is liturgy humanly instituted rites and ceremonies?” Yes.
This brings us back to the Law-Gospel problem. What process do we use to achieve unity/identity and what process do we use to achieve harmony?
Unity/identity is achieved by the agreement on the Gospel and the sacraments that is forged by the working of the Holy Spirit. Only the Holy Spirit working through the Word can convince someone of the purity of the Gospel and the biblical teaching of the sacraments (AC VII). This is the conversion of the heart that is forged by the Holy Spirit as response to the voice of the Gospel. The Law side of this is when someone claims to have a Lutheran identity, but proclaims a wrong understanding of the Gospel and the sacraments. The uncritical use of contemporary worship forms is only one way this happens. I was a member of two different Lutheran congregations years ago (not at the same time of course!) where in the preaching of the pastors of these two congregations the cross only appeared once or twice in the course of an entire year. It had nothing to do with contemporary worship forms, but it had everything to do with their misunderstanding of the Gospel. The unity/identity of the church is achieved by agreement in the Gospel and the sacraments, an agreement that is forged in human hearts by the Holy Spirit through the hearing of the Word.
How do we achieve harmony? This too is a Law-Gospel problem. As I have already intimated, if we attempt to achieve harmony by imposing uniformity of liturgy from above, then we have failed to understand the difference between the two questions (which are based on the distinction between what is given by God and what is given by the church). This is the way of the Old Adam (the stubborn, controlling fear monger); it is the way of the Law. If, on the other hand, we seek to achieve harmony through a process of consensus, a process that understands that the answer to the two questions is “yes,” but at the same time understands that the paradox must remain, then we are getting closer to doing it in the way of the Gospel.
I want to thank you for your blog. It is a sane voice in the often insane worship wars. Also, I appreciate the artwork you display for the seasons. I would have certainly used it if I had known about it when I was creating a worship overheads where I was last a member.
You are certainly right when you say that clearing up the question of the church is where we must begin. Much of what you say I say AMEN to, and have tried to articulate things like it for the last few years where I was. That said, I have a few minor nitpicks and a question.
Nitpick #1. Luther and our confessions do speak of marks other the “three and only three”. As Sasse points out, we Lutherans do not start with a theory of “sacraments” and then force however many “sacraments” we want into that theory. Instead we simply celebrate the ways through which the Holy Spirit ignites faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and only later speak of what is common in them. While the proclaimed Word, Baptism, and Communion are always mentioned, both Catechisms, the Augsburg Confession, and the Smalcald Articles speak of Individual Confession in very similar fashion. In addition, Luther wrote of seven marks in “Concerning the Councils and the Church” (Holy Word, Baptism, Communion, Keys, Ministers, Prayer/Worship, and Cross).
I say this is only a nitpick because for Luther, it is the Word alone that does things. An incarnated, sacramental word, yes, but “water does not do these things”. The Word is the only holy object we have (LC 3rd Commandment, paragraph 91) in the sense that it is the Gospel Word only that can make us holy. So, when the Augsburg Confession speaks of Justification by Faith, it “explains” it by talking about the Holy Spirit coming through the Ministry of preaching and teaching, or the Apology which speaks extensively of the Promise of Chirst which creates faith. There can be multiple marks which grow out of that proclaimation by which we, guided by the Holy Spirit may joyfully recognize as the Church.
Nitpick #2. You contrasted the view of divine right of kings of the 16th century with the political theory of today. While there is certainly a contrast between now and then, it would not be accurate to really view the political situation of the reformation as just a monarchy. Feudalism had fractured Europe and while the trend was certainly going towards a stronger personal monarchy at the time, 16th Century Saxony was not the France of Louis XIV or the England of the Stuarts. This was, I understand, the basis for the legal protest which the Evangelical Princes made which lead to the label of “Protestant”. I am not at all an expert in this, I just know there is more there than you mentioned.
And finally my question. You identify “Gemeine” with the “local congregation”. I would certainly agree that the Christian Congregation is the body that is called, gathered, enlightened, and sanctified by the Holy Spirit and so is the Christian Holy People. But is it limited to this? Wouldn’t a Pastor going to a shut in to celebrate communion be the Holy Spirit creating church as well? What about a military chaplin celebrating communion using a Jeep as the communion Table? Does the “Churchness” of these gatherings need to be derived from any particular “normal” congregation? I would say no – these are the Christian Holy People as well. What about college campuses or even seminary campuses, District offices, etc.? As you said, we are not talking about Schleirmacher’s Pietist church that defines itself, but rather the community which needed to wait for power from on high to be Church. (Luke 24:49) Isn’t a Lutheran ecclesiology one that frees us from Congregationalism as well as Papalism so that we can recognize and celebrate that Church wherever this power from on high breaks out, even under it’s opposite, which seems to be the way the Holy Spirit normally works (2 Cor 4 et al)?
And finally, I would strongly recommend Luther’s preface to the Small Catechism, as well as the Invocavit Sermons to all participants in any of our “Worship Wars”. They, like your discussion of Formula of Concord X, might let us listen to each other. They certainly have been helpful for this “Catholic” leaning Lutheran who has never been in that “Catholic” of a Lutheran congregation. We can only witness to the truth. The Word must do it.
Pingback: WorshipConcord Journal, volume 2, number 7 — July 2010 « WorshipConcord Journal