+++
This month’s issue of the WorshipConcord Journal contains my response to Dr. Charles Arand’s paper, “All Adiaphora Are Not Created Equally,” delivered at the Model Theological Conference on Worship last January. At the end of this paper there are four points for furthering the conversation. I am curious to know what our readers think. – the senior editor
“No Matter How Differently We May Value Adiaphora, the Silence of God’s Word Cannot Be Changed: A Response to Charles Arand”
I find most of what Dr. Arand has said to be very helpful, but for some reason my mind’s eye is now focused on an elderly Albert Einstein learning to ride a bicycle with training wheels. As usual Dr. Arand’s presentation exhibits the thoroughness that has always been characteristic of his work. Dr. Arand’s method of historical contextualization is helpful to the discussion, especially in a time when prooftexting only those elements of the historical record that support a particular point has almost become the norm. In this sense Dr. Arand’s presentation is refreshingly honest.
Dr. Arand began his paper by making the claim that the issues that divided us forty years ago were more clearly doctrinal, and that today they are more about practice. I agree with Dr. Arand to a point. However, the reason we cannot agree on what is wrong with certain worship practices is the very fact that we do not have agreement on our doctrine of adiaphora. This is both a theological and a practical problem.
I do agree with Dr. Arand that “anything goes” is not the Lutheran position on adiaphora. I also agree that we need to be clear about what the boundaries are. Dr. Arand is correct to point out that a misunderstanding of our theology of adiaphora results in two very different problems, the “anything goes” point of view, and a status confessionis point of view that sees heresy behind every bush. I wholeheartedly agree. On the one hand, “anything goes” is indefensible. On the other hand, it is not our Lutheran model of confession to correct an error by confessing the error’s opposite. When we do this, we only end up creating another error and we find ourselves stumbling along in the ditch on the other side. Martin Chemnitz was explicit about this not being our model of confession.
Dr. Arand defines adiaphora as “humanly devised practices developed and approved by the church as an empirical Christian community.” This is true, but it must be clear what is meant by “the church” or “an empirical Christian community” in this discussion. The church is the local congregation, or Gemeine according to the Lutheran Confessions (Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration X.9), and the church is a broader fellowship of local congregations who are bound together by a common confession. This is an issue that must be included in the conversation, because there is not agreement among us on this point. While Dr. Arand asks the question, How do we decide which adiaphora? we must not ignore the question, Who decides?
“Ultimately the church orders itself so as to best free the Gospel that gathers and sustains the church as an assembly of believers coram deo.” Does this refer to the local congregation or a larger fellowship made up of multiple local congregations, like Synod? I am assuming this statement refers to the local congregation, because the Synod is not “an assembly of believers coram deo.” The Synod is an association of congregations who have ordered their life together around the principle of mutual agreement coram mundo. Since adiaphora are things that are neither commanded nor forbidden by God, the church (in the broad sense) has the freedom to order its life coram mundo; in other words, for the sake of harmony, the church is free to order its life with rules and guidelines (Dr. Arand’s words) that are “mutually agreed upon.” But since we are now operating in the realm of the principle of “mutually agreed upon,” we must not exclude from our deliberations the issue of changing times and circumstances.1 The issue of cultural change is an honest concern when we are talking about the use of adiaphora in liturgy. This is not something that should be callously dismissed in the name of the church’s tradition. Neither should this concern be held to the exclusion of concerns for historic continuity. If we govern our life together on the principle of “mutual agreement” with reference to adiaphora, then we run the risk of dividing the body of Christ over things that are neither commanded nor forbidden by God. I do not profess to have an answer here. I am only raising this as a concern. When the Gospel and the sacraments are not at stake, and it must be honestly acknowledged that in many cases of liturgical difference they are not, then is it appropriate, is it pleasing to God, that his body be divided over things that he has neither commanded nor forbidden?
One of Dr. Arand’s primary propositions is this: “All adiaphora are not created equal.” But the Reformers and the Lutheran Confessions did not use this language. They did not make this argument. Instead, the Reformers used language that distinguished the things that are given by God (the Gospel and the sacraments) and the things that are given by the church (humanly instituted ceremonies). This distinction runs all the way through the Confessions from the Augustana (Article VII) to the Formula of Concord (Article X).
The question is not, some adiaphora are better at being adiaphora than others. The question as it is framed in the Lutheran Confessions is whether something even is an adiaphoron. If it is an adiaphoron, then the silence of God’s Word cannot be changed. The issue then becomes the use or the non-use of the thing.
Dr. Arand’s proposition that “All adiaphora are not created equal” actually does help us to focus on one of the primary issues: Who has the confessional authority to make this determination? And here Dr. Arand has attempted to address this problem by pointing out that the Lutheran Confessions occasionally appeal to tertiary authorities, like certain church fathers.
As attractive as Dr. Arand’s appeal to tertiary authorities is to me, the difficulty lies in the simple fact that tertiary authorities are not a part of our formal principle for defining our theology of adiaphora. Tertiary authorities can help us better understand the context, and we need to use tertiary authorities to clarify intent and meaning. But tertiary authorities also express the personal opinions of individuals that were not included in the Book of Concord, and they were not considered binding in a normative catholic sense (Formula of Concord, Rule and Norm). For example, the point of view held by Matthias Flacius, that an adiaphoron ceases to be an adiaphoron in a case of confession, was not included in the Formula of Concord. In fact, the Formula states in plain language that adiaphora “in their nature and essence are and remain in and of themselves free” (FC SD X.14).
Of course our predecessors used tertiary authorities like their favorite church fathers to illustrate that they were not creating a new church. But they never cited these sources as authoritative for defining our theology or prescribing specific practices. The Rule and Norm of the Formula of Concord makes this absolutely clear. There is only one formal principle for Lutheranism, and that is the inspired, sacred text of holy Scripture.
In his discussion of Apology XV, Dr. Arand describes Melanchthon’s rhetorical use of causa efficiens and causa finalis in order to distinguish between the use of human traditions for righteousness before God (incorrect use) and the use of human traditions for other purposes (correct use), and framing this with Luther’s concept of the two kinds of righteousness. I find this part of the discussion to be helpful, because it keeps us from straying beyond the truth of the Gospel in our worship practices. One point of clarification, however. Dr. Arand mentions that Melanchthon never discusses “any causa efficiens for establishing new traditions, such as pastors and people working cooperatively.” In Article XXIII of the Augsburg Confession, Melanchthon did state that bishops or pastors have the authority to make regulations for the sake of good order, and that those regulations include “Sunday and other church ordinances and ceremonies.”
In the second half of his paper Dr. Arand outlined a theology of adiaphora based on four confessional points. The first is confession/teaching of the Gospel. Dr. Arand rightly puts this at the top. This is a real issue, especially since there are Lutheran congregations who make uncritical use of contemporary worship forms that do not clearly confess the Gospel, or do not confess the Gospel at all. We need to be clear about what the Gospel is. Dr. Arand has simply and directly stated the Gospel for us; it is the life, death, and resurrection of Christ for us, for the forgiveness of our sins, for our salvation. We can never lose sight of this. We cannot state it often enough to each other, especially at a conference like this. The Gospel is what binds us together as brothers and sisters in Christ.
Second. Contextual sensitivity for mission. The examples Dr. Arand presented serve the purpose well enough, Luther’s catechism and the use of big-screens in church; but let me share another example that I think has a more direct application. The fifth-century church historians Salminius Hermias Sozomen of Gaza and Theodoret who was also a Byzantine Syrian bishop, both describe how in the third century large numbers of orthodox Christians from Syria were leaving the orthodox church. Why were they leaving orthodoxy? They were enticed away from orthodoxy because of hymns composed by Bardesanes and his son Harmonius. Bardesanes and Harmonius were Gnostics. According to Sozomen and Theodoret, the people were attracted to the melody and the meter of the Gnostic hymns. In order to stem the tide of this defection as it continued into the fourth century, the orthodox deacon, Ephrem of Syria composed hymns with the orthodox Christology of Nicaea set to the Gnostic hymn forms of Bardesanes and Harmonius. Historically, contextualization is not only a postmodern issue for the church. The practical application to today and to Dr. Arand’s contextual principle seems relatively obvious. One point that Dr. Arand’s paper did not address and I wish he had, in connection with the contextual principle, is what the Lutheran Confessions say about the freedom the church has to change adiaphora in order to address changing times and circumstances. Luther, Melanchthon, Chemnitz, and the Lutheran Confessions all refer to this freedom “as the respective place, time, and persons may require it.” What does this mean?
Third. Connectedness to the larger church. Dr. Arand describes the concern of the Reformers not to be schismatic or sectarian, but that both their teaching and their practice was in continuity with historic and creedal orthodoxy. The question this raises for us is: What will our concern for the catholic principle look like in practice in our own time? In the Missouri Synod the diversity of those who define catholicity runs the gamut. There are those who run with a page 5 and 15 definition, and there are those who define catholicity on the basis of the purity of the Gospel and the right administration of the sacraments. What will the catholic principle look like in practice? While it is true that our predecessors sought catholic continuity in both theology and practice, it is also true that they exercised the principle of love that allows for diversity of practice. So we must also embrace the statements in the Confessions that say things like, “it is not a sin to violate” the traditions of the church. Why did they say this? Why did they allow for this kind of diversity in practice?
Fourth. Collegiality and walking together. The example of introducing the novel practice of early communion that Dr. Arand uses seems relatively innocuous in view of the different worship practices already taking place in Lutheran congregations. I agree with Dr. Arand in principle that ecclesiastical collegiality is part of the ethos of confessional Lutheranism, and mutual accountability is in fact a corollary of catholicity. I also agree with Dr. Arand that we must be able to identify the status controversiae, and that we must fairly and accurately state both sides of the issue. This is a matter of both intellectual and theological honesty. But the question the collegiality principle raises for me is this, What kind of a road are we paving? Is this a street that will be controlled by a few who will demand the movement of some in one direction to meet their liturgical requirements? Or is it a two-way street, where we will meet together somewhere in the middle. Luther took the middle course on the issue of worship, neither requiring nor forbidding as his 1525 “Against the Heavenly Prophets” demonstrates. What does Dr. Arand’s collegiality principle look like in practice?
In my opinion Dr. Arand has opened a way for furthering the conversation on the following points:
1. What is our model of confession? Do we correct an error by confessing the error’s opposite, or do we confess straight ahead the truth and the freedom of the Gospel as this is modeled in the Formula of Concord?
2. Who ultimately has the confessional authority to order humanly instituted rites and ceremonies, adiaphora? I have argued that according to the plain language of Formula of Concord X it is the local congregation. Since we agree that “anything goes” is not who we are, what are the boundaries for defining how the local congregation orders its own humanly instituted rites and ceremonies in liturgy, especially when the local congregation is viewed in the broader context of a fellowship of churches in confessional agreement and practical harmony?
3. What are our formal and material principles for defining these boundaries? This is a methodological question and Dr. Arand has demonstrated that he is bound by Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions as our only formal principle for defining our theology of adiaphora. His contextual exegesis of the Apology is impressive, but it is more than impressive, it is helpful for clarifying what our predecessors meant when they wrote about adiaphora. When we look outside the Confessions to define our doctrine of adiaphora, detaching ourselves from the only formal principle we know as Lutherans, Sacred Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, we find ourselves operating in the realm of human opinion rather than what is given.
4. One point that Dr. Arand’s paper did not address and I wish he had, was what the Lutheran Confessions say about the freedom the church has to change adiaphora to address changing times and circumstances.
In the end I find Dr. Arand’s paper to be very helpful, because it moves the conversation in the right direction, the direction of harmony for Christ’s church.
Peace
James Alan Waddell
1The phrase the Formula of Concord X uses to refer to the circumstances of the local congregation is nach derselben Gelegenheit, “according to its own circumstances.” In other words, the local congregation has the confessional authority and freedom (not crass autonomy) to order its own humanly instituted rites and ceremonies in liturgy “according to its own circumstances.” Cf. FC SD X.9; Ap VII & VIII.32; AC XXVIII.67-68; Ap XXVIII.15-18; FC Ep X.4, 12; FC SD X.9, 30; Melanchthon’s Loci Communes 232; Chemnitz’s Examination of the Council of Trent II.110, 115. The reference to “specific times and places” also highlights the confessional understanding that the formulators were applying this doctrine of adiaphora to the local congregation.
+ sdg +
Pingback: WorshipConcord Journal | WorshipConcord
James:
Is Dr. Arand’s paper that you are responding to available online? I guess I could go to cts.edu to look, but maybe you have the citation handy.
Thanks,
Dave
Hi Dave. Yes, the link is included at the beginning of this article. The title of Arand’s paper is hotlinked in the first sentence. James
I should add that all the other papers from the conference are also hotlinked in the first sentence in the title, “Model Theological Conference on Worship.”
Duh….thanks James
Thanks, James! Very helpful analyses and discussions. Steve Starke
Interesting essay….and it leads me to think that the working ecclesiology in the LCMS is a bit confused and needs some attention. Call me Captain Obvious!
Parenthetically speaking, I found it fascinating that you referred to an incident in the early Church where Ephrem of Syria composed orthodox hymns using melodies and meters that the gnostics were using. There are some scholars who claim that American culture is infected with gnosticizing tendencies and that the American Church, as she seeks to contextualize her worship and practice, needs to do so critically, so that she avoids imbibing those less than stellar aspects of American life.
Whether or not that is true, *some* of the Contemporary Worship movement seems to be less about melodies and meters and more about changing the structure and content of the Service, the content of the hymns that are sung, and the nature of the ceremonies that are practiced. (I can give you examples, if you’d like)
Do you know if Ephrem the Syrian borrowed gnostic hymns, or just the melodies and meter? Did he borrow gnostic liturgies and ceremony? If so, that would be more of a parallel to *some* of the practices I’ve seen over the years in the LCMS. If not, then that fact could be instructive, as well.
I suppose my questions are quite besides the point of your essay, but they immediately came to mind as I was thinking about what you wrote.
Thank you, Tom, for your interesting comments. I think you are right about there being issues in the LCMS related to our theology of the church (ecclesiology). Specifically as this relates to worship this is an issue that also needs sorting out. I took a stab at it in last March’s issue of the WorshipConcord Journal. That article was in part a response to Dr. Kent Burreson’s WorshipConcord Journal article from the previous month. So our definition of the church and how this relates to the way we worship is clearly a topic that requires more attention.
Regarding Ephrem of Syria and Gnosticism, I am not aware in any of his writings that he adopted Gnostic forms of worship. I agree with you that some contemporary worship forms (in terms of the structure of the service) today are indeed not “orthodox.” But I don’t know what it means to call them Gnostic. I have studied Gnosticism . . . in Coptic . . . as an undergrad back in the ’80s with one of the scholars who was involved on the team that translated the Nag Hammadi Library in English. I am not aware of any Gnostic texts that detail the structure of a Gnostic liturgy in any detail. There are bits and pieces of Gnostic liturgical practices here and there. But from a strictly historical point of view it is impossible to piece these together into a coherent liturgy that was actually practiced in any given place. So I don’t know exactly what it means to refer to some of today’s “contemporary” worship practices as “Gnostic.”
Ephrem’s christology was thoroughly orthodox as far as I can tell. I have read some of his hymns and letters in Syriac, and scanned all of them in Latin (my Latin is much better than my Syriac). My impression is that Ephrem’s christology was orthodox. His use of Gnostic hymnody had to do with the style of music, according to Sozomen and Theodoret, who wrote at different times, and Theodoret indicates that Ephrem’s practice persisted into his own time and place.
I do indeed think among many Lutheran congregations it is an issue of music and not the structure of the liturgy. But who is to say that even the structure of the liturgy as it has come down to us is so sacrosanct as to be untouchable by the local congregation? Who is to say this? Both Luther and Chemnitz demonstrated that a variety of structure was also possible in Lutheran churches. Look at the differences between the Latin Mass and the German Mass, both of which were used as models for worship practices in different local congregations in Germany in the sixteenth century.
You don’t have to give me examples. I know exactly what you’re talking about, and I agree with you. The problem we need to tackle is how to address this issue without painting everyone with the same brush. Not everyone who uses contemporary form is being unfaithful. Just as Sasse has argued that not everyone who uses historic liturgical forms has right theological thinking.
Thanks, Tom, for your comments and questions. This is a very interesting problem in our church, and being clear about the problem from the start will take us a long way toward arriving at a useful answer for the church. JAW
I did not mean to say that we have gnostic liturgies being used in the LCMS. I wouldn’t know a gnostic liturgy if I saw one. Sorry my comment left that impression. I was simply trying to make the point that we must be careful when engaging the culture in which we live, that we don’t introduce unchristian elements into our Services as we do so. Just because something is American doesn’t mean it is Christian. So if we wish to better appeal to Americans—become American Lutherans, so to speak— we’d better do so carefully.
I also wholeheartedly agree with you that we ought not paint with too broad a brush…..in either direction. I don’t know of anyone who thinks the structure of the liturgy is absolutely untouchable. But I do think, especially when wholesale changes are made, there needs to be some rationale given. And that rationale ought to undergo some critical evaluation by someone other than the folks who originally make the changes.
So I think we are in great need of extended conversation and dialogue on our worship practices in the LCMS. And I now find myself more optimistic about the LCMS than I have been at any other point in my 22 years in Office, due to the fact that such a dialogue is being arranged.
Thank you for your contributions toward that end.
Yes, Tom, you are quite right. I agree. “—we’d better do so carefully” is part of the way forward.
“And that rationale ought to undergo some critical evaluation by someone other than the folks who originally make the changes.” Who would that be? What is the confessional authority for this kind of ecclesiology?
“I now find myself more optimistic about the LCMS than I have been at any other point in my 22 years in Office, due to the fact that such a dialogue is being arranged.” It isn’t just at the point of “being arranged.” It has already begun. And as a note of record, it should be noted that the dialogue was begun during the tenure of Gerald Kieschnick. I share your optimism. JAW
James,
You ask the question of confessional authority to critically evaluate rites and ceremonies used in individual congregations in the lcms. Considering this question in light of my original comment, and then again in light of your summary point number two, it leads me to think that you are contending the local congregation and her pastor are the ones who have such confessional authority. Is this correct? If so, then I have a few more questions to ask you about it.
1. Who in the local congregation has the confessional authority to make and judge changes to ritual and ceremony? Clearly there is a great deal of disagreement within the average congregation over these matters. So where does the buck stop? Is it a board of elders? Is it the voter’s assembly? Is it the pastor himself? What happens if they disagree? And how competent are they to judgements about these matters in the first place?
2. There are several places in the original constitution for the LCMS where it is clear that one of the reasons for forming the synod was the oversight of rites, ceremonies, and the use of particular hymnbooks. This is written in plain ink. Would it be your contention that the Synod’s original constitution gave powers to the congregations and officials of the synod which are against the Lutheran Confessions?
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this a bit further.
Here’s a link to the original consititution if you should want to take a look at it: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ctsfw.edu%2Flibrary%2Ffiles%2Fpb%2F239&h=fdfe8
Tom:
I would welcome some examples of what you are referring to specifically.
Thanks,
Dave
Just so everyone is aware of this, I will only allow negative examples, if they are balanced by positive examples. One of the goals of WorshipConcord is honesty and balance in the discussion. I won’t allow the discussion to turn into the presentation of the most aberrant practice, and then we all jump up and down with indignation to pummel the straw man. There are many positive examples of non-traditional worship in the LCMS. So if we are going to go the route of examples in this discussion, it will be balanced, and not flogging the straw man.
If I have flogged any straw men in my comments thus far, which I freely admit to be capable of doing, then please do me the favor of pointing them out to me with some specificity. I’ll do my best to take in your correction. But please don’t assume that it is my goal so to do. I kind of feel tarred and feathered right now, to tell you the truth.
I’m really quite surprised at your comment. I must have miscommunicated somewhere along the line. That’s easy to do on internet discussion boards. Pardon me for so doing.
Tom, don’t “feel tarred and feathered” as you say. I made a moderator comment and prefaced it with “Just so everyone is aware of this . . . .” So it wasn’t directed at you. Several times on WorshipConcord there have been calls for “specific examples.” And I don’t fault Padre Dave for this either. My moderator comment grows out of the broader discussion on the internet, where specific examples are set up as straw men to be knocked down in order to support a pre-arrived at conclusion and to close down discussion, rather than have an honest conversation about hard data in the sources. I just want you to know Tom (as well as Padre Dave and Andrew) that your contributions here have been very balanced, and the care you have taken to craft your words so as not to be offensive is well noted and greatly appreciated. Please keep that up, because it models for our readers that we can have a substantive conversation about the most important issues without being offensive or hateful to those with whom we might disagree.
One other thing about moderating that I need to share here. I just accepted a faculty appointment to the philosophy department of a major midwestern university. It’s a “major” university at least in our region.
For all kinds of reasons I won’t go into here, it’s a last-minute appointment that has left me with little over a week to do all the prep-work for teaching. I am very grateful to have this position, so I am not complaining. I am trying to say that the conversation here might be slow, as I will not be able to moderate the discussion as frequently as I would like. The alternative is that I could change the settings to unmoderated, and allow you to have the conversation and moderate yourselves. My impression of your contributions is that you would be more than trustworthy. So, I think that’s what I’ll do. And I will check in as I am able. If someone else tries to take advantage of this trust (again I don’t expect that the three of you would do this), then I will simply change the settings back to high moderation.
Dave,
I’m not sure Dr. Waddell would appreciate the examples I might offer up. Let me note that I made a point of not painting with a broad brush stroke by emphasizing the word “some” in my original comment.
I have no interest in calling anyone out or embarrassing anyone. But let me hint at just one of my concerns without actually naming any particular congregation or any particular practice. Here we go. Should a congregation decide that the Chief Divine Service is primarily about outreach to unbelievers, then by definition the Eucharist is likely to be marginalized in that congregation. The relationship between outreach and worship needs some attention or we might well lose whatever progress we’ve made wrt restoring the centrality of the Eucharist. Such a move carries with it all kinds of problems. And any ecclesiology which would promote or find itself unable to prevent such a move seems to me to be quite faulty. So there must be some kind of confessional authority to make judgments about these matters, no? If there isn’t, then our problems are not as parochial as they seem.
I really don’t think our worship issues are trivial. Some of them are, to be sure. And some things we think are problems may not be problems at all. But I do think we have some serious problems. Then again, as the conversation ensues, I might be persuaded otherwise. We’ll see.
Tom
Tom, I prefer James or Jim. I save “Dr. Waddell” for my students.
James,
Thanks for your kind words. Sorry for being so touchy. I thought those comments were directed at me. Glad to hear they weren’t.
And congratulations on your new appointment. That is great news—both for you and for the university and students whom you will teach!
Tom,
Interesting point about marginalizing the Eucharist. My church (I do not like the possessive there) is looking to do something that will hopefully not do that. We are looking to do an outreach worship service outside of the normal church time slots such as Matins
Vespers, Morning Prayer, and Evening Prayer. The form is there, the music is being discussed. We do not want to marginalize the sacraments, but do want to proclaim the Gospel.
James,
Your point on Ehrem was well put.
Harmony in church is needed more than ever during this time which we live.
Andrew,
The idea you have in mind is just what the doctor ordered, imo.
While we must be careful to avoid turning the Hauptgottestdienst into little more than inquiry driven catechesis, at the same time we do not want to avoid opportunity to engage in inquiry level catechesis. Your plan looks promising on both counts. Kudos to you.
Thanks all…Tom, I believe you understood that I was not looking for personal examples or some sort of competition about who is the most outrageous. I am strongly irenic (is that an oxymoron?) in disposition and preference and have struggled mightily over the course of my 30 years as a Lutheran about the “mean streak” in the LCMS. So, thanks, James, for the reminder.
Regarding the outreach vs. sacraments, I am going to try something I learned from Will Weedon on the ALPB forum and do my adult and youth confirmation classes as a “Service of Word and Preaching” on Sunday afternoons. Our normal Divine Service (usually Setting 4, LSB) will continue at 1018, and the new service will be at 1230 or so.
If this is successful from a confirmation standpoint, I am hopeful that it will morph into a second service aimed at outreach and assimilation. I foresee the Service of Word and Preaching being liturgical, from the LSB, and with me vested in cassock and surplice with stole, whereas the morning Eucharist is normal Eucharistic vestments. My dear wife has offered to accompany the hymns in the later service on the piano, with hymnody being LSB applicable to the lesson being taught.
Any thoughts?
Yeah, I guess my first thought was Why? Why do catechesis that way?
I understood exactly where you were coming from, Dave. No problem from my end.
And I am familiar with the catechetical methods of our mutual friend, Wil Weedon. I’ve even watched some of his videos. I hope you report back to us how it goes for you.
I really like the way you and Andrew are thinking. These are the kinds of things we in the LCMS need to be putting our minds to. I still grieve over the fact that some years ago the work being done to promote a multi-stage adult catechumenate in the LCMS seemed to be dropped. I don’t know the story behind it and I don’t care to know, as we have turned the page. But it would be nice to begin again to explore how we might better reach out and, at the same time, continue to gather at the Table together.
Great stuff, guys. Thanks.
I am intrigued by the thought that mixing generations will build community, having current members serve as mentors will aid in assimilation of prospective/new members, and my belief (after 4 years here) that our congregation needs: 1. catechesis and 2. community building.
So, those are some random thoughts (I am playing hooky from a high school capital campaign meeting…)
I am, too. And I have my own version of what Wil has done…but not nearly as robust.
Sometime I hope to explore having congregationally assigned sponsors for catechumens of any and every age, who are assigned at Baptism. My colleague and I have had many conversations about this and may be able to pull it off here sometime down the road. I think if we put our shoulders into it, we may have a good chance to stem the tide of young folks who disappear in two stages,,,,after their baptism, and then again after their confirmation. We’ll see how it goes. It’s one of those “try it for twenty years before you know if it is a good idea” things.
This discussion about catechesis and retaining members if fascinating, but I want to pull it back to a discussion about worship, specifically the points that were raised in the present article. How does what we are saying about catechesis relate to liturgy/worship? Or more pointedly, how does it relate to the points I raised in the article above? Much of what you–Tom, Dave, and Andrew–have said is very good. But I want our readers who may not be familiar with this kind of “insider” language about catechesis to understand it better and how it relates to liturgy/worship.
And, by the way, what it all has to do with the kind of songs, hymns we sing.
A specific example (!). What does this discussion have to do with the choice we have to sing the Venite from Matins as it is published in one of our hymnals or John Michael Talbot’s version of the Venite accompanied by a guitar?
I think it best to let Andrew and Dave answer these questions, as I think the controversy over some aspects of Contemporary Worship have little to do with instrumentation or whether or not different versions of Biblical canticles or psalms are used.
Make that “has” little to do… oops!
Excellent points, James. I love hymns because they teach the faith in multiple areas of the brain (I taught human physiology for 30 years). Whether the hymn is from LSB or John Michael Talbot (one of my favorites for 20+ years) is immaterial to me…in fact, if I had a guitarist in my parish I would be doing a lot more JMT, Michael Card and Taize.
My point about catechetical hymns is that they provide depth and “meat” that a “praise & worship” song does not tend to provide.
Agreed, excellent points.
My wife and son are already asleep and I am listening to Lost and Found. Hymns are the meat and potatoes of the liturgy, but sometimes I want a little gravy.
Agreed that many contemporary songs are thin running the gamut from praise to bad theology. There are some exceptions out there as well that are amazing: I like Creed by Rich Mullins, Casting Crowns (although having theology that is not Lutheran) makes my think, Third Day for similar reasons, Michael W. Smith, John Michael Talbot, and many others out there.
Agreed that not everything they sing about would be proper for Lutheran liturgy or fitting in an LCMS church, but there are songs from these people/bands that would be fitting. Then again Lost and Found is not for everybody either.
I truly believe that hymns (in whatever form) not only teach but they should be, continuing the dinner theme, the appetizer, salad, meat and potatoes, veggies, beverage and dessert of the liturgy that can sometimes be missing in the liturgy.
Thank you Padre Dave for the meat idea.
Is it possible that in his reforms of the liturgy, Luther took it too far?
“One of Dr. Arand’s primary propositions is this: ‘All adiaphora are not created equal.’ But the Reformers and the Lutheran Confessions did not use this language. They did not make this argument. Instead, the Reformers used language that distinguished the things that are given by God (the Gospel and the sacraments) and the things that are given by the church (humanly instituted ceremonies). This distinction runs all the way through the Confessions from the Augustana (Article VII) to the Formula of Concord (Article X).”
I have to disagree. Although they may not have used the same language, I believe the argument is identical to that found in Apol. VII/VIII:33-34: “Thus, in our churches we willingly observe the order of the Mass, the Lord’s day, and other important festival days. With a very grateful spirit we cherish the useful and ancient ordinances, especially when they contain a discipline by which it is profitable to educate and teach common folk and ignorant” (Kolb/Wengert 180); Apol. XXIV:3: “Ceremonies should be observed both so that people may learn the Scriptures and so that, admonished by the Word, they might experience faith and fear and finally even pray. For these are the purposes of the ceremonies” (K/W 258); also, Apol. XV:20-21. This seems to me to be precisely the argument that Dr. Arand is making, i.e., that some adiaphora are better suited to these things than others. Further, it seems to me that some adiaphora are far better suited as vehicles for the proclamation of the Gospel and the distribution of the Sacraments than others. If that’s the case (and each adiaphoron would have to be evaluated on its own terms), then “all adiaphora are not created equal” does seem to be the position of the Confessors, as well as simply true. It is impossible to preach the pure Gospel and distribute the pure Sacraments without some adiaphora (even if it’s just the day and time). No, they cannot be mandated, and they do not make us righteous before God; nevertheless, some act as better vehicles for the things that are commanded and do make us righteous.
Pr. Timothy Winterstein
I think you are right that adiaphora are not all created equal, but I don’t see how you go from there to make “we retain the mass” prescriptive.
At the time, retaining the mass was the best use of adiaphora because it preserved unity and avoided offense. But I’ve been unable to discover any other reason in the confessions to suggest retaining old practices is required. When unity and offense aren’t at stake, then retaining the mass isn’t required, and other forms that faithfully teach the Gospel are permitted.
But there certainly are better and worse forms for ceremonies. Luther gave us his idea of the best form in Deutsche Mass: a simplified service in a private house with no altar. I disagree with Luther. I’d take a Latin service in a gothic northern european cathedral with lots of Bach.
An aside, I recently read a comment about how Bach’s music was too contemporary for his congregation, and they didn’t fully appreciate the music he was giving them. When he pulled St. John’s passion out one Good Friday, and elderly woman yelled out something like God Save us, he’s playing a comic-opera!
I appreciate that you disagree, Tim. That’s the fundamental nature of adiaphora, after all, isn’t it. I also appreciate your quotes of the confessions. That’s concrete. Good ground for discussion. There are dozens of other confessional texts that would not support Dr. Arand’s point. I guess what it boils down to for me, with specific reference to Dr. Arand’s thesis, is the assumption behind the statement, “All adiaphora are not created equal.” This is a passive voice statment. Who’s doing the creating? In today’s discussion there are those who would say, God of course. I don’t think most of us would say that about adiaphora, but there are still those who do, or at least who are happy to live with the ambiguity and have the rest of us live with it too. But I think most of us agree that adiaphora are created by the church. This is where the Confessions are quite clear. They make a strong distinction between what is given by God and what is given by the church.
So Melanchthon stated that they “cherish the useful and ancient ordinances.” He said this in a context where the opponents of the Evangelicals were claiming that they did not. I don’t take this to be prescriptive, and I think Dr. Arand would agree with me that we are skating on thin ice if we do. It is descriptive. What is prescriptive is the part you quote about the purpose of the ceremonies. This is very instructive for all of us. The purpose of ceremonies is to teach the people what they need to know about Christ.
“No, they cannot be mandated, and they do not make us righteous before God; nevertheless, some act as better vehicles for the things that are commanded and do make us righteous.”
Agreed. But who decides this? This is a huge issue right now. Who decides? Who has the confessional authority to decide? JAW
“Agreed. But who decides this? This is a huge issue right now. Who decides? Who has the confessional authority to decide?”
I think the cat is out of the bag, the camel is inside the tent, and whatever other metaphor one might wish to use. Everyone does what is right in his (or her) own eyes.
On the other hand (to answer the question), though Christian freedom leaves the decision about what best fits a particular context to an individual congregation, I would like to see where and when that ever happened prior to the Enlightenment elevation of the individual.
How long did it take to work out the Formula of Concord? But when it was worked out, after lots of fear and trembling, work and debate, nearly all of Lutheran Germany signed on. Our predilection is to skip the hard work and make whatever decisions we want, supported with good argument or not, without consulting even our circuits, let alone the congregations in the district or synod.
When it comes to worship, imo, if a congregation wants to use material outside of what has been officially received (and in most constitutions there is something about hymnals, catechisms, etc.), the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate, at least to their circuit that what they are doing better conveys the Gospel than what has been received by long use.
Pr. Timothy Winterstein
First, Pr. Winterstein, I apologize for the delay in posting your comment. For some reason the present isn’t notifying me that comments have been submitted. I’ve checked the settings and they indicate that I should be receiving notifications. I’ll keep trying to correct this.
You commented:
While this might be true for some, it is not true for all. This is an assumption that forces the conversation in a particular direction, and does not allow for the local congregation to exercise its confessional freedom and authority to order its own rites and ceremonies. I have written this repeatedly, but I will reiterate it here, when Luther, Melanchthon, and Chemnitz, reformed the church’s liturgy in the sixteenth century, they desired and they strove for the “greatest possible public harmony,” and unity in liturgical practice. But alongside this desire they held to the greater principle that the local pastor and congregation had the confessional authority to determine this. Luther writes about this in his German Mass. Chemnitz enacted liturgical reforms later in the sixteenth century, requiring precise liturgical conformity among the congregations of the duchy he served as superintendent, something that might be analogous to today’s circuit, but not the entire nation (so your point about discussion with fellow pastors is well taken).
The problem with engaging this discussion today is that there are so many layers of unexamined assumptions that are not Lutheran and are not based on the Lutheran Confessions. This makes discussion on every level most difficult. It also means that all of us, every single one of us, even when we THINK we have the answers, need to be open to laying our assumptions on the table and need to be willing even to abandon those assumptions when they prove to be opinion rather than theology. I’m not directly this specifically at you, Pastor Winterstein. I’m saying that this is a necessary precondition for all of us to engage this discussion in a way that is good for the church.
But I will say that it is not true that everyone is doing what is right in his own eyes when it comes to worship in the LCMS. There are many pastors and congregations who have gone about this in a very careful and very theologically sound way.
You commented:
“On the other hand (to answer the question), though Christian freedom leaves the decision about what best fits a particular context to an individual congregation, I would like to see where and when that ever happened prior to the Enlightenment elevation of the individual.”
Frank Senn has indicated in his research that between 1523 and 1555 there were some 135 different church orders in Germany alone. The order Chemnitz required for the churches of the Braunschweig-Woelfenbuettel Duchy corresponded almost precisely to Luther’s German Mass, a fact that those who idealize liturgical form (by pointing to Luther’s Latin Mass) tend to ignore. So the Enlightenment and Pietism has almost nothing to do with it. It is a caricature of historic understanding of Christian liturgy to think that there is a single line of development from the first century down to our own. There is not a single line of development, and the evidence for diversity of liturgical practice in various locations is widely recognized.
You commented:
“Our predilection is to skip the hard work and make whatever decisions we want, supported with good argument or not, without consulting even our circuits, let alone the congregations in the district or synod.”
I think this may be accurate for some, but it is a sweeping generalization that doesn’t hold for all pastors and all congregations. Again, I know of many pastors and congregations who have done the hard theological work. It’s too easy to paint everyone with the same brush. The Model Theological Conference on Worship is an effort to help us move beyond that. JAW
“So Melanchthon stated that they “cherish the useful and ancient ordinances.” He said this in a context where the opponents of the Evangelicals were claiming that they did not. I don’t take this to be prescriptive, and I think Dr. Arand would agree with me that we are skating on thin ice if we do. It is descriptive. What is prescriptive is the part you quote about the purpose of the ceremonies. This is very instructive for all of us. The purpose of ceremonies is to teach the people what they need to know about Christ.”
I am not claiming that they are prescriptive–unless they still do what the Confessors claimed they did. The question is, do those same ceremonies, which are, for the most part, contained in the liturgies in LSB (esp. DSIII), do today what they did in the 16th cent.? If they were descriptive then of the things that teach people about Christ, is that still the case today?
Pr. Timothy Winterstein
Even if “they still do what the Confessors claimed they did” how would that somehow make them prescriptive? It is not the usefulness of ceremonies in and of themselves, or whether they still do what they did in the sixteenth century, that makes them prescriptive for the church. What makes them useful in any given context is the clarity of communication of the Gospel and the biblical story, and this, according to the Confessions, is determined by the local context with the understanding that the local congregation is also connected to a broader catholic context. Of course the liturgies in LSB do today what they did in the 16th cent. But the question is, do they do this in every single context? From a perspective that idealizes historic liturgical forms the answer is inevitably yes. From a perspective that views historic liturgical forms as themselves local cultural expressions of the gospel that have developed over time in various places, the answer would be no. I think we have so reacted to the misuse of contextualizing worship forms that we can no longer see the value of it when it is done with theological sense.
“I think we have so reacted to the misuse of contextualizing worship forms…”
So who decides what constitutes said misuse and what is to be done about it? And who decides what constitutes “theological sense?” Are you contending that this, too, is only to be done by the local congregation and her pastor? It seems to me, and I may misunderstand you, that this is the argument you are making. Or better put, your argument is that this is what the Confessions put upon us.
Pingback: WorshipConcord Journal, volume 2, number 9 — September 2010 | WorshipConcord Journal
To Pr. Fast,
I have never and would never advocate the authority and freedom of the local congregation unhinged from its relationship to other congregations in its historic and contemporary catholic context. “Who decides?” is precisely the question I am raising, and I think deserves a careful discussion in today’s context of diverse worship practices. I think the results of the worship survey of our congregations by the Commission on Worship published earlier this year describes the reality better than so many attempts to describe something that really isn’t happening. The survey demonstrated that there is more agreement, both in terms of our theology and our practice, than the discussion appears to be letting on. In other words, if I disagree with congregations doing anything but what’s in our published hymnals, then if I can portray what they’re doing in the most extreme light I can possibly portray it, then I’ve made my case. I’ve made my case alright, but I haven’t actually described what’s going on. Based on my observation, there is misuse. But the misuse that is actually happening is not as prevalent as we’ve been led to think. Difference is not automatically misuse. We have a Synodical structure to train pastors and church workers theologically. The fact that there are some pastors who misuse our theology of worship, does that mean our educational institutions have failed? I don’t think so. We have a structure for theological oversight. Probably the best way to engage it is to actively discuss our theology of worship in our circuits, and submit ourselves to the accountability of our colleagues in the ministry. Accountability is a corollary of catholicity. In the sixteenth century they practiced this accountability through visitations. Today we have built-in accountability in the form of circuit counselors and district presidents. But ultimately, because we are the household of God, a family if you will, we should be able to discuss this with love and with deference to the one with whom we might disagree. I think there’s too much “I’m right, you’re wrong, end of discussion” today. And many pastors separate themselves from their circuits for reasons of perceived theological impurity, instead of cultivating relationships in their circuits for the sake of (eventually) having a serious discussion about these things.
James,
I agree with you that we need open and honest conversation. I also agree that there are mischaracterizations. Yet I may differ from you in that I think such mischaracterizations are just as severe on one side as the other. But I digress.
“Who decides?” is the question you are raising. So far I have only heard you speak of the authority and freedom of the local congregation, and you’ve done so quite eloquently. In fact, you have done this so eloquently that I came to the wrong conclusion about your opinion on this matter, as your post above makes quite clear. Could you flesh out the other side of the equation, that is, what constitutes the relations of the local congregations to other congregations a little bit wrt this issue of “who decides?”
I will confess that I am not nearly as confident in the competence of the average pastor wrt liturgical theology or liturgics as are you. But I may be imposing my own sense of ignorance and ineptitude on others unfairly.
No, we don’t differ on that. The only reason my writing gives the appearance of defending “one side” in the debate is because of my perception that the “other side” has so much accessibility in terms of published material and hence influence. I just don’t think the point of view I am advocating is well understood or even advocated for, because it doesn’t cater to either extreme, but aims right down the middle, where in my opinion most of us actually are.
I don’t know if I can flesh this out much more than I already have, but I’ll try. There are two basic aspects of this question. The theological and the practical. The theological part of the question relates to accountability. I may think I have the confessional freedom and authority to lead my congregation to contextualize its worship outside our published hymnals. In fact, I can be confident that I do. But the flipside of this is that I am human, and I need the theological counsel of my colleagues, both in terms of what our authoritative texts actually teach, and in terms of the impact my actions might have on the congregations my colleagues serve nearby me.
This leads to the practical part of the issue. What I do in my congregation has consequences for the people who worship in the congregations surrounding me. We don’t exist in a vacuum. So it is at the ver least a vocational courtesy to have this discussion with colleagues. The extent to which I and my congregation choose to contextualize should take into consideration the sensibilities of those immediately around us but also those in a slightly broader geographic context. This would clearly help the process in terms of mutual understanding, but also in terms of what I may choose to do or not do in practice.
There is another aspect of this that should be brought into the discussion, because it inevitably is broached by those who will insist on the legal requirements of the constitution. I am referring to the Bylaw in our constitutiont that refers to the “exclusive use of doctrinally pure hymnbooks, agendas, catechisms” etc. I don’t have the text in front of me, so I am quoting from memory. The language, in my opinion, is too restrictive for today’s context. I don’t think it should be changed to read that we can do anything we want. (I have been accused of this by unscrupulous bloggers who are not interested in having an honest conversation.) I think the Bylaw should be revised to include “doctrinally pure orders of service” that may be created by the pastor and the local congregation with theological integrity. The Synod’s constitution and bylaws are not inspired by God, and as we saw in July, we are certainly free to change it as the needs arise.
James,
Please understand I’m not trying to be argumentative. But let me note a couple of things right off the bat wrt the mischaracterizations. First off, the power and the money has been on the “side” of the CoWo movement for as long as I have been in the ministerium in the LCMS, which is 22 years. At least this is my perception, and I have many facts upon which I base this perception—I don’t hold it for political reasons, I assure you. Second, the fact that the traditionalist “side” has published materials highlights quite well one of the reasons we have such pent up frustrations. The traditionalists have thought out their positions and published their arguments so as to submit them to scrutiny. You may not like their arguments, but at least they are theological arguments and at least they have the courtesy and sense of responsibility to lay it out for both the potential edification of others as well as to be on the receiving end of critical evaluations.
The CoWo side in the LCMS basically has one text, that being Luecke’s “Substance and Style” book, so far as I know. It seems to me the onus is on those making radical changes and introducing novelties into the worship life of the synod to explain their rationale sufficiently so as to quell some of the concerns. If I introduced radically new practices in my congregation with little to no explanation and expressed frustration when anyone asked questions or offered criticisms (even unfair and inaccurate criticisms), I would have a very angry congregation and I would not last long as a pastor.
So I will confess to being very sympathetic to those who are quite frustrated with the CoWo movement. Because I myself am frustrated.
Perhaps this will help you to better understand why a fellow like me gets easily bent out of shape about these things. It’s good for us to understand each other when we converse, so we don’t make inaccurate judgments about the motives of the other.
I’ve got to run. I need to take a closer look at the rest of your comment and think about it a little bit before responding.
Thanks so much for continuing the conversation.
Pr. Winterstein, I apologize for interrupting your part of this thread. I think they call that “hijacking.” Please carry on. I appreciate what you have written.
Tom,
There are plenty of “mischaracterizations” to go around on both sides. What I’m trying to do, at least on WorshipConcord, is bring an end to that. And there is not argument here with your point about money and power being on the side of CW. My emphasis is on having a truthful, honest discussion that does not devolve, on either side, into caricature and misrepresentation. The church suffers when this happens, and it’s time to end it.
My experience with the arguments of the “traditionalists” as you call them is that often the arguments adopt a method whereby what is perceived to be an extreme error is corrected by pushing in the opposite extreme. This is a model of confessing that has been consciously adopted. I have had this conversation with professors from both seminaries and they agree that this is what has been done (and continues to be done). So it is not just my opinion. It is a specific model of confession that is at work. I have written about this at length, both in peer reviewed articles, in invited presentations, and on this blog (click here for my discussion of this problem). This is a non-Lutheran perspective on / approach to the problem that needs to be addressed directly and honestly. To correct the errors in the use of CW, when they exist, our model of confession is not to adopt its opposite, but to confess straight ahead the truth and freedom of the Gospel, and let what happens happen. That’s it. So while I resonate with your frustration, it is a bit more complicated than just the offenses of CW. And it has nothing to do with whether I “like” their arguments. It has everything to do with methodology and whether the model of confession we are using is biblical and Lutheran. My analysis has demonstrated that it is not. It is also my experience that some on the “traditionalist” side are unwilling to engage this discussion with the kind of humility and openness that is open to the persuasion of others. I have written in some detail about this as well (click here). This openness to the persuasion of others in fact is one of the qualifications of the office of the ministry. Instead what we have had is reactionary and unbalanced misrepresentation, however well intentioned it has been. My perception is that it has not been laid out “to be on the receiving end of critical evaluations.” Some reactions to my own work are clear proof of this.
Luecke is always trotted out as the straw man. His is not the only text. I am critical of Luecke in my own work elsewhere, so I am not defending him. But he is typically mentioned as the guru of CW in the LCMS. He is not.
What “radical changes” and “novelties” are you referring to? What specifically? I have never used this language in my own writings, and they carry an enormous amount of freight that leads me to think they are most often used in unbalanced caricatures. I am not saying you are using them that way, but they are almost always used this way. How do you mean them here?
In response to your comment about your congregation, if the changes do not arise from the needs, desires, conversation of your congregation, then you should not be pressing them to make changes. Again, I am curious to know what you mean by “radically new practices.” This is the kind of charged language that makes the discussion difficult.
Rather than get “bent out of shape” as you put it, why not harness that energy into motivation to learn more about correct uses of CW?
I do appreciate the time and effort everyone is putting into this discussion. And I don’t mind it when others are frank with me, as long as the favor is reciprocated. But frankness must always be tempered. Tempered. It takes a lot of work to do that in a medium like this. So again, I appreciate the effort. JAW
James,
I’m glad you appreciate the effort put into these conversations. I do, too. As I remember a teacher of mine once told me, disagreement is not necessarily a sign of disrespect. In fact, it can be a sign of high respect. IOW, if I didn’t care about what you were writing. I wouldn’t spend the time reading it, let alone the energy and effort it takes to evaluate it.
If you could direct me to some serious and scholarly theological arguments that give some detailed rationale wrt the CW movement in the LCMS, that would be helpful. I don’t trot out Luecke to try to schmear anyone. It is simply the only book I know of which has been written by and LCMS’er which lays out some kind of argument for CW and includes a trajectory for the change. If there are other books, it would be good to develop a list so that traditionalists like me wouldn’t be working in ignorance. Can you help me out with this?
Here are just a few of the radical changes of which I speak. And these are changes, some of which have been vigorously defended in public fashion by district staffs and even district conventions. By no means are these kinds of changes to be found everywhere in CW movement. But since we basically have few standards, who is to say it won’t end up that way? In any event, here are some examples. I will not get too specific because the people who do these things are not my enemies nor am I theirs and I don’t wish to embarrass anyone. Here we go:
1. One order a CW practitioner uses begins with Confession and Absolution and then moves directly to the Verba and Distribution of the Lord’s Body and Blood….without any reading of the Apostolic Scriptures or preaching beforehand. The preaching and reading of the Scriptures came later on powerpoint. The rationale given by the man who did this was: The members found it meaningful. That was it. I am not expert. I’m a simple parish pastor. But I find all kinds of problems with such a radical rearrangement.
2. Another congregation has permanently omitted the use of any ecumenical Creed and the Our Father. I can see doing this at an inquiry level catechetical service. But at the hauptgottestdienst? Do you need me to spell out the kind of damage this may do long term?
3. I know of a pastor who dressed his chancel up as a duck blind.
4. I know of a pastor who rode his Harley Davidson down the aisle and parked it in the chancel and preached from it.
5. Then there are more subtle changes such as making coffee and snacks more experientially central than the eating and drinking of the crucified, risen, ascended and glorified body and blood—that living Bread from Heaven from which you eat and do not die. Again, if this was merely entry level catechesis that would be one thing. But if this is the end point, that is another.
This is just a start. And I didn’t want to type this list. I really didn’t.
Tom, you actually make my point for me here. While there are countless books written on CW outside the LCMS, Luecke’s is the only one from within the LCMS. Which is why most of my own writing has been focused on the published work of those who defend historic liturgical forms. Simply by sheer dint of volume there is more to work with. But even more to the point, my reason for critiquing those who defend historic liturgical forms is motivated from a desire to get it right, and not to engage in straw men, which happens all over the place. When we pull out the straw man, it simply renders the argument useless. So I hope you understand my motivation. It isn’t just to be a thorn in the side. It’s from a desire to get our criticisms of contemporary form right. The only other work from within the LCMS that comes close to advocating CW in Lutheran worship is my own work, but it is substantially different from Luecke’s.
The radical changes you point to are well taken. I can think of hundreds of others. The question I have, however, is this: Must we define all CW practices in terms of the most extreme examples? If so, then I can push the argument in the opposite direction as well. Should all traditional form worship be characterized in terms of the most extreme examples of traditional form worship? For example, Lutheran pastors using cruciform prostration in the center aisle in front of the chancel in public worship? Lutheran pastors using miters and crosiers in public worship? Lutheran pastors using incense in public worship? Are these wrong in and of themselves? No. It depends on the context. But if someone is offended by these forms, should we insist that they not be offended and that they are imature and simply don’t get it? I think the insistence should be aimed not at the offended but at the pastor who might impose such forms on a congregation. The issue can be pushed both ways.
Unless we are able to apply our self-reflection/self-criticism in both directions, we will continue to miss the point. It is not the external forms in and of themselves that define Lutheran worship. It is the substance – the Gospel and the sacraments – this defines Lutheran worship. Surely this substance is missing in Evangelical churches who practice CW. But it is also missing in mainline Protestant denominations who practice traditional forms of worship as well. There is a principle in the Lutheran Confessions that is often ignored in this discussion but it is perfectly apropos. “Abuse does not nullify the substance, but establishes it.” In other words, we do not look at extreme abuses and draw the sweeping conclusion that the form in general is wrong. We look at extreme abuses and draw the conclusion that such abuses serve to highlight the contrast between the lack of substance which the extreme abuse of a form entails and the substantial essence that appears in the correct use of a form. I hope this makes sense. JAW
On additional point, or rather question.
I totally agree that the opposite of error may well be error. No doubt about that. Well put. And I appreciate that. But I’m unsure what you mean by this: “To correct the errors in the use of CW, when they exist, our model of confession is not to adopt its opposite, but to confess straight ahead the truth and freedom of the Gospel, and let what happens happen. That’s it.”
I’m unsure how the truth and freedom of the Gospel necessarily leads to a sound liturgical practice. Can you spell out what you mean by that?
This is Sasse’s argument, basically. He argued that focusing on the externals won’t help the church recapture a right understanding of liturgy. What is needed is a return to the proper theological understanding of the Gospel and the sacraments. The rest will follow. Whether that means traditional form or more contextualized forms, in my opinion, is not the point. The point is, there are ways of getting traditional form right and there are ways of getting it wrong; there are ways of getting contextualized forms right and there are ways of getting them wrong. In other words, regardless of whether it is traditional or more contextualized form, if you get the Gospel and the sacraments right, then you will get the use of the form right. And it isn’t an either or. It’s a both and. And it’s all in how you use the form. Does that make sense?
I think I understand what you are saying and appreciate your efforts to get this through my thick skull.
You write: “What is needed is a return to the proper theological understanding of the Gospel and the sacraments.”
You have no idea how I and virtually every “traditionalist” I know agrees with you on this very point. Thank you for making it.
Being that the Supper has been marginalized in the LCMS for almost its entire existence, and that the environment in which the LCMS lives and moves and has its being (i.e. anti-sacramental, revivalistic American Christianity which, ironically, is also the source for much of what is adapted for use in CW in the LCMS ), and that the church which has marginalized the Supper hasn’t really pushed It out of the center, but has pushed herself into the corner, bordering on making herself a sect. Well, we ought to be spending most of our energies developing a richer theological understanding of the Sacrament and its place in the life of the Church. IMO this need is critical.
My fear is that we are losing whatever gains we have made wrt restoring the centrality of the Sacrament….or better put, gathering around the Sacrament as the very source of our life AND mission.
Turn the Hauptgottestdienst into an evangelism tool, which is clearly the trajectory of those who would missionalize the Church, and the Sacrament will either be abused or neglected. And because I can anticipate the response to this paragraph, let me note that merely offering the Supper weekly doesn’t necessarily mean it has taken a central place in a congregation’s life.
This is why I think I disagree with you wrt what is happening in the so called worship wars. I think that what is at stake is quite serious. It is nothing less than the Sacramental Lutheranism which the Confessions so clearly articulate.
But I’m rambling again. Sorry for the loss of focus.
I get the impression that you are misreading me. I also think these same issues are at stake. But it is not the protection of historic liturgical forms that are going to solve this problem. What will solve the problem, as Sasse so eloquently put it more than half a century ago, is a revitalization of our teaching on the Sacrament of the Altar, not adiaphora. If we focus on the Gospel and the sacraments, as I have already said, then we will clarify and strengthen our Lutheran identity. And if a congregation happens to choose to worship with a guitar, or if it chooses not to use the canticles and versicles of the Western rite, but because that congregation has a strong undertanding of the Gospel and the sacraments, it is a Lutheran congregation. I don’t see why this is such a problem. I have argued elsewhere that there is a basic structure to the service that would mark it as historic and Lutheran. Even Luther’s German Mass did not include all the canticles and versicles of the Western Mass. Was it catholic in the best sense of the word? Indeed it was. Because it was crafted on the basis of the Gospel. Please, by all means, promote the historic forms (plural) of our Lutheran heritage. But the circle can be drawn wider to include less elaborated structures, simpler forms, that still communicate the Gospel and that still can be crafted with a strong understanding of the Sacrament. We needn’t wring our hands about this.
James,
It is quite possible we are talking past each other. I really don’t think our worship wars are about whether or not to use bongo drums. There are far deeper issues at stake.
I am concerned about the use of texts, ceremonies, and liturgical structures borrowed, seemingly uncritically, from American Christianity. The prospect of American Lutheranism scares me. I know of absolutely no one who argues for liturgical repristination.
Thanks for a good conversation, James.
Pax
We have precisely the same concern about the uncritical use of American Evangelical worship forms in Lutheran congregations. It looks like where our concerns diverge is on the possibility that there might be critical use of these forms in Lutheranism, or that there might be contextualized worship that may have some similarities with those worship forms while keeping the central focus on the Gospel and the sacraments.
I suspect we may be defining “repristination” differently, but I actually do see it all over the place. When the pastors of a congregation do full body cruciform prostration before the chancel, I have to ask why. Or when pastors are reintroducing medieval exorcism rites to the baptismal liturgy we have in our hymnal, I have to ask why. Or when miters and crosiers are worn in Lutheran services, I have to ask why. I know why. It’s the model of confession that seeks to correct an error by confessing the error’s opposite. This is not the Lutheran model of confession.
Thanks also to you, Tom, for the conversation. JAW
James,
Asking “why?” is precisely the point. There may be very good theological and pastoral reasons for the reintroduction and use of ancient ceremonies. I can think of several reasons for prostration…an act which, at the very least, confesses the in-the-flesh-presence of that God who comes into our midst that we might have koinonia with Him, and through Him with the Holy Trinity….all of which comes through His body and blood—tangible things. Since we live in a religious environment which seeks koinonia with God primarily through other means….a God whose bodily presence is conceived as being far away….then such a ceremony may well be a way of making clear the Mystery of the bodily Presence of Christ in our midst. I’m just guessing here. I don’t have that particular ceremony. You’d have to ask those who practice it why it is they do so. I’d bet they’d have a well thought out and serious theological and pastoral rationale and they’d be more than happy to tell you all about it.
So I totally agree with you when you ask “why?” Let’s do this thing. But let’s do it with CW, too. Because the ceremonies which American Christianity has embraced (and which have been adapted/adopted by LCMS CW’ers) may well confess something entirely contradictory about the Mystery/Sacrament of the Presence of Christ in the assembly. Then again, maybe not. We don’t know, because we aren’t told.
So let me conclude by noting that if this is what you are after, asking the question “why?” of both sides and then taking a critical look at the answers, then I am totally on board with you. Wholeheartedly so. In fact, I can hardly wait.
This is what I believe MH is after, too. Which is why I am so optimistic about life in the LCMS.
Thanks again. I didn’t want to post anymore because I’m afraid of I’m becoming overbearing. But I thought finding agreement on this central point is a great way to end the conversation on a discussion list entitled worshipconcord.
Thanks again, James.
Pr. Fast wrote, “Being that the Supper has been marginalized in the LCMS for almost its entire existence, and that the environment in which the LCMS lives and moves and has its being (i.e. anti-sacramental, revivalistic American Christianity which, ironically, is also the source for much of what is adapted for use in CW in the LCMS ), and that the church which has marginalized the Supper hasn’t really pushed It out of the center, but has pushed herself into the corner, bordering on making herself a sect. Well, we ought to be spending most of our energies developing a richer theological understanding of the Sacrament and its place in the life of the Church. IMO this need is critical.”
Sasse clearly has it right on this point (and on almost everything else as well–can’t wait for vols. 3-4 of the Lonely Way!).
The question in my mind is whether songs and orders adopted from other traditions do not contain within themselves the anti-sacramental impulse. Is it a coincidence that highly sacramental churches have used highly liturgical worship (even though there have been abuses), and non- or anti-sacramental churches have used little or nothing that could be called liturgy in our sense? I think not.
JAW wrote, “I suspect we may be defining “repristination” differently, but I actually do see it all over the place. When the pastors of a congregation do full body cruciform prostration before the chancel, I have to ask why. Or when pastors are reintroducing medieval exorcism rites to the baptismal liturgy we have in our hymnal, I have to ask why. Or when miters and crosiers are worn in Lutheran services, I have to ask why. I know why. It’s the model of confession that seeks to correct an error by confessing the error’s opposite. This is not the Lutheran model of confession.”
I do not practice prostration or use a miter or crosier, but have any of those who do given you an answer as to why? Or to exorcism rites? (I think many of these are far older than the middle ages.) And is it true that those who do such things are really doing them to confess some error’s opposite? It may very well be; have they said so in some place–not to mention that people may do the same thing for different reasons. E.g., incense (which you mentioned in a different comment) is a very Biblical and very ancient thing that, I think, could be used beneficially.
Thanks,
Pr. Timothy Winterstein
This is not something that I am really talking about here on WorshipConcord. It may come across that way, but what I think is needed in the LCMS, in addition to the promotion of the Sacrament of the Altar, is the encouragement and support of Lutheran songwriters and artists to write contextual music with sound Lutheran theology. The COW just started doing this last spring. We need more of it. And I think we can agree that there has been too much uncritical use of American Evangelical worship forms in the LCMS. I have stated this repeatedly, but it seems to fall on deaf ears.
The pastor who practiced cruciform prostration wrote on another blog last spring that, as a theological principle, the pastor need not inform or instruct his congregation when introducing the practice of such forms in the worship life of the congregation. I find this troubling, as did many others who responded in a more balanced way to his approach.
Speaking from my own experience, a pastor who succeeded me in a parish I served many years ago introduced the medieval rite of exorcism at a Baptism without teaching the congregation beforehand. It is another example of pastoral abuse. The reintroduction of an old rite or ceremony may indeed be good for proclaiming the Gospel, depending on the context. Or it may not. But it certainly is not when it is imposed by the pastor’s heavy hand. (This same criticism can be laid at the feet of pastors who impose uncritically American Evangelical worship forms in their congregation.) My suspicion is that the pastor does such things, and then can thump his chest when he tells his buddies about what he did. The “Herr Pastor.”
The many details of exorcism, such as salt in the mouth and exsufflation (blowing under the eyelids) are medieval. They are not biblical, and they are not found in the earliest liturgies.
Yes it is true that the model of confession that is currently in practice is to correct an error by confessing the error’s opposite. I can only attest to this on the basis of face to face conversations I’ve had with professors, sem students, and other pastors. It was a hunch I had several years ago while doing research on Lutheran liturgy, and the hunch was strongly and forcefully confirmed by the conversations. JAW
You’ll get no argument from me on the value and benefit of extensive instruction, especially when introducing something new.
Pr. Timothy Winterstein