+++
The Public Ministry of Word and Sacrament and the Church’s Liturgy: A Response to Art Just
Last month I presented my response to Dr. Arand that was presented at the Model Theological Conference on Worship in January of this year. The conference was attended by a wide diversity of individuals, church leaders (lay and ordained), pastors, musicians, seminary and university professors, District Presidents, and Synodical officials.
My response to Dr. Arand’s paper posted last month in the WorshipConcord Journal evoked a good discussion of the issues. Some of our readers agreed with the points I raised. Some did not. But the discussion was helpful. Discussion is always helpful. One of the things I find interesting about this medium is that if one finds a question difficult to answer, or finds that it may have an answer that doesn’t easily lend itself to one’s prior understanding in the discussion, the question is simply ignored. That’s not for a lack of trying on our part, so let’s keep at it, shall we?
This month I will take a stab at Dr. Art Just’s paper, which itself was made in response to Dr. Arand’s paper. Dr. Just and I were invited to be respondents to Dr. Arand. But it seems fair, since our papers are all available to the public, that we discuss each other’s work. Nothing is done in a corner, so if Dr. Just cares to reply and join the discussion, this is an open invitation. The spirit of the Model Theological Conference on Worship is that we not have our private vivisections of each other’s work without the fair opportunity for the author to respond. There’s been too much of that in the past, and it unfortunately promotes the approach of attacking the straw man, rather than seeking understanding among colleagues. The Model Theological Conference modeled respect.
Dr. Just’s paper is titled, “Embodied Lutheran Theology through Lutheran Worship Practices.” In his paper Dr. Just refers to the public ministry of preaching the Word and administering the sacraments as “worship practices.” Dr. Just makes the statement, “The way we worship in the 21st century is an expression of our identity as Lutherans. Our worship announces that our life is defined by Jesus Christ, our Creator and our Redeemer, that our identity is in conformity to his holy life. We would not be having this conference if there wasn’t some sense among us that we have lost our Lutheran identity, our connection to the biblical story as it is embodied in our worship.”
In good classical fashion, Dr. Just lays out the premises for his paper at the beginning. This will be the main focus of my response to Dr. Just’s paper, since the premises establish the substance of his paper.
Dr. Just defines “worship practices” as “preaching and reading Scripture, baptizing, and celebrating the Lord’s Supper.” Now on the surface, one might immediately recognize these as those things that are given by God. The Word, the Gospel, and the Sacraments. These are not typically referred to as “worship practices” in the Lutheran tradition. While these are indeed the fundamental essence of Lutheran worship, Article X of the Formula of Concord defines “ecclesiastical practices” as those things that are neither commanded nor forbidden by God, all the stuff the church in various places and at various times has chosen to add to what is given by God. “Ecclesiastical practices” are not given by God. They are given by the church.
To fail to make this distinction confuses what is given by God with what is given by the church. This is a distinction that runs through the entire Book of Concord, and it defines our theology of worship. When we fail to make this distinction, we introduce confusion into the church’s conversation. To use the term “worship practices” for the defining essences of the Gospel and the sacraments suggests a use of language that is not the typical use of this term, and it confuses these essences with the adiaphora (ecclesiastical practices) of FC X.
Dr. Just writes, “The way we worship in the 21st century is an expression of our identity as Lutherans. Our worship announces that our life is defined by Jesus Christ, our Creator and our Redeemer, that our identity is in conformity to his holy life.”
I agree with this statement of Dr. Just, insofar as it is referring to the essence of our worship, the preaching of the Gospel and the public administration of the sacraments. Even Basil of Caesarea claimed that worship practice must be ordered according to what is given from the mouth of the Lord. Basil argued this explicitly with reference to the trinitarian formula in Baptism, that it should be practiced as it was plainly stated in Matthew 28. It should not be caricatured that this would be a “reductionist” view of worship. Worship practices (in the broad sense) over the course of history display a remarkable diversity.
If Dr. Just’s statement refers to worship in the broad sense beyond the essences of Gospel and sacraments, and includes the adiaphorous rites and ceremonies “instituted by men” as Augsburg Confession VII refers to them, then the statement is problematic, since it does not reflect the theology of worship imbedded in the Book of Concord.
When Dr. Just writes that “Our worship announces that our life is defined by Jesus Christ, our Creator and our Redeemer, that our identity is in conformity to his holy life,” this is indeed one aspect of Lutheran worship. Worship is a public proclamation of the death of Christ, and all this entails for the life of every Christian. Preaching and sacraments are objective proclamation of the gift. To this gift we respond with prayer and praise, and in this prayer and praise we bear witness to the world what the gift has done for us.
But again, the proper distinction must be retained here too. For it is not the prayer and praise that conforms us “to his holy life.” The gift does this. The prayer and praise are in response to the gift. As an aside, this is why the structure of Lutheran worship entails both the essences of Gospel and sacraments (the gift) and prayer and praise (our response to the gift). If worship only entails prayer and praise, then it is not a Lutheran structure of worship. If prayer and praise are not offered as response to the gift of the Gospel and the sacraments, then worship becomes something we offer to God in order to curry his favor. While this is certainly an American Evangelical understanding of worship (the whole lot of it being something we do), it is not biblical and it is certainly not Lutheran. So, if Dr. Just is maintaining the essential distinction, then his statement is correct.
Dr. Just also writes, “We would not be having this conference if there wasn’t some sense among us that we have lost our Lutheran identity, our connection to the biblical story as it is embodied in our worship.”
The “biblical story” is clearly a matter of what is given by God. There is no debating that. At least in our Lutheran tradition there should be no debating it. We accept the biblical story as God’s story. And it becomes our story—we are connected to it—by what we traditionally refer to as the “means of grace,” the Gospel and the sacraments. I should also point out that, while there is an essential message that is shared in common in the biblical story—the message that Christ was crucified, that he was raised from the dead, all for human sin and according to the scriptures (1Cor 15.1-4)—there are also various ways of telling that story. We only need Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to paint that picture for us.
To some extent I am using Basil’s argument. Basil argued that our worship must be normed by what is given in the biblical text. I am arguing that if we are using the “biblical story” to define our Lutheran identity, then we must allow for the different ways of telling that story in the canonical texts also to shape our approach to its embodiment in our worship. This, I suspect, is a point on which Dr. Just and I will not see eye-to-eye. But the evidence, I submit, is on the side of a variety of ways of telling the story as a model for a variety of ways of worshiping as Lutherans.
I think on the essences—the Gospel and the sacraments—Dr. Just and I agree. That’s the most important place for all of us to be. However, I think there is considerable room for continuing the conversation when it comes to keeping the proper distinction between receiving the gift and responding to the gift and the implications this has for an understanding of worship/liturgy that is both historical and Lutheran.
Peace
James Alan Waddell
+ sdg +
Pingback: WorshipConcord Journal | WorshipConcord
James,
I’d like you to clarify the meaning of one of your sentences. You wrote, “If prayer and praise are not offered as response to the gift of the Gospel and the sacraments, then worship becomes something we offer to God in order to curry his favor.” In reading the first half of this sentence I was thinking you were describing a situation in which (1) only the gift of the Gospel and the sacraments were part of worship and prayer and praise were not. But then I began to think that you were describing a situation in which (2) prayer and praise were indeed offered in worship, but without the inclusion of the gift of the Gospel and the sacraments. Could you specify which meaning you intended, or do you actually mean either or both?
Thanks!
Tim
Hi Tim. Thanks for the clarifying question. I actually mean #2, but I can see how your #1 might have been inferred.
What I mean is an uncritical adoption of American Evangelical contemporary worship forms in Lutheran congregations, even to the extent that the proclamation of the Gospel is shaped by the Evangelical theology, namely, the Gospel is you making a decision for Christ and not Christ giving his life for all of humankind. I have actually heard this Evangelical theology of the “gospel” preached in Lutheran congregations, congregations where their worship was in fact prayer and praise offered to God in just the right way, in order to please God. The explicit understanding of worship being a human effort that must be done with just the right emotional intensity for it to be pleasing to God. This is not the biblical Gospel, although Evangelicals will insist it is.
James,
I wholeheartedly agree with your concluding papragraph. I think the ongoing conversation would be wonderful, but I am not confident that in the current climate of synod that it will be possible. The latest ACELC document points towards that. I do not agree with some of the songs that are sung in church and even some of the practices that occur during the divine service, but I also feel that congregation are embracing these practices because there has not been discussion of these issues in any meaningful way in the last 20 – 30 years.
Try finding a Christian musical for a school childen to do that is not steeped in decision theology. They sometimes need heave adaptation to even make them passable. There are a wealth of materials available, but not many that are Lutheran.
Andrew,
I am cautiously optimistic that the ongoing conversation will happen in the LCMS. The discussion we have entered because of the leadership of our Synodical officials (President Kieschnick, Joel Lehenbauer and Larry Vogel of the CTCR, and David Johnson of the COW) holds promise. I think it is important that this discussion was begun under the tenure of President Kieschnick.
I am also cautiously optimistic about President elect Harrison’s vision for having theological discussion as he outlined this in his document, “It’s Time,” now more than a year old. It’s been several months since I read it, but I recall it has a ten-year time frame for having these theological discussions. I am assuming that worship will be included, if the vision is carried out. What I am unclear about is what will happen after President elect Harrison’s ten-year period of discussion. That’s the shoe he left undropped. In my opinion, the theological discussions should be geared early on toward recapturing a climate of trust and mutual respect, and toward creating an ongoing culture of theological discussion in the Synod, not just a ten-year period.
I agree with you that there is a dirth of good resources that are usable for Lutheran congregations and schools. This is one of the reasons why WorshipConcord was created in the first place, to promote the creation of these resources by Lutheran artists, and to encourage those artists. I see a beginning of that happening with the Commission on Worship.
What ACELC document are you referring to?
James,
I agree that It’s Time has great possibilities especially concerning garnering trust and mutual respect. That is the only thing that will help the conversation. I pray that the discussion that has begun will continue.
I believe Worship Concord has tremendous potential within synod and I pray that it will continue to work toward its intent.
The article I was referring to is: http://acelc.net/userFiles/2001/acelc_evidence_of_errors_-_divine_services__liturgical_offices.pdf
While I agree that errors are being committed, I do not necessarily come to the same conclusions as to why they are occuring.
<BLOCKQUOTE cite= “To some extent I am using Basil’s argument. Basil argued that our worship must be normed by what is given in the biblical text. I am arguing that if we are using the “biblical story” to define our Lutheran identity, then we must allow for the different ways of telling that story in the canonical texts also to shape our approach to its embodiment in our worship. This, I suspect, is a point on which Dr. Just and I will not see eye-to-eye. But the evidence, I submit, is on the side of a variety of ways of telling the story as a model for a variety of ways of worshiping as Lutherans.”
At this point I agree as well. I do not agree with giving up Lutheran worship. I do believe that there are various ways to tell the story. The problem is that many congregations have driftend towards mainline Protestantism. The opposite reaction is condemn any non-traditional worship as being In error. I do not believe that pastors and congregations are intentionally rejecting traditional forms. They are seeking different ways to tell the story, unfortunately the models in existence are contrary to Lutheran forms of worship.
I do not advocate giving up the ancient liturgy. Even with Luther’s reforms, the Divine service still contains the basic elements of the ancient liturgies. That does not mean that there is not room for ways to do the Divine Service.
From the Apology VII numbers 30 and 31
“The adversaries condemn also the part of the Seventh Article in which we said that “to the unity of the Church it is sufficient to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments; nor is it necessary that human traditions, rites, or ceremonies instituted by men should be alike everywhere.” Here they distinguish between universal and particular rites, and approve our article if it be understood concerning particular rites; they do not receive it concerning universal rites. [That is a fine, clumsy distinction!] 31] We do not sufficiently understand what the adversaries mean. We are speaking of true, i.e., of spiritual unity [we say that those are one harmonious Church who believe in one Christ; who have one Gospel, one Spirit, one faith, the same Sacraments; and we are speaking, therefore, of spiritual unity], without which faith in the heart, or righteousness of heart before God, cannot exist. For this we say that similarity of human rites, whether universal or particular, is not necessary, because the righteousness of faith is not a righteousness bound to certain traditions [outward ceremonies of human ordinances] as the righteousness of the Law was bound to the Mosaic ceremonies, because this righteousness of the heart is a matter that quickens the heart. To this quickening, human traditions, whether they be universal or particular, contribute nothing; neither are they effects of the Holy Ghost, as are chastity, patience, the fear of God, love to one’s neighbor, and the works, of love. “
I guess it’s a matter of defining what makes worship “Lutheran.” Is it all the humanly instituted rites and ceremonies (AC VII), or is it what is given by God in Gospel and sacraments (again AC VII)? I am arguing the latter, since that is in fact what makes Lutheran worship distinct from all other worship. Sasse argued that even churches who have traditional forms of worship have heterodox teaching, so it isn’t the external forms (language used by the Confessions) that define it.
This is true in many cases, but not all cases. There are perfectly good models out there that are consistent with Lutheran forms of worship that are also non-traditional.
As for the quote from Apology VII & VIII, how can it be stated more clearly than Melanchthon stated it here? Thanks, Andrew. JAW
James,
I liked that Apology quote because it does speak well to the positive argument.
I have been embroiled in this debate with some people I know. Since I am not a pastor, what liturgical forms are Lutheran? I would like to be able to show the adamant people that there are healthy alternatives.
Thank you
Andrew
That’s not so easy a question to answer. Let me think about it for a while. I don’t want to just answer this one off the top of my head. It deserves a thoughtful response. JAW
Dr. Just writes, “The way we worship in the 21st century is an expression of our identity as Lutherans. Our worship announces that our life is defined by Jesus Christ, our Creator and our Redeemer, that our identity is in conformity to his holy life.”
Dr. Just’s statement I would like to amend in this way:
“Our worship announces that Jesus Christ by the power of the Spirit through word and sacrament shapes our life, and that our identity as God’s people is an expression of the Lord’s activity by His Spirit in and through us .”
James, What do you think about congregations agreeing to use the LSB exclusively? I find plenty of variety and contemporary music within its covers. For example, I have put together an LSB setting of the Deutsche Messe that uses the following: Kyrie (944); Gloria ((946); Alleluia (952); Creed (953); Offertory (956); Sanctus (961); Agnust Dei (963). Some of this music comes from the 21st century — about as contemporary as you can get. The problem as I see it is that too many of us are focused on what we want or think will make us feel good/special about worship. If the gifts of God don’t do that, do we really think trying to sing songs from Christian radio will help? Our Constitution says we will use doctrinally pure hymnals and educational materials. Perhaps that is why the BRTFSG want to delete that portion.