Too Much of a Good Thing? Thoughts on Rubrics
Rubrics: the instructions provided to those leading the church’s worship on the proper forms, gestures, postures and actions appropriate for the conduct of the Divine Service. These are usually provided in red ink in the books used by pastors to lead worship. The following are some thoughts on what I regard to be a case of too much of a good thing becoming a not so good thing.
I am concerned that rubrics to the extent described below may encourage a kind of elitist "we know best" and "we know better than the rest of the Synod" kind of attitude, which in turn, in my experience, leads, particularly younger pastors, to blur the line between ritualism and confessional Lutheranism. Further, it may very well mislead people into thinking that genuine Lutheranism is characterized by these kinds of ultra-ritualization of the Divine Service, which in fact is not found in historic Lutheranism, but rather in Romanism, where the precise conduct of the Mass is very much tied into regarding the Mass as a meritorious work by which we propitiate God. Is there a risk in emphasizing rubrics to this extent that we will, no doubt unintentionally, create false impressions?
I’ve noticed that pastors who are this much "into" rubrics tend to look down their noses at any pastor who does not conduct the Divine Service with this level of ritualism, regarding him as somebody who is "not really in the know" and "not as Lutheran" as "we" are. They have a tendency to fancy themselves the ones who "really" know what’s what and consider themselves to be "leaders" pulling the Synod along after their example, considering the approved hymnals and agenda of the Synod to be insufficient, lacking, deficient, etc. I’ve known any number of pastors who are so deeply immersed in rubrics that it finally ends up pulling them away from the faith of the Lutheran Church, either into Romanism or Eastern Orthodoxy.
I asked the person who posted the rubrics copied below what his source was and was informed they come from a mixture of Roman and Anglican sources, and from Lutherans fascinated by such sources in the 1950s and 1960s. I suspect that the source for such rubric details derives in fact not from Lutheranism at all, but in high-church Romanism and/or Anglicanism. See for instance this Anglican manual of rubrics which appears quite similar. I’ve had a hard time locating rubrics like this in the actual practice of historic Lutheranism from the age of orthodoxy. A good bit of this also comes from a LCMS seminary professor who died several decades ago. It was in response to this professor that Hermann Sasse wrote his essays, "A Warning Against the High-Church Danger" and nobody, that I know of, would ever have accused Dr. Sasse of being low church. In fact he was one of the most knowledgeable historians of the Western liturgy we’ve ever had.
I love the liturgy, but this degree of rubricification of the Divine Service may not be helpful ultimately in accomplishing the goal of maintaining and strengthening a love for the traditional liturgical worship of Lutheranism. And, lest anyone glow a gasket, let me say this. I would, anyday and twice on Sunday, much more prefer all of this to the alternative! So, remain calm. Don’t panic. I don’t intend to start putting on tent revivals.
Your thoughts? Am I simply seeing red, or is this something to be concerned about?
The subdeacon distributes the offering plates to the ushers and receives them back. The celebrant does not concern himself at all with the collection of the offerings unless there are no attendants. Meanwhile the server takes the items from the credence to the celebrant. First he takes the veiled chalice to the celebrant. The celebrant, upon receiving the chalice, places it just to the left of center. He carefully uncovers the chalice, folds the veil (ninefold), and places it on the altar to the right of the corporal. He removes the pall and places it on the folded veil.
He
removes the paten (which has the celebrant’s host on it) and places it
just to the right of the chalice (so that together, chalice and paten
are in the center), and removes the purificators, placing one of them
directly beside the corporal on the right, beside the pall and veil. With the other he wipes the inside of the chalice to ensure that it contains no dust particles. He then places the second purificator beside the first. Meanwhile the server takes the tray containing the silver paten with hosts to the celebrant. The celebrant removes the cover and takes the silver paten, thereupon replacing the cover. The server returns the tray to the credence. The celebrant places the silver paten with hosts to the right of and slightly behind the gold paten. One
of the two purificators is then unfolded lengthwise and placed across
both patens, covering most of the celebrant’s host and the communicant
hosts. The flagon and spoon are brought to him
next, and he places the flagon on the left toward the rear, and the
spoon on the far right toward the rear. The empty cruet is brought next, and he places this also on the right, beside and to the left of the spoon. Next the server carries the cruet with wine to the celebrant, with a plain purificator on his left arm. The
celebrant takes the purificator from the server’s arm to use when
pouring wine from the cruet (He should not use the two purificators
already on the altar, as these are used only for consecrated Species). He
carefully pours wine into the chalice (two-thirds full) and into the
flagon, using this purificator to keep drops from falling or running
down the side of the cruet. He then returns this cruet and purificator to the server. He then places the pall atop the chalice. The server then brings him the large tray with cups, which the celebrant places at the left side of the corporal.
Last
of all, the server holds the lavabo dish out for the celebrant, who
turns toward the server and extends his forefingers and thumbs over it. The
server pours a little water over his fingers and thumbs, after which
the celebrant dries them on the towel which is draped over the server’s left arm. During this action he may also softly pray the lavabo (Psalm 26) as provided in the missal. He then subtly, and without turning toward them, motions the congregation to rise for the prayer of the church.
As the celebrant chants the Words of Institution, he bows his head at Our Lord Jesus Christ, takes the celebrant’s host between thumb and forefinger of both hands at took bread, lifts his eyes to heaven at had given thanks,
and, while still holding the celebrant’s host between his left thumb
and forefinger, he makes the sign of the cross with his right hand over
this host, and over the paten containing the other hosts to be
consecrated, touching the paten at four points of the cross he makes. Then, at the words of Christ, Take eat, etc., he bends over the hosts to be consecrated, holding the celebrant’s host between thumb and forefinger of both hands, with both elbows on the altar. Though all these words are uttered slowly and distinctly, the words of Christ are uttered even more slowly than the rest. For the words This do in remembrance of me, the celebrant stands erect, still holding the host. Then he genuflects once, and elevates the host slowly, still facing the altar. Gazing at the host, he whispers “My Lord and my God,” lowers it, and genuflects a second time. From
this point until the ablutions, the celebrant takes care never to
separate his thumbs and index fingers except as needed to distribute
Hosts. For the consecration of the wine, the same rubrics apply, except that the head is bowed rather than raised at had given thanks. While
the celebrant makes the sign of the cross with his right hand at “given
thanks” over the chalice, flagon, and tray, he places his left hand on
the base of the chalice as a precaution. At “took the cup,” the chalice
is held by the knop between the index and remaining fingers, while the
index finger and thumb are held together (to keep any crumbs from the
sacred host from falling). After “in remembrance
of me,” he sets the chalice on the corporal without removing his hands
from it, genuflects, and then elevates the chalice while gazing at it
as he had done with the host, this time whispering, “We therefore pray
Thee, help Thy servants whom Thou hast redeemed with Thy precious
blood,” lowers it, and genuflects a second time.
Maybe overdone, but golly it looks good…
Hey Pr. Washeim, fancy meeting you here!
I’m inclined to agree…
Being new to the pastorate, I see this and automatically break into a cold sweat! How am I going to remember all of that?!? I was trained on LW in my seminary “worship” class (and not very well). So I had to do a lot of practice and “dry-runs” when I got to my first congregation. I really have appreciated my very well educated congregation’s charitable attitude towards my goofs. This does seem like too much. Any information on why these directions are given? Do they do anything to enhance the worship? Any theological/symbolical meaning there?
Depending on the use of these rubrics, or any standardizing of rubrics, these don’t seem too much. I say that, fully realizing, that they sound like too much. But with any action being described, it sounds a whole lot more confusing and cumbersome in writing then it looks and feels in practice. I think this is the case with liturgical rubrics. It takes a lot of words and a lot reading to understand what a celebrant or assistant accomplished in about 5 seconds. (Another example are instructions for putting together an entertainment center. The instructions are overly cumbersome and the words and charts used are intimidating until you figure out that what took them both words and charts to describe just took you 30 seconds to accomplish.)
Now, if any rubric is used as a litmus test to decide one’s orthopraxy, that might well be questionable. But we (humans) like standards don’t we? How else do we measure? How else do we fully know where we stand? And so we make rules and standards and then we expect that someone will hold us to them, hopefully with a certain amount of elasticity.
And so, if these (and other) rubrics are used to answer the question, “What should I do during the service as a celebrant or an assistant?”, I think they can be quite good. But no one (I don’t even think the author of rubrics) would start to disqualify someone because they don’t get everything just right. But we don’t want to go the next step and say they are silly and harmful. We just need a modicum of love and understanding.
I would think it would take the congregation’s focus off of the preparation for the Sacrament and the words of consecration. They’d lose track of the true meaning. Certainly the service can be done with dignity without all that. On the other hand I don’t care for brothers who rush through the preparation for the Sacrament as though it was unnecessary to have preparation. If I had to learn all the special movements 38 years ago I would never have made it. As it is, I’m now getting to a more forgetful age!
G.W. Galen
To steal from Bill Cosby. . . “Right. . . what’s a sub-deacon?”
I have no problem with a Church pulling out all the bells and whistles on a really formal service provided a few things:
1 – They have all the said bells and whistles. I’m lucky to have an acolyte. . . I can’t be as formal as that.
2 – There is training on what the bells and whistles mean. Things are not always obvious. We need to teach people why we do what we do in the liturgy, and I find quite a few people don’t even know the basics about the liturgy. If the congregation isn’t well trained (or doesn’t have a historical tie to advance liturgical practice) you’ll just confuse people. This is why we say rites don’t have to be the same in every place – because not every place is ready for the same thing.
If these are remembered, eh – high church isn’t dangerous in and of itself – but it could be misapplied – but that’s the same with anything in the Church.
I am a layman and new to LCMS, I came from United Methodist and then PC (USA).
I think that the danger you are getting at is similar to the problems in other fields of work. In the project management consultancy I used to work for, we had no refined methods of doing things. We were excited, motivated people who wanted to do a good job delivering project management solutions that helped the company we were consulting with get the project completed on time and on budget. Over time there was a big push to establish our own “company” methodology. This was good when it was an attempt to help roughly define the process to assist other teams within the company. It became a problem when it was seen as the cook book for doing a project well. The problem with the complex and complicated method (it could be seen as our rubric) was that it tended to suck the passion and excitement from the professionals. It left a dry, bland existence (and sometimes bland or poor results) in place of the vibrant professional experienct (and usually good to great results).
In education, I have seen rubrics steal the passions from teachers and even strengthen weak thinking teachers. (One teacher I knew retired due to the tyranny of the rubric – he was an exciting and dynamic Advanced Placement Physics teacher to whom people flocked – because of his excitement.)
The real danger is what you have talked about – in establishing these overly complex rubrics for service, you can suck the life and excitement out of worship.
I think a better approach would be to define those things that absolutely need to be in the service and ensure that the service has these elements and that the Sermon is an excellent Scriptural exposition. My current church has captured these elements well.
Too Much of a Good Thing? Certainly not!
What these rubrics you mentioned (especially Piepkorn and McClean) do is provide a resource for those who wish to go beyond what has been provided in synodical resources. I truly do appreciate what has been provided and taught from Lutheran Service Book. However, where does that leave those who wish to move into a service with more ceremony (use of incense for example)? Rubrics are necessary and needed to provide for good order.
BTW… Rev. Brown hits on an excellent point. The Church needs to be educated regarding ALL points of rites and ceremony… including the very basic points of worship (invocation, hymnody, etc).
One final thought… it may seem overwhelming, but I have had the opportunity to serve in three services like what is described in Piepkorn, and each time it gets easier. It just takes practice. As I’ve heard one pastor say, “we practice for weddings… why do we not practice for Sunday services?”
When a pastor/elder/whatever does something that nobody understands, they can look pious and arrogant to the uninformed. There absolutely needs to be instruction on why things are done. I would rather see a study on the grace of God communicated through our worship rather than the normal PDL/prosperity gospel/Da vinci rebuttal, although sometimes that’s necessary too. Before Lutherans are taught about why we don’t do things, they should be taught about why we do the things we do.
This reminds me of the old joke, “What’s the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist?” Answer: “You can negotiate with a terrorist.” And the reason it’s an old joke, because sadly we can’t negotiate with terrorists any longer. But it is always hard to negotiate with any kind of legalist, including one who is all about the ‘letter’ of the rubric and not it’s spirit. So, first: The spirit of the rubrics is reverence, dignity and beauty for the Lord Who has promised to be in our midst, in bread and wine and water and pulpit: all of which are sadly lacking in what goes for ‘liturgy’ in many a congregation. Second: rubrics are just plain helpful and practical. “shall” and “may” rubrics help me so that I do not have to ‘reinvent the wheel’ when leading the public worship in the Lord’s house. Example: So if it is shorter Liturgy of Holy Communion, we do the ‘shall’ rubrics alone, hence a shorter service. Third: rubrics then helps us not to inject MY ideas, notions and yes even my ‘good thoughts’ about liturgy and the way the Lord’s people should worship in order to be ‘relevant’. Rubrics are kitchen-tested recipes that stood the test of time. Reminds of C.S.Lewis’ comment about liturgy: all these lengthenings, brightenings of the liturgy have a dreadful effect. I come to service and wonder, what’s the priest up to now? If you are always changing the service, then it’s like learning to dance: I am always looking at what we are doing. Liturgy is like dancing, the steps are the same and we concentrate on what we are supposed to be doing. After all, The Lord said to Peter, “Feed my sheep”, not experiment with my rats(!) I think rubrics are helpful in that way.
A cold reading of rubrics lends itself to ridicule.
But let the reader beware.
Aren’t rubrics for the liturgy, and not for themselves alone?
But just a cold read, the appearance is perhaps otherwise.
In these days, enough education on liturgy cannot be done.
But then again, enough mere acceptance of what congregations see going on at the altar–that it is priestly, purposeful, and reverent, and the very largest part of what a pastor is called to do–can’t be done either.
Sometimes, calling for education seems like calling for ‘proof’ or ‘show me.’ (No offense meant to Missouri.)
Pr. McCain
As one who appreciates the historic ceremonial and rubrics, I must admit that the citation you posted is verbose in the extreme.
“I suspect that the source for such rubric details derives in fact not from Lutheranism at all, but in high-church Romanism and/or Anglicanism.” Bear in mine, good sir, that the AC states that we have retained the historic ceremonies of the Mass, so long as doing so do not compromise the Gospel.
I also recall the words of the Rev. Charles Evanson, now serving in Latvia. When someone observed that ceremony was “catholic”, he stated that “catholic” was only a code word. It actually meant “un-American.” That meaning “We are now Americans, we left all of that stuff back in the old country. Now we do it the American way. i.e. Just like the protestants.”
Since you referenced my site, LexOrendi.org, when you mentioned the Rev. Dr. Piepkorn, of blessed memory; I would direct your attention to my article “Ceremony: Choreography or Confession.” This, I think, is a good summation of the place of ceremony in the Lutheran Church.
Observing the historic rubrics and ceremonies is a worthy endeavor; but expressing them in excruciating detail seems to be counterproductive.
I think it is over kill and I think it is not good.
IMO.
LPC