“You Are Not Free to Use This Liberty” — Thoughts on Liturgical Uniformity
Name the person who wrote the following statement about liturgical uniformity. Who was it that dared to restrict the use of Christian liberty in matters pertaining to worship?
Now even though external rites and orders … add nothing to salvation, it is un-Christian to quarrel over such things and confuse the common people. We should consider the edification of the laity more important than our own ideas and opinions … Let each one surrender his own opinions and get together in a friendly way and come to a common decision about these external matters, so that there will be one uniform practice throughout your district instead of disorder … For even though from the viewpoint of faith, the external orders are free and can without scruples be changed by anyone at anytime, yet from the viewpoint of love you are not free to use this liberty…
Or how about this one?
It is the cause of much incorrectness… when the external church ordinances, divine service and ceremonies are not held with reverence, or in orderly fashion, or in like manner. Also certain pastors purpose to act in these matters without uniformity. They shall carefully see to it that the ceremonies which have to do with hymns, clothing of the priests, administration of the sacrament … as well as the festivals, be maintained in an orderly and uniform fashion, at one place as at another, uniform and in accord with such as occur at Wittenberg and Torgau, in accord with the Holy Scriptures…*
One more quote:
Ceremonies [should be instituted] which give the external indication that in the congregation
great, high, serious dealings are present, so that the ceremonies lead, stimulate, admonish and move the people to join together their thoughts, lift up their hearts in all humility. That there be in the congregation heartfelt devotion to the word, the Sacrament and prayer … Christian freedom has its place in this matter, as the ancients said, “Disagreement in rites does not take away agreement in faith.” It still brings all sorts of benefit that in ceremonies, so much as it is possible, a uniformity be maintained, and that such uniformity serve to maintain unity in doctrine, and that common, simple, weak consciences be all the less troubled, rather strengthened. It is therefore viewed as good that, as much as possible, a uniformity in ceremonies with neighboring reformed churches be affected and maintained. And for this reason, henceforth all pastors in the churches of our realm, shall emphatically follow this written church order, and not depart from the same without specific, grave cause. *
To suggest that the better way for the church to order herself is for there to be the greatest amount of liturgical uniformity as possible strikes some ears as a call for a slavish formalism, some even go so far as to use the word "legalistic" whenver this comes up. That never has made sense to me. I’ve never heard anyone in favor of traditional Lutheran worship say that its use is required for salvation. It seems that some in the Lutheran Church have dismissed discussion of the dangers of liturgical diversity and the blessings of the great possible liturgical uniformity. Why? Sadly, in an era that has witnessed a trend toward doing whatever is right in the eyes of an individual pastor, or congregation, the blessings of liturgical uniformity are being woefully neglected. We have lost our understanding of the blessing and advantage of striving to have as common a liturgical practice as possible.
The thought that a pastor would, from Sunday to Sunday, reinvent the church’s worship service
was an alien thought to the Lutheran Confessors, and hence the Lutheran Confessions. Rev. Matthew Harrison, some years ago, did a study on the practice of the Lutheran Church in the sixteenth century. In it he uses the "church orders" of the time to demonstrate how one should, and likewise should not, interpret the comments on adiaphora in the Lutheran Confessions. It is quite fascinating and very revealing. You can read a copy here: Download liturgical_uniformity.pdf
Some might assume that my remarks are directed only toward those who have chosen to embrace "contemporary worship" or "blended worship" with its Sunday-to-Sunday "newness." But that would be a mistake. I would also direct these remarks to those who choose to "do their own thing" in a more traditionally liturgical direction: that is, those who
choose to embellish and otherwise change the church’s received liturgies in a direction that they regard as "better" or "more faithful" or "more liturgical."
I have been concerned for years that some of those most stridently speaking against the
liturgical diversity in our Synod turn right around and in their parish create their own little variation on the Lutheran liturgy, claiming that they are doing it better, or more historically, or more traditionally. I’ve seen horrendous mixta composita of liturgical services slapped together from multiple sources, all of course perceived as being "historically Lutheran" and these undertakings have always struck me as problematic in the same way the cut and paste "services" in contemporary worship contexts are.
I do not see any difference between this and those who chose to go another direction in terms of a sensitivity for the good order of the church. It may be that a
liturgy is more similar to a particular 16th century German Divine Service than others, perhaps even more similar than anything in any present hymnal, but I find no justification for deciding, as an individual pastor or parish, to "go it alone" in this direction, any more than I find justification or benefit in creating new liturgies from Sunday to Sunday. The goal of liturgical uniformity is not repristination of what happened in the Sixteenth Century, any more than it is should be the goal to toss our the liturgy.
My opinion is that it would be a tremendous blessing to our church body if we would all set aside
our pet theories, our cherished preferences, and even our favorite hymnals, and embrace the use of one hymnal: Lutheran Service Book.
I believe it is essential for all of us to set aside a fixation on"contemporary worship" [as if there is any worship that is not contemporary"] and stop dividing up our Sunday mornings between "traditional" and "classical grace" or "contemporary" or "blended" and just start having "church," period. It means that we need to stop turning the church into a popular opinion poll from Sunday to Sunday. It means that we use the church’s hymnal. Use the church’s liturgies as they are printed in the church’s new hymnal and use the many opportunities for variety within that structure. I see as little wisdom in trying to mimic some specific territorial German church order, as I do in trying to take our cues from the non-denominational "Evangelical" worship forms prevalent in our nation among many Protestants.
There are some who would like to use the Tenth Article in the Formula of Concord to justify a practice by which each individual congregation in our Church can just go ahead and "do its own thing" when it comes to worship practices. But this is truly a misuse of this article, and was not, by any stretch of the imagination, what the Lutheran Confessors had in mind when they prepared the Formula of Concord. Here is a very helpful insight into the attitude toward liturgical uniformity that was in the minds of those who prepared, and subscribed, to the Formula of Concord from 1577-1580.
As Rev. Harrison notes in his paper: "The final Church Order here referred to is one of the most significant
for interpreting FC SD 10, 9. Duke August I of Electoral Saxony was the driving force behind the Electoral Saxon Church Order of 1580, and Andreae its author. The order came out after the adoption of the Book of Concord. In fact, it calls for ministers to subscribe to the Book of Concord. What FC SD 10 means when it states, ‘no church shall condemn another’, is crystal clear in ‘IX. Regarding Ceremonies in the Churches’."
Pastors and ministers, on the basis of God’s Word, and at the instigation of the declaration published this year (1580), and incorporated in this book [The Book of Concord], shall diligently instruct their flock and hearers in their sermons,
as often as the opportunity avails itself, that such external ordinances and ceremonies are in and of themselves no divine service, nor a part of the same. They are rather only ordained for this reason, that the divine service, which is not within the power of human beings to change, may be held at various times and
places, and without offense or terrible disorder. Accordingly, they should not at all be troubled when they see dissimilar ceremonies and usages in external things among the churches. They should much rather be reminded herein of their Christian freedom, and in order to maintain this freedom, make profitable use of this dissimilarity of ceremonies… Nevertheless, so unity may be maintained in the churches of our land…the following ceremonies shall be conducted according to our order or incorporated church agenda, until there is a general uniformity of all churches of the Augsburg Confession … And it will be granted to no minister to act contrary to the same [agenda] to introduce some revision, no matter under what pretext. *
Liturgical uniformity and the good it brings to the church’s life is more important than any personal interest in doing it "better" or "different," and that cuts both ways.
If I may use a crass analogy, imagine if you would that McDonalds decided tomorrow that they
no longer cared what any of its restaurants looked like. No more standardization of the logo, or clothing, or ways of doing things. Every McDonalds would be told, "Do whatever you feel is best and whatever feels right to you." That would make little sense, would it? How much more than does it make sense for every Lutheran congregation to be running off in its own direction, doing what feels right to it? Now, granted, every McDonalds has some minor differences, but there never is any doubt that you are at a McDonalds. See the point?
That’s my .02 cents worth. As always, your mileage may vary.
By the way, the person who said the first quote, that we are not free to use our liberty in matters pertaining to liturgical uniformity was…Martin Luther. And the second quote? It is from the Wittenberg Church Order of 1542, prepared by Jonas, Cruciger, Bugenhagen, Melachthon, Luther, and others; Sehling, I:202. The third quote? It is from the 1569 Church Order of Brauncshweig-Wolfenbuettel and was prepared by none other than Martin Chemnitz and Jacob Andreae, the chief authors and architects of the Formula of Concord. [Sehling VI.1, 139, 40]. The final quote is from: AL Richter ed, Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des
sechszehn ten Jahrhunderts. Urkunden und Regesten zur Geschichte des Rechts and
der Verfassung der evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland, Leipzig, 1871, vol II:, p. 440.
A really great point! If synod means “walking together” why in the world do we not walk together in one of the most visible ways–our worship practices? I feel this causes a lot of unnecessary confusion and frustration for our members and for visitors. I’m looking forward to the new hymnal and I sincerely hope we can all “get on the same page.”
Will the *Divine Liturgy of Saint John chrysostom* be included in the new Lutheran Service Book?
McCain response: No, Lutheran Service Book is a Lutheran hymnal, not an Eastern Orthodox hymnal. That is not necessarily to say that the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is “bad” but…we are Evangelical Lutherans in the Western Catholic tradition and … that’s just fine. Better to stick to the same hymnal, use the variety within that hymnal and provided for by the rubrics and propers than to go running off in search of something “better.”
Points well made. The challenge in every congregation should not be “what will we do for worship?” but “how can we do the liturgy we have received to the best of our abilities?”
You have hit the liturgical nail squarely on the head, and to mix a metaphor, you have taken note of both ditches in the road.
It becomes difficult to go back to the historic liturgy when so many people under the age of 35 have only been in a church that is in flux. To go back to the traditional and the liturgical is a big upheaval, and I think a case needs to be made why contemporary church should buy an organ and hymnals, kick out the praise band, and tear down the powerpoint screen when that’s what’s always been done. (at least to them)
McCain: I’m not really suggesting anyone “go back” or for that matter “go forward” — to describe a “historic liturgy” is already to set off on the wrong foot. The litury is not “historic” or “traditional” — it is the liturgy, period. Yes, it has elements that are “historic” and “traditional” but to set the liturgy against what is “contemporary” is in my opinion a bit of sleight of hand actually.
The point of my post is simply this: use the Church’s hymnal, use the dversity and variety in the hymnal, make use of the wide variety of things that can be done responsibly within the framework provided so well in the hymnal. This is a matter of what is best for the Church. If we want people to be, and remain, Lutherans, then let them worship as Lutherans, not trying to imitate [usually done very pooly] the Evangelicals, or, for that matter, some “perfect” liturgy from the 16th century or the Early Church. As for the answers to your questions: read the post again. Liturgical uniformity is the priority, and that means giving up personal preferences for the good of the church, be those preferences be along the lines of “high church” or “contemporary worship.”
Very nice essay, Rev. McCain. I find myself in near total agreement with you, especially wrt to the decrying of “cut & paste” “liturgies” that allow pastors to mix & match.
However, I was struck by an irony when I then read the wish for ubiquitous adoption & use of the LSB. Why? Because, the LSB has a strongly emphasized online version that is being touted as a way for folks to, well, mix & match. (And that’s leaving aside the other things that people have raised as problematic, uniform-practice-wise, with parts of the LSB…). I fear that it’s tried to be too many things to too many people (CW, too many DS settings, etc…), when it should’ve simply been a bridge back to past liturgical excellence & uniformity.
Anyhow, in the big picture I do agree with you in thinking that it would be a vast improvement in our walking together (synodically speaking) if we could get back to a uniformity of practice facilitated by the LSB — for it does look to be an improvement over TLH & LW. Even as I fear that such a positive result is not in the cards, I pray for God to bless us with a positive outcome.
-ghp
Some Good Friday Gems
Wow… I know that guy! (Two pictures up.) Gee, Lutheranism is a small world.
I too am really looking forward to the new hymnal. A group of people from our church, including a few youth, went to hear a presentation on it, and found it really interesting. It’s been my experience with young people in church that they also long for some kind of stability; it’s not necessarily just the teens who are clamoring to change things up for the sake of change. Any of us can fall into that trap. Post well taken.
By the way, we gifted one of these same youth with his own new Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions last fall, and he couldn’t get enough of it. Thank you for your commitment to the Book of Concord.
I would like to see a discussion about “church orders” somewhere in the blogosphere. A classmate of mine has been talking about such a thing for quite some time.
My question is whether or not liturgical “church orders” would be in the way of the Law or in the way of the Gospel. It is given to us not to legislate the Means of Grace. Yet it is given to us, for the sake of uniformity, love, and Christian concern, to be as uniform as possible, knowing full well ceremonies may vary from parish to parish.
I think of the marvelous quote of Matthias Flacius who said something to the effect of “Ceremonies are for the eyes because one cannot see doctrine.” We retain ceremonies in the Church because those ceremonies confess what we believe and confess.
Thank you for a stimulating post.
Here’s what bugs me about departures from the liturgy: all of them, whether it’s made-up liturgy or Evangelical/Pop-style or anything else–all of them are done for the fulfilment of someone’s desire–even lots of someone’s. Maybe even a majority of someone’s. Maybe even everyone’s.
Seems from the git-go that departures from the liturgy, then, are necessarily departures from divine service; from gottesdient.
So tell me again why Lutherans who adventure away from liturgy are going to church? And why is the pastor who presides over liturgy-less or liturgy-lite services, a pastor at all, and not a motivational speaker? Obviously, he has a better book in mind, than LW or LSB or TLH–why doesn’t he take that book on tour, then, and leave church alone?
Church must, to the liturgy-less crowd, be just a habit–a thing to do that they’ve always done. Like shopping. And just as fulfilling: there’s something to show for the activity, but nothing that’ll last for more than a season.
As a Lutheran transplanted from Germany and struggling to adjust to a new language and culture,it lifted my heart to recognice the familiar in our Liturgie, even the scaled down Liturgie of the former ELC. There is great value in continuity and permanence. I would have been very much turned off, had I at that time encountered a “praise service” as I have seen them in other churches. I also very much appreciate that most of our Liturgie is in fact God’s word. Why do we think we have to change that?
McCain: Thank you for your words and your eloquent witness the great and high value of as much liturgical uniformity as possible.
Well, I might be for LSB if it would draw us together.
I had hoped that LSB would be the book for it but I am not sure anymore . . . we’ll see. fwiw
I wonder how it will do it. Does it not have 4 (or 5) *different* settings of the Divine Service?
McCain: Each Divine Service is clearly a Divine Service, and unlike TLH, LSB does not encourage a service of Holy Communion Without Communion. I find this to be excuse making.
It is re-introducing a eucharistic prayer into the liturgy (something Sasse thought was not wise at all).
McCain response: There is no eucharistic prayer in LSB. There is a prayer during which the Word of Institution are said, but they are clearly distinguished and set apart.
Doesn’t seem like a lot of unity is manifest in the book itself. I haven’t seen the hymn list of late. I know it had (maybe not now) some clunkers that had no reason to be included.
McCain response: You need to set aside your personal preferences and tastes. TLH contains a good number of pietistic “clunkers.”
Then the economics of it are a bit staggering for us little guys. At $18.50 a pop (plus shipping), it would cost us more than $4,000 to replace what we have. (The fact that the one-year lectionary costs twice what one of the 3-year books costs is irksome too).
McCain: Staggering? Oh, come now….one of the easiest things in the world to ask donations for is a new hymnal. Little guys? If your congregation requires 216 copies of the hymnal you are not a “little guy.” This is a non-issue and I believe you are simply excuse making. If your church truly does need 216 copies of the hymnal, then surely you have more than enough people attending church to ask for donations. It is not difficult and easily accomplished. As for the price of the one year lectionary: if you would care to encourage several thousand congregations to adopt the one year lectionary, then the price would be lower.
I hear a lot of whining here, but little substance. I wonder if “Sausage the Elder” would care to divulge what hymnal he presently uses?
I like the sentiment in the post. I even agree with it.
McCain: Again, you are putting your personal interests and tastes and preferences above the greater good of uniformity in liturgical matters.
This article is right on! Thanks. There is a case to be made, it seems to me, that departing from the agreed-upon liturgies for no good theological reason/necessity is a sin against Christian love. (No insignificant matter!)
Luther again and again pointed out that liturgical variation confuses people and opens the door for theological variation. It’s thus destructive of genuine church unity in the faith. Besides, what can you retain if there’s different words every week? (Liturgy as vehicle for catechesis.) Can you be sure it’s the right words?
It is important to remember that Luther didn’t sit down and start from scratch when it came to the orders of service used in Wittenberg. He stuck to what was there as far as this was theologically possible. Certainly, the canon of the mass had to be destroyed (and a works-righteous misundersanding of ceremonies); but much of the rest remained unchanged. This preserved liturgical uniformity even across the ages and spaces. That’s not unimportant, unless you want Lutherans to sound like some early-21st-centry sect. Christian love applies here too — honor your father and your mother (not: put them in the (liturgical) nursing home ASAP).
The basic question is: If we can’t even love our fellow LCMS Lutherans by having the same orders of worship — whom are we ever going to love? In observing liturgical uniformity to preserve outward peace and harmony among those who share the faith we have a concrete “good work” to do. What do we see instead? Creativity that leaves “uniformity” and jointly agreed-upon ceremonies for those who just don’t have the right kind of entrepreneurial spirit. This leads to bitter sheep-stealing among LCMS congregations. Where is our love for the members of the household of faith? Just letting everybody do what’s right for them can’t be love. This is just a lack of solidarity with, and considerateness for, the weak members of our fellowship, in a word: ecclesial Darwinism (and we in the LCMS should be against that, right?).
A final thought: for new members to having to learn an order of worship that doesn’t sound like the ditty-station on the radio dial is, in my view, a call to repentance and genuine spiritual growth. It’s part of becoming a stranger in this world. You become part of a new community that’s been there before you were even born and that will be around after you’re dead. So, your individual taste — how much is that worth compared to joining the church of all ages and places? In pop-services, this call to repentance is, in my view, sorely lacking.
Holger Sonntag
I also wanted to respond to the Elder who was concerned about the price of the book. Now, I don’t want to sound provincial or elitist, but I come from Germany and we had — absolutely no hymnals in the racks (we didn’t even have pew racks to begin with). This was so, not because we had large video screens (which are really hard on your voice, by the way), but because every member had a copy of the church’s hymnal at home ever since their confirmation.
In the LCMS this was so too till the, I don’t know, 70s or 80s. I think it is high time we come back to this so that the hymnal is no longer this “weird book” at church that’s kind of unwieldy, but becomes a resource for personal and family devotions at home and, e.g., in the hospital or nursing home. Once we’ve rediscovered the hymnal as such a devotional resource, 15-stanza hymns by P. Gerhard will make sense again: Use them as devotional readings or singings at home for your edification when you’re not at church.
For this to happen we need to recover the family as basic religious unit. To be sure, not in competition to the congregation but as a basic building block. (Without their help, pastors labor in vain. That’s Luther’s opinion.) Fathers need to step up to the plate and do what God has given them to do: not the exercise of privileges but the exercise of duties, to teach the basic parts of the faith to their families as heads and servant-leaders of their families.
So, back to the cost-issue: If every member would be asked to pay $20 for his personal hymnal and if the hymnal lasts us, say, 25 years, well, that’s less than a dollar a year. Isn’t that perfectly doable, esp. if sponsors etc. pitch in for confirmands etc? The congregation could then buy some hymnals for visitors; but every member would be expected to bring their personal hymnal to church so as to use it on a regular basis. This is how you make friends, with books as well as people: spend time together doing meaningful things.
Holger Sonntag
I was starting to read the discussion and noticed that you are using the image from the stained glass window (the Means of Grace window) that is above the altar at Grace Lutheran Church. Though the image is copyrighted, we would be happy to have you use the image/jpeg with attribution as to the source. Thanks.
McCain: It is very beautiful. The copyright is duly noted. Please be aware that it is easily available to anyone using the image search function on Google.
“McCain response: No, Lutheran Service Book is a Lutheran hymnal, not an Eastern Orthodox hymnal. That is not necessarily to say that the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is ‘bad’ but…we are Evangelical Lutherans in the Western Catholic tradition and … that’s just fine. Better to stick to the same hymnal, use the variety within that hymnal and provided for by the rubrics and propers than to go running off in search of something ‘better.’”
pastor mccain,
i’m not advocating the use of st. john chrysostom’s divine liturgy by any means, but to say that it is not used solely because we are christians in the western catholic tradition is not entirely consistent with our lutheran practice.
in yesterday’s divine service we sang “come, you faithful, raise the strain,” (a fine easter hymn, by the way) which is attributed to john of damascus, who of course was an eastern father.
should we therefore stop singing this hymn because we are christians in the western catholic tradition?
i would like to add that i am very excited for this new hymnal. thank you for your hard work.
a proud lutheran,
drew.
McCain: Drew, there is a signigificant difference between using an Eastern Orthodox liturgy and singing a hymn attributed to an early church father, whom today is considered to be an Eastern father. But the point really is simply that *if* our church were to decide together that it would be best for all of us to use the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, then we would. I love that hymn too, but Luther’s great “Christ Jesus lay in death’s strong bands” is even better.
pastor mccain,
i also forgot to mention that your post is spot on.
drew.
I find myself conflicted over your point. I certainly do not want the kind of variation which means worship is a surprise when you attend a Lutheran congregation but I also believe that a certain amount of diversity when based upon accepted forms (from previous worship books) is acceptable. I have not used TLH since LW came out but I harbor no ill will to those who do and often use the TLH setting in LW. I use the hymnal section of HS98 and Evening Prayer but seldom use the hymn tune setting of the Divine Service and harbor no ill will to those who do. I occasionally use portions of the Worship Supplement 1969. I often use the eucharistic prayer from Peter Brunner’s Worship in the Name of Jesus (which has the imprimatur of the LCMS) and the eucharistic prayers from the Supplement 1969. I do not believe that these constitute the kind of variation which damages unity or causes confusion to the people in the pew. We could say the same for the use of eucharistic vestments vs alb/stole or cassock/surplice/stole or even black academic gown. But we should not be bothered by such diversity of vestments. And the discussion could continue on with elevation, genuflection, kneeling, etc… For example I use the greeting of peace immediately after the absolution and before the Introit. Does this constitute a violation of the current service books rubrical usage? What about using hymns not published in the hymnal (s) but available through collections such as Herman Stuempfle or Jaroslav Vajda? I abhor so-called contemporary worship but I also fear the kind of rigid rubrical authority that rules like canon law. I resist those who use TLH because they insist LW is not orthodox as much as I resist those who insist that contemporary choruses and non-liturgical enterainment is the only way to grow… well it is something to think about. I fear that the people whose liturgical innovation I fear least are the only ones who struggle with these questions. The rest of the folks do what they want without a tinge of guilt or a second thought about the issues Paul McCain has raised here.
McCain response: Thank you Pastor Peters for your thoughtful remarks. At the risk of repeating myself, I would simply again offer my opinion that within the options and varieties offered in the hymnal, there is plenty of space for responsible diversity. I believe that at this point in time it would be best for everyone to put on the shelf personal preferences and simply stick with the new hymnal. But I repeat myself. Again, thanks for your remarks.
Just a thought on the Chrysostom-Liturgy in our midst. Apparently, some smart person managed to include its opening Great Litany, in an adapted form, into the liturgical tradition of the ELCA and LCMS (“In peace, let us pray …”).
I always wondered where this part of the LW-liturgy came from, but when I was reading N. Cabasilas’ commentary on the divine liturgy some time ago, there it was.
I side with Rev. McCain. We should strive to remain within our liturgical family, that is, the West. With the East, problems will be multiplied even more.
Holger Sonntag
I know this is a late entry into the discussion — pondered it for a few days, then got sidetracked (AND caught a bad cold which didn’t help things).
Like “GHP,” I find myself in “near total” agreement with you, in terms of your plenary point. A more consistent worship paradigm in the synod is DEFINITELY more desirable. But I also feel that LSB has, as GHP’d said, “tried to be too many things to too many people.” Yet — and this may be where I depart from GHP’s train of thought — I’m not positive that one hymnal can BE that bridge at this point.
Whether we like it or not, LW opened an incredible Pandora’s box with its extent of “revisions” and “minor updatings” (whether it was this phraseology or other terms used to market it). This has carried over into LSB. I’ve often heard references to the “TLH liturgies” to be included in LSB, but it seems clear to me that there’s ONE liturgy that’s “kinda-sorta” the Page 15 service, and THAT’S IT. Also, whether we like it or not, this IS an issue and will remain one in many circles.
The ones who’ve used LW will be able to, except for Divine Service I, continue (at least for the most part) to use the liturgies they’ve become used to, without having to relearn things. At my TLH congregation, we frequently use Matins and Vespers. Now I KNOW that LSB is not LW, but for all intents and purposes, a move FROM TLH TO LSB would, to the person in the pew, be the same as it were a move from TLH to LW. And, yes, I DO share in this PERSONALLY (I know what you’re going to say about “setting aside personal preferences”).
Yes, there IS also the issue of hymnody. “Amazing Grace” and “How Great Thou Art” in a new hymnal is an instant liability. I once served a church which would have relentlessly hammered the request to sing these hymns, for the simple reason that they were IN the hymnal. Yes, I KNOW that TLH has its own “pietistic clunkers,” but as been suggested, TLH is a book we inherited, and besides, I do believe that it HAS gotten worse in more modern times than the TLH era.
“Personal preferences”? Admittedly so, in many areas of my point. I do not believe that it’s a matter of TLH being more orthodox and LW any less at all, at least not liturgically (to address Pastor Peters’ concern). But I ALSO do NOT subscribe to the “damage is done” theory. Wherever possible, I believe in the restoration to what should be (and, yes, I AM thinking in terms of orthodox hymnody just as much as liturgical matters).
Still further, what about the congregations which steadfastly refuse to use a hymnal at all — or a Lutheran hymnal at all? I do not believe that we who favor TLH (or those who favor LW, too, for that matter) should have to be considered the ones disrupting unity in worship, when it’s clear that the REAL unity issue lies elsewhere.
My whole point is this — as I’ve often said before, to roll TLH and LW into one hymnal is a gargantuan task and, I believe, reaching for something that’s INCREDIBLY high. Our worship situation in synod is FAR more convoluted beyond what ANY new hymnal (or old one, for that matter) can simply restore. Also, as I’ve suggested, if our purpose in bringing out LSB was to offer a good, faithful new hymnal, great! If it was for the REASON that there are TWO hymnals in use and the purpose was to make the TWO into ONE, then, as always, I question the wisdom of it.
I could say more — about the research that determined that the “majority” prefer LW, about the presence of Page 5 in TLH (which I hardly ever use, BTW), etc. — but I’ll sign off for now.
My old friend, dare I say that your post seems to be more from a publisher’s perspective than from the pastor’s perspective? You have chosen, rather arbitrarily, to define the permissible extent of uniformity by a certain volume. While I wouldn’t use the word “legalistic”, I might suggest that this is a rather “collectivist” mindset. Individualism, the opposite pole, is no virtue. But surely we would recognize that there might be more variations between people and places than one single book will encompass.
There is probably no part of the worship that is more adaptable than the sermon, and yet I have found to my distress that the sermons I wrote in my first 16 years in the parish are not very useful during these last 4 in a new congregation. Although the pastor is (mostly) the same, and the people are still faithful Lutherans, and the sermons are even (if I do say so myself) pretty well written, yet they just don’t quite “fit” these people as they did the people for whom they were written.
I work within the structure of our liturgy, and with mostly elements from (all) our hymnals, but try to do so in a way that will emphasize and communicate a single message from God’s Word. The ordinaries don’t do that, and frankly the propers (especially our collects) often leave something to be desired in terms of unity. The unity of the Church described in Scripture is a unity of doctrine. If our worship, in whatever form it takes, truly affirms that same doctrine, then I see no excuse in the words you cited for such a procrustean bed of a single publication.
———
McCain: Don, given the rapid response to the article, I seriously must question if you read the post very carefully. You have nearly entirely misunderstood it and misrepresented it. And it is a shame you choose to dismiss the entire post by a much too facile reference to my position at CPH. You can do better than this Don. Your comment is both surprising and disappointing, to say the least. Your remarks appear to be knee-jerk reactionary defensiveness for what you have chosen to do rather than thougthful interaction with the post. I would like to see you interact with Luther’s comments and the thinking behind the decisions our fathers made about such things. Are they also to be charged with “procrustean” attitudes? Or, is it possible that in fact their concern was precisely a pastoral one? And that they had in view the whole church rather than simply every single congregation and every single pastor doing their own thing? I would hope you will give this more thought.
———-
Tremendous post! I pray that our new hymnal, the LSB, will be a blessing and bring our Synod together. This should be our prayer.
Paul,
, and the illustration from fast food land is not crass at all – it’s spot on.
I agree wholeheartedly with your essay on the need for liturgical uniformity for the well-being of the Church. You make some very good points, the quotes are priceless (yes, I had seen them before
I have noticed one thing about this whole discussion, however. All of the advocacy for liturgical uniformity still resides in the realm of “personal preference.” No, that’s not meant to be a criticism, just an observation. As it stands now, those in favor of liturgical uniformity will naturally band together (and preach to the choir?), while those inclined to “more variety in worship” will rally themselves together (and feed off of each other in their particular viewpoint?). Still each “side” will be doing what’s right in its own eyes, even collectively.
What I notice about the Chemnitz quote, however, is something quite different in spirit as well as practice. Not only did he advocate liturgical uniformity, but he also had the authority, that is, the office, to implement it and oversee it. After all, Chemnitz was “superintendant” of the churches, correct?
So, I think that we are sorely lacking one essential ingredient for the “recipe of liturgical uniformity” in our midst: proper Scriptural, Confessional, ecclesial oversight. As one very well respected pastor of our mutual acquaintance told me back around Christmastide, what we need is for District Presidents to get some courage and come out and say, “We will use LSB (or TLH or LW) in all of the congregations of the X district.” And wasn’t that an original purpose and duty of offices of synodical leadership: first the synodical president, subsequently the district president, and then later the circuit counselor?
Short of a “father-figure” (the metaphor of family applies not only to the local congregation, but also, even especially, to the church-at-large) giving us direction – yes, loving direction, but still direction – I fear that our desire for and our calls for “liturgical uniformity” will fall flat. It’s not just a matter of everyone doing what’s right in his/her own eyes; it’s also a matter of everyone’s a brother and we have no fathers who will lovingingly direct (and discipline) us in the matters of liturgical uniformity.
In addition to using the line from the Book of Judges to describe our plight, perhaps we should also apply the story “The Lord of the Flies.” When the boys were all stranded on the island (all “brothers” and no fathers!), even their best attempts at establishing an orderly society soon crumbled due to lack of “grown-up direction” (authority to enforce the agreed upon rules). What saved the day in that story is what needs to save the day in our midst: those with the office of father coming to the rescue.
———-
McCain: Interesting observations, thank you Pastor Asburry. The Consistories in the 16th century … ah…consisted of both clergy and laymen. The Superintendent answered to his respective Elector or Prince. Now that’s something interesting to talk about. The superintendents were not quite the “father figures” you may wish suggest they were, at least, not in the sense that say, Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Bishops function. I do however agree with you about the role of ecclesiastical supervisors, whom are pledged in our Synod to enforce, yes, I’ll use that word, the Synod’s Constitution which has as one of the chief conditions of membership in The LCMS: “Exclusive use of doctrinally pure agendae, hymnals and catechisms,” and as anyone who studies these issues knows, the definition of what was, and wasn’t, “pure” was not left up to the local congregations and pastors of the Synod. “We” bristle at such “legalism” today but I think that say a lot more about us, than it does about them. Here’s another question…what was the Lutheran Church to do when our “father figures” or “bishops” become agents of false doctrine? What was Luther to do? I’m thinking of another church whose “father figures” havel by and large, gone bad, the Episcopalian Church USA. I would welcome you further thoughts on this subject.
———-
If it meant that we would all get into one book, then I would be willing to give up at least some freedom… Already some of the wilder aspects of today’s worship life push me further into the hymnals anyway, just in reaction to them. Just so long as the hymnals remain the guides and not ‘just what the next guy over is doing.’
Let me say this first, this is a very enjoyable, disciplined, and substantive discussion! Thanks to and for all particpants.
I want to follow up on Pr. Asburry’s post, re: father figures. In Luther’s writings it is clear that the pastors in one area should take the lead in establishing uniformity in liturgical matters. They are, argues Luther, charged with shepherding (keeping together) and teaching the flock, not with driving it apart (or off the cliff) by giving contradictory directions. That’s what Luther writes in his Letter to the Livonians.
In 1539, when he discusses the duties of a truly evangelical council, he describes as core duties to defend the old faith and the old good works against novelty and innovation. As an additional duty, he sees the council (consisting of pastors and knowledgeable laymen?) also making liturgical decisions, again for the sake of uniformity and, in fact, the survival of the church!
See AE 41:131: “Tenth, a council has the power to institute some ceremonies, provided, first, that they do not strengthen the bishops’ tyranny; second, that they are useful and profitable to the people and show fine, orderly discipline and conduct. Thus it is necessary, for example, to have certain days, and also places where one can assemble; also certain hours for preaching and for the public administration of the sacraments, for praying, singing, praising and thanking God, etc.—as St. Paul says, I Corinthians 14 [:40], “All things should be done decently and in order.” Such items do not serve the bishops’ tyranny, but only the people’s need, profit, and order. In summary, these must and cannot be dispensed with if the church is to survive.”
This modus operandi — both by means of pastors working together and by means of an evangelical council — presupposes and preserves unity in doctrine.
Everybody doing their thing when district and synodical official are not at the table? In a sense, yes. But let’s not forget that this is how the Reformation got started. The bishops were not doing what their offices required. They were not willing to pick these duties up. Then the Lutherans went and did “their own thing,” by restoring among themselves God-pleasing doctrine and worship. A new, reformed church was born out of the dysfunctional structures of the day. This is the freedom the gospel gives to Christ’s church lest we be held in Babylonian captivity indefinitely.
God’s Word unites and that unity shows in similar or even uniform orders of worship. But God’s Word also divides and that disunity also shows in dissimilar orders of worship.
Alright, I’ll take the bait.
I’m rather disappointed too, Paul, by your remarks. It seems rather ad hominem to me that you assume I did not carefully read or understand your post (to say nothing of calling my response “knee-jerk” and defensive). A part of what I wrote does in fact come from my own liturgical practice, which, like every parish pastor today, I am called upon to defend on a regular basis from critics of every stripe. But my liturgical practice is not the result of some emotional moment at a Dave and Barb Anderson concert. It is the current result of 20+ years of studying, wrestling, praying, working and consulting with others. Yeah, I respect what Luther and Chemnitz have to say – but they’re not called to be the pastor of my parish. I’m the one who will answer to God for that.
I’ve looked over your arguments again, and I’ll reiterate my point. I think you’re too narrow. I passed over the first part of your post, regarding the value of uniformity, because I think that’s a given. Nearly everyone agrees that there is value in uniformity. Certainly those who comment here seem to accept that, and even those on the fringe are spending all their time imitating someone else (Willow Creek or whatever). The real questions at issue are 1) Uniform with what (or who); and 2) uniform to what degree?
You suggest that uniformity should mean that everyone simply buys the same book and sticks with it. Setting aside the fact that everyone from Walther to Hower has written his own hymn verses or entire hymns for occasions (so much for only synodically approved materials). Your own quotations do not presume a church body normed by a publishing house. They assume a church body normed by uniform teaching.
“Ceremonies [should be instituted] which give the external indication that in the congregation great, high, serious dealings are present, so that the ceremonies lead, stimulate, admonish and move the people to join together their thoughts, lift up their hearts in all humility.” Chemnitz and Andreae give priority to the goal of liturgy, not just to the sameness of its form with the church next door.
They go on, “Christian freedom has its place in this matter, as the ancients said, “Disagreement in rites does not take away agreement in faith.”” Don’t wish that part of their argument away. It is fundamental that our unity is based on our faith first, and uniformity of worship, to the extent that it occurs, arises out of the uniformity of our doctrine. Uniform practice imposed from on top will not lead to uniformity of doctrine – but the reverse can be true.
Finally they wrote, “It still brings all sorts of benefit that in ceremonies, so much as it is possible, a uniformity be maintained, and that such uniformity serve to maintain unity in doctrine…” Once again, the PURPOSE for that uniformity which we encourage is for the support of uniform doctrine. And the phrase “as much as it is possible” leaves a lot open for interpretation.
I would take it to mean that the theologian called to serve God’s people in a parish must first of all seek to use the congregation’s worship to teach the people he has, where they are at. And that second, he is called upon to demonstrate that this faith he is teaching is the same as that faith once delivered to the saints, not some new innovation of his own. But the degree of uniformity?
I think it’s very telling that in subsequent comments the suggestion is made that district presidents could just require everyone to use only one book. That is not a church mindset – not a Biblical one. That is an institutional mindset. It is a bureaucrat’s solution. The real problem in our synod is not liturgical diversity, as distressing as that has become. It is doctrinal diversity. Making another rule to keep the critters in line will not save our church, any more than the Book of Common Prayer has saved the Church of England.
I apologize for the length of this comment. I felt I needed to defend myself against the charge of shallowness.
———-
McCain response: Don, I did not say you were shallow. I said you were missing the point, and I still believe you are. I do not believe you are missing the point because you are shallow, but because you are wrong. But, you’ve said what you said, and there you go. I do not find in your remarks much by way of appreciation of the blessings of trans-parochial liturgical uniformity, which was a given in the sixteenth century and is the context for the comments in our Confessions about adiaphora. You take issue with what you describe as “ad hominem” yet…that is precisely how you began your first remark and continue it in this one. A double standard perhaps? Dismissings concerns by calling people “bureocrats” and choosing to dismiss my concerns by referring to my position? Unfortunate.
I’m sorry you saw my original comment as ad hominem. I have always considered you both a pastor and a publisher. But when you wear two hats you may not always speak from both points of view equally. I was suggesting that your post was written more from one side of your role than the other.
The bureaucrat remark comes from the follow-on posts. It seems outrageous to me to suggest that district presidents tell us all how to worship. Ach du lieber! Take another look at our districts!
Finally, regarding my lack of appreciation for “trans-parochial liturgical uniformity.” You’ve got me there. I have in general a low respect for authority, having discovered to my pain that people achieve positions of authority and notariety for many reasons other than faithfulness to God’s Word. If I liked authority, I could turn off my brain, go with Rome, and have the “collier’s faith.”
Now, brotherly agreement… that’s a different animal. The suggestion that pastors in an area could seek to find greater agreement on their liturgical practice is a very positive one. And practical. It doesn’t mean someone (whether a district officer or a publishing house) telling all of us what the proper form of worship is. But it is not every cowboy for himself either. I have tried to promote that in every circuit that I’ve been in, with varied success. As peers we have had an influence on one another, but there have still been some irreconcilable differences in our practice.
We today live in an age of mobility — that’s a generally known fact. People in the 16th century were not as mobile, for a host of reasons.
Luther insisted that area-churches have the same liturgies. Later territorial churches did have the same liturgies within their boundaries. If I’m not mistaken, the “emergency bishops” (the princes) had the jus reformandi and the jus liturgicum (the right to reform and the liturgical right), not the parish pastors (this problematic development made the Prussian Union possible).
Back then, only a few people travelled outside of their home area. Today, people travel all over the map. Just think about snow birds from up north being at home in Texas or Florida during the winter.
On a very practical level, this should play a role in our deliberations and practice as well. We can’t ignore (for convenience’s sake) that people travel more today than ever before — and that there’s more theological “diversity” among us than ever before being implanted in people’s hearts also by means of liturgical confusion and experimentation.
WFIW.
While I found the article in June, it has long been my contention that Lutheran Pastors will not put themselves as a servant to the Liturgy and Hymns. We like to sign on to the idea of “doctrinally sound Hymn books and materials” but chafe if someone defines our favorites or things we like as not usable. You are correct any pastor or group deciding to do what is right in his own eyes undo the unity of practice because they place themselves as masters over the Liturgy.