A Warning Against the High Church Danger
“I once heard from the mouth of a leader of the Berneuchener Movement that the forensic doctrine of justification of the Formula of Concord was an absolute blasphemy. This man came form the city of Andreas Osiander. It is certainly no accident that one finds precisely in America, among Lutherans who are close to the Liturgical Movement or working in it, a doctrine of justification which is reminiscent of Osiander, as though the Christ dwelling in us is our righteousness. How correct were the Lutherans of the 16th century, and even Calvin, when they aw that Osiander had returned to the medieval Catholic and Tridentine doctrine of justification! The deeper reason that High Churchism has brought down so many appears to me to be that we modern Lutherans no longer correctly understand justification. . . . Thus, we lack the compass which directs our course with certainty. For this reason, we no longer have Luther’s keen sense for what of the liturgical heritage of the older church is evangelical and for that which has been brought from strange fires and placed upon the Christian altar. This is the reason that now the Catholic concept of priesthood and the idea of so-called apostolic succession—which is neither biblical nor Christian—are quickly appearing. And this is the reason why a man like Professor Piepkorn himself can take over the prayer for the dead from the Roman Canon of the Mass. It is absolutely clear that when the sacrifice of the Mass is renewed, it means apostasy from the Gospel.”
Source:
Hermann Sasse, “A Brotherly Warning Against the ‘High Church’ Danger,” translated by M.C. Harrison in The Lonely Way: Selected Letters and Essays (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2002), pgs. 304-305.
Piepkorn defended prayer for the dead, of course, because our Symbols explicitly state that we do not forbid it and that it is not useless.
McCain: Actually, there is quite a bit more to the issue than this, as you well know. Conciliatory asides in the Apology do not dogma make.
Do you really go through the Apology and underline the parts that we do not subscribe to??? Seriously, Bill, you know Sasse is right in his essay blasting Piepkorn’s goofiness re. the Blessed Virgin and prayers for the dead. Who can seriously get worked up over a prayer that God would grant the faithful departed peace until the resurrection on the Last Day, but to make more of it than this, is truly silly. The prayers are not for their benefit, of course, but for us and our comfort. The dead in Christ do not need our prayers, but perhaps we who grieve need to pray for them, once or twice, but beyond that it just becomes more of an expression of doubt than faith.
McCain: No, silly, of course not! I underline the parts we subscribe to and cross out the parts that we don’t.
I know how to yank your chain, admit it!
I know you better than that. The teaching of the Lutheran Church as contained in her Symbols is that prayers for the dead are NOT prohibited and that they are NOT useless.
McCain: I do not doubt they are useful, but not for the dead, but for us in our grief. There is no use of such prayers for the dead in Christ. And besides, I don’t think they rightly can be called “dead” in Christ. since they enjoy the peace of being in His presence until the resurrection of their dead bodies on the last day, right?
This explains, perhaps, why we do pray for the dead at least twice in our funeral liturgy:
“Give to Your whole Church in heaven and on earth Your light and Your peace.”
“Grant that all who have been nourished by the holy body and blood of Your Son may be raised to immortality and and incorruption and seated with Him at Your heavenly banquet.”
McCain: There you go. And that’s all that is needed. But making much of prayers for the dead is just silly, and finally theologically erroneous. And, of course, you would agree that there is a world of difference between a couple pious wishes for the dead at their funeral, and prayers to the saints, right?? And if you do not agree, I’ll come over there and bang you over the head with that new altar book of yours and then we can say some prayers for you, for you will be dead at that point.
It looks like I’m bound to be dead by Altar Book Assault. Piepkorn simply spoke the way that our Symbols speak, that Blessed Martin Luther himself spoke, and that the early Lutheran Church spoke.
McCain: No, I think Piepkorn went a bit goofy. The essay by Hermann Sasse on the High Church danger is very well done and I agree with him.
I do not talk about making MUCH of prayers for the dead; I do speak about correcting the error in the so-called Synodical catechism that calls such prayers “off-limits” despite the clear teaching of our Symbols.
McCain: Not to mention the clear contradiction in the church’s approved hymnal and agenda!
About prayers to the saints, the Confessions say that they have neither command, promise, nor example in the Sacred Scriptures and therefore question on what foundation they could be done in faith (which rests ever on a promise of God).
McCain: Bill, read the Confessions more closely my friend. That is a truncated summary of what the Confessions say, and don’t say. The Confessions assert they can NOT be said resting on the sure and certain promise of God, to which faith clings, therefore they are not proper. And besides, the “Confessions” to which we subscribe happen also to include the Smalcald Articles which make it very clear that prayers to the saints are wrong.
Yet, in our liturgy we do indeed speak to and with the saints. We just sang “Ye Watchers” on Sunday and spoke to all different kinds of saints and angels: to the Blessed Virgin, to the Apostles, the Martyrs, the Patriarchs, the Prophets, and we urged them on in their praise of God.
McCain: Rhetorical flourishes do not dogma make! Lex credendi, lex orandi, not the other way around.
We confessed that we were gathered as one crowd with them before the throne of the Lamb, not in our imagination but in fact. And we were. No, they weren’t the center of our attention: that was the Lamb! But we urged them on in their praise. “O magnify the Lord with me and let us exalt His name together!”
McCain: And we tell the sun and moon and stars to praise God too. Are we suddenly a bunch of tree-hugging weirdos?
You are going to have to do better than that!
Oh, yes, about the Smalcald Articles, don’t you love them?
Now for something competely different…
Who was the crowd that Sasse was addressing? I found it interesting that the high-church people of the mid-century were theologically liberal and the high-church group of today could be considered theologically conservative. Does Sasse’s warning work for both groups? What would Sasse say to those on the opposite side of the spectrum (the low or no church group)?
McCain: Sasse’s warning does apply well to both groups.
Andreae et al. rejected prayers for the dead in no uncertain terms in their dialogue with the Orthodox Patriarch Jeremiah III. (unfortunately I don’t have my copy of the Dialogues with me to cite from) I would wager that they were more familiar with the text of the Apology than anyone participating in this discussion. Whatever significance one might attach to Melanchthon’s passing concession, it seems to have been quickly forgotten and never treated as dogma. Pastor McCain is correct that Melanchthon’s quirky statement does not make for binding dogma in the Lutheran church because it is not bound to any reference to Scripture.
Frankly, there is just not that much good sound Lutheran teaching going on out there.
McCain: That’s quite a generalization, isn’t it? Perhaps safer for you to say, “I’m not aware of that much good sound Lutheran teaching going on out there.” There are many faithful pastors doing a very, very fine job in relative obscurity, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t good sound Lutheran teaching going on. For what it is worth.
Here is the quote from Jacob Andreae I mentioned earlier:
“For the same reason we do not approve of prayers and alms offered for the dead. If they have truly believed in Christ, we do not doubt that they do live with Christ enjoying the gladness in heaven, since their souls have now been separated from their bodies. For Christ says: “truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life” [Jn. 5:24]. But if they departed without true and living faith, they cannot be helped neither by prayers nor by alms.”
-Augsburg and Constantinople [George Mastrantonis], p.135
Greg,
Notice that they were specifically condemning the offering of prayers and alms that were offered to change the state of the dead. That’s not the only kind of prayer for the dead that can be (or has been) raised! If the notion is that prayer will alleviate sufferings in purgatory or any such nonsense, we say: begone with it! But if prayer is for God to grant what he has promised – well, such is the nature of every prayer we raise. “God gives daily bread to all people even without our prayers, but we ask that He would lead us to realize this and receive our daily bread with thanksgiving.” So with the prayers for the dead: we ask for them what God has promised that we may receive this promise with thanksgiving and thereby comfort our hearts.
Sasse’s argument, which you agree with (?), runs like this:
1.) Many don’t understand the doctrine of justification that well anymore (e.g. leaning Osiander way).
2.) Because of this weak understanding of the doctrine of justification they do not navigate the “high church” liturgical waters very well, choosing to retain and reinstitute unbiblical rites and ceremonies.
3.) Unbiblical rites and ceremonies, in turn, further weaken their doctrinal foundations.
4.) Therefore: “High Church” liturgical waters should be avoided by true-blue, doctrine of justification believing, Lutherans.
To which I reply, “Huh?”
It sounds to me like the danger is not “high church,” but, rather, not understanding the doctrine of justification.
Let’s insert something else in place of “high church” and see if we can smell the roast.
1.) Many don’t understand the doctrine of justification that well anymore (e.g. leaning Osiander way).
2.) Because of this weak understanding of the doctrine of justification they do not navigate the theological libraries very well, choosing to teach according to unbiblical commentaries and journals.
3.) Unbiblical commentaries and journals, in turn, further weaken their doctrinal foundations.
4.) Therefore: theological libraries are to be avoided by true-blue, doctrine of justification believing, Lutherans.
Really?
The argument is simply not sound.
Things might be better put if one were to say that the “high church” movement presents a danger if rites and ceremonies take pride of place in determining doctrine. But, I think that it is safe to say that those who give Scripture the pride of place and still find certain “high church” rites and ceremonies useful in service of the true gospel present as little danger as Sasse, you (Rev. M.), or anyone else.
As one who is involved with a congregation that could hardly be described as “high church,” let me just add this: The liturgy of heaven as represented in types and shadows in places like Leviticus, and in vivid although picturesque detail in books like Hebrews and Revelation fits into only one contemporary liturgical category: “High church.” Bowing, kneeling, falling on one’s face, incense, etc. Of course, none of these things are creating doctrinal controversies in heaven, nor will they, in and of themselves, in places where the Lord’s Prayer is reaching its fulfillment (“on earth as it is in heaven”). Moving in a “higher” direction is probably not a bad thing. Rather, let us champion it in the proper context, that of the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone according to Scripture alone for Christ’s sake…alone.
Did I mention enough sola’s to pass the Lutheran test?
Now, did I mention enough to pass while wearing a chasuble?
Please don’t hit me with the altar book. How about a scripture bulletin insert?
In Christ,
Pastor Skillman
Out
McCain: II think you have it actually backwards. He is not, per se, “trashing” liturgy, “high chuch” etc. He is trying to diagnose how Lutherans can go wrong in regard to how they embrace the liturgy and use it. Why is it, for instance, a man like John Fenton who loved the liturgy and rejoiced in its full use finally went so wrong with it? Sasse’s diagnosis is spot on. If you think Sasse is dissing the liturgy, that would be a misunderstanding of his point. Maybe it would help if you read the entire essay, which you can find in “The Lonely Way” Volume 2, available from the same place where you can get that wonderful new altar book, or bulletin insert. Blessings