WorshipConcord Journal, volume 2, number 7 — July 2010

+++

The Confessional Authority to Order the Church’s Worship

Let me preface this article with a clear and explicit thesis:

To say that the local congregation has the confessional authority and freedom to order its own rites and ceremonies in liturgy is not to say that the local congregation has license to do whatever it pleases.

There are solid and salutary efforts on the part of the LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Relations and the LCMS Commission on Worship to steer the conversation about worship in a direction that is good for the church. The efforts so far appear to have been well received and hopefully will continue. It does no one any good to pretend that the conversation for the last thirty years has been easy, or even God-pleasing. It has been anything but. A positive approach to having this conversation is long overdue. So I applaud the CTCR and the COW for their efforts.

The above thesis has appeared in numerous forms and in various media related to the WorshipConcord project (books, articles, presentations, etc.). The most recent statement of the thesis was almost four months ago in the March issue of the WorshipConcord Journal. Since the conversation about worship in Lutheranism is so sensitive in some quarters, the thesis bears repeating in explicit and unambiguous terms.

With that as preface, let me turn to the Lutheran Confessions so that the hard data may speak for itself. I have dealt with three specific issues regarding our understanding of Formula of Concord X elsewhere:

! the meaning of Gemeine as local congregation;

! the phrase, nach derselben Gelegenheit, which refers to the local congregation’s authority to order its own rites and ceremonies “according to its own circumstances”;

! and the meaning of the Latin phrase, unamquamqe ecclesiam, which refers to each “individual” congregation.

I discussed these already in the March 2010 issue of the WorshipConcord Journal. Consequently, I will not repeat that part of the discussion here. Instead I will further the conversation with reference to two additional important issues. One has to do with the way we should translate a Latin word in FC X. The other has to do with the practice of the sixteenth-century reformers as a “key” for understanding FC X.

First the matter of translation. You don’t have to know Latin (hopefully) to understand this, as I will try to explain it in some detail. This requires a clear statement of the problem. The problem is this: there are some today who are making the claim that the German word, Gemein, at FC Ep X.4 does not mean the local congregation. (This has been documented elsewhere, so here I will only focus on the argument. For detailed documentation see The Struggle to Reclaim the Liturgy in the Lutheran Church, 50 n. 92. For the simplified, popularized form of the claim I am critiquing, see the explanatory introduction to FC Ep X.4 in Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions. A Reader’s Edition of the Book of Concord, 514.)

Let me provide you with the text of FC Ep X.4 (1580), and then four published translations. The German reads:

Wir glauben, lehren und bekennen, dass die Gemein Gottes jdes Orts und jde Zeit nach derselben Gelegenheit Macht habe, solche Ceremonien zu ändern, wie es der Gemeinen Gottes am nützlichsten und erbaulichsten sein mag.

The Latin reads:

Credimus, docemus et confitemur ecclesiae Dei ubivis terrarum et quocunque tempore licere pro re nata ceremonias tales mutare iuxta eam rationem, quae ecclesiae Dei utilissima et ad aedificationem eiusdem maxime accommodata iudicatur.

The first translation is from the Henkel edition (1854):

We believe, teach, and confess, that the church of God, in all places and at all times, has power to alter such ceremonies according to circumstances, as it may be most useful and edifying to the church of God.

The second translation is from Friedrich Bente’s Concordia Triglotta edition (1921):

We believe, teach, and confess that the congregation of God of every place and every time has the power, according to its circumstances, to change such ceremonies in such manner as may be most useful and edifying to the congregation of God.

The third translation is from the Tappert edition (1959):

We believe, teach, and confess that the community of God* in every locality and every age has authority to change such ceremonies according to circumstances, as it may be most profitable and edifying to the community of God.

The fourth translation is from the Kolb-Wengert edition (2000):

We believe, teach, and confess that the community of God in every place and at every time has the authority to alter such ceremonies according to its own situation, as may be most useful and edifying for the community of God.

It should be noted up front that each of the English translations, from the 1854 Henkel edition to the 2000 Kolb-Wengert edition, translates the German Gemein in the singular, as they clearly should have. The word in the text is singular. It is not plural. It should also be noted that the Tappert edition, on page 493, includes a footnote (in the place marked by an asterisk above). The footnote in the Tappert edition has: “The Latin reads ‘churches of God.’” I do not know whether the footnote was supplied by the translator, Arthur Carl Piepkorn, or the general editor, Theodore Tappert. This footnote is problematic for reasons that will be discussed below.

The claim being made by some today is that Gemein at FC Ep X.4 does not refer to the local congregation, but rather to a larger association of congregations. Since the German word is used in its singular form, this claim must be argued on the basis of other evidence. The “other evidence” that is adduced to argue that Gemein means more than the local congregation is in the Latin text that was published alongside the German text in the 1580 Book of Concord (both of which appear above).

So the reason it is necessary to focus on the Latin is because of the assertion by some that the Latin text gives us more insight into the “intent” of the authors of FC X, and that the Latin supports the interpretation of Gemein as a larger association of congregations—because of the use of the word ecclesiae.

The claim is that ecclesiae is a plural Nominative form of the singular ecclesia. And because ecclesiae is a plural form of the noun, therefore Gemein must also refer to a larger association of congregations, rather than to the authority of the local congregation. This is how the argument essentially runs. (The translation in the Reader’s Edition, 514-515, even inserts in brackets “[Latin: the churches of God]”; this insertion appears in a number of places in this edition, but there is no evidence for it in the 1580 Latin text; and it is a misreading of the Latin grammar and syntax.)

There are two reasons for pointing out that this claim is mistaken. These two reasons are Latin grammar and Latin syntax.

First, Latin grammar. Latin is an inflected language, like German or Spanish. Verbs are conjugated with person and number (i.e., first, second, or third person; singular or plural). Nouns are either masculine, feminine, or neuter. Nouns are given identifiable endings to indicate whether they are singular or plural. And Latin nouns also have what we call “case”—Nominative, Accusative, Genitive, Dative, and Ablative.

Grammatically, a Nominative noun functions as the subject of a sentence. For example, in the sentence, “The boy hit the ball,” the word “boy” is the subject of the sentence. So in Latin the case would be Nominative. The word “ball” is the direct object of the main verb “hit.” So in Latin the word “ball” would be in the Accusative case.

Let’s ratchet this up a notch. “The boy hit the ball to the pitcher.” In this sentence, the phrase, “to the pitcher” is an indirect object phrase. In Latin this would be in the Dative case. In Latin, if something is done “to” or given “to” someone, this is indicated by the Dative case.

Now, the feminine Nominative plural noun and the feminine Dative singular noun in Latin look exactly the same. So the word ecclesiae, as a feminine Nominative plural noun, means “churches.” But it is also true that the word ecclesiae can be a feminine Dative singular noun, meaning “church.” The Nominative plural and the Dative singular in this instance look precisely the same. So we have an ambiguity. Strictly on the basis of Latin grammar we cannot solve the problem. To solve the problem we need to look at Latin syntax, how words are put together in sentences.

Now we are dealing with an indirect statement. “We believe, teach, and confess that . . . .” In Latin, an indirect statement is expressed by a noun in the Accusative case with a verb in the infinitive. Let me quote the Latin sentence again from FC Ep X.4:

Credimus, docemus et confitemur ecclesiae Dei . . . licere . . . ceremonias tales mutare iuxta eam rationem . . . .

The infinitive of the indirect statement is licere, but where is the noun in the Accusative case? The Latin verb, licere, while it functions syntactically as an indirect statement following “We believe, teach, and confess,” takes an indirect object expressed in the Dative case. In this instance, the noun in the Dative case is ecclesiae, which means it is a singular, and not a plural, noun. As a dative singular noun, it would be translated as all the above editions translated it.

We believe, teach, and confess that to the church of God . . . it is permitted . . . to change such ceremonies for its own reason . . . .

This is not an indirect statement where an infinitive is used with a noun as its subject. If it were an indirect statement with a noun as its subject, the noun would be in the Accusative case, not the Nominative case. Then the word would have been ecclesias in the plural Accusative, not ecclesiae in the plural Nominative. What we have in FC Ep X.4 is an impersonal verb, a frequently used classical construction: “it is permitted” to or for someone, the “someone” being in the Dative case.

Not only on the basis of grammar and syntax should we understand ecclesiae to be a singular noun (the grammatical ambiguity being alleviated by the syntax), but on the basis of the possessive pronoun eam. This pronoun, eam, has ecclesiae as its antecedent, which means, according to Latin grammar, that they must agree in number. The pronoun, eam, is singular, which further indicates that ecclesiae must be Dative singular, and not Nominative plural.

And it is not an issue of maybe being able to read it both ways. There is no ambiguity. It cannot be read “either way,” and then we can insist on the one we choose on the basis of “other evidence.” The Latin grammar and syntax, taken together, is unambiguous. The word, ecclesiae, is a Dative singular. The fact that Theodore Tappert and Arthur Carl Piepkorn missed this is puzzling. The footnote in the Tappert edition, which identifies ecclesiae as plural, is unexplainable. I would not accuse Piepkorn or Tappert of not knowing their Latin. Maybe it was simply a hastily prepared note. The footnote in Tappert notwithstanding, ecclesiae does not refer to “churches of God.” Latin grammar and syntax will not allow it.

In FC Ep X.4, ecclesiae is Dative singular, reflecting the singular use of Gemein in the German text. It does not support the claim that Gemein in the German version refers to more than the local congregation. In other words, the claim is based on a misreading of the Latin grammar and syntax of FC Ep X.4.

The second issue I will address is the way some have interpreted the practice of the sixteenth-century reformers as a “key” for understanding Formula of Concord X. There are some who think that what we do today must be modeled on what they did in the sixteenth century because, as the argument goes, what they did reveals the theological meaning of FC X. When Martin Chemnitz was the superintendent of the Braunschweig-Wölfenbüttel Duchy, Duke Julius gave him the authority to order the group of congregations under his jurisdiction to conform to the liturgical rites and ceremonies he had prepared. Some today are saying that this imposition of liturgical uniformity in the sixteenth century in the Duchy of Braunschweig-Wölfenbüttel is a necessary key to understand the meaning of FC X, and that this practice should be an example for us to follow today.

There are several problems with this opinion, but I will address what appear to be the two most important ones. The first problem is that Chemnitz did not have the authority to impose liturgical uniformity among all Lutheran congregations throughout the entire German nation in the sixteenth century. Chemnitz only had authority to do this for a group of congregations in one specific location. It should be pointed out in connection to this that historians estimate there were between 350 and 390 principalities and duchies in Germany alone during this period, and that between 1523 and 1555 there were some 135 different church orders.

The second problem this raises has to do with whether we should take this single example of Chemnitz’s authority as superintendent of Braunschweig-Wölfenbüttel as a model for us to follow in today’s context. Is the authority that Duke Julius gave to Martin Chemnitz to require liturgical uniformity among the congregations in Braunschweig-Wölfenbüttel in the sixteenth century an example that we should follow on the scale of the entire Synod today? Is it possible to argue this point, given the reluctance demonstrated on the part of both Luther and Chemnitz to require liturgical uniformity on the scale of the entire German nation?

What Chemnitz did is not a key that unlocks the meaning of FC X for us today. What Chemnitz did actually is for us an example of choices that were made to address a specific historical context. And it should also be noted in bold that the order Chemnitz required of the congregations of the Braunschweig-Wölfenbüttel Duchy was almost identical to Luther’s German Mass. If there is any kind of “key” that should be ascribed to his actions, it is not just the monotone response that rigidly imitates imposition of uniformity on a local scale and then requires the application of this to the entire Synod! The “key” we should ascribe to the actions of the reformers is the multi-faceted response that applies all the considerations that went into the choices they made as these are reflected in the theology of the entire Book of Concord:

! the requirement of specific orders among small groups of churches in local contexts;

! the rejection of the imposition of liturgical uniformity on a broad scale;

! the confessional authority and freedom of the local congregation to order its own rites and ceremonies nach derselben Gelegenheit (“according to its own circumstances”);

! sensitivity to historic continuity with past traditions of the church;

! sensitivity to changing times and circumstances in local contexts;

! the ability to hold in paradoxical tension both the necessity of order and the freedom of the Gospel with reference to liturgical practice.

If the sixteenth-century sources provide us with any key at all for understanding FC X, that key can only be forged by a comprehensive reading of the sources and not simply by isolating a single aspect of their practice. And it remains an open question whether it is appropriate for us today to apply on a Synodical scale a principle that they were willing only to apply in local contexts.

It seems to me that the efforts that have been initiated by the CTCR and the COW are good and salutary for the church. They are efforts that have taken into consideration all of the concerns outlined above, and thereby have demonstrated a more comprehensive understanding of what the confessional authority and freedom of the local congregation actually means.

As I prefaced this article with the clear statement of the confessional position on the local congregation’s authority and freedom, let me repeat the thesis:

To say that the local congregation has the confessional authority and freedom to order its own rites and ceremonies in liturgy is not to say that the local congregation has license to do whatever it pleases.

This is to say that the local congregation does indeed have freedom, but freedom that is guided and informed by our Lutheran theology—without rancor, without straw men, just the truth.

Peace

James Alan Waddell

+ sdg +

Advertisement