Great post. As someone new to Lutheranism and just beginning my seminary studies, I greatly appreciate your thoughts here.

We should learn a thing or two from the Russian Orthodox church. When the “Old Believers” split off from that body in the 1600s, one of the more emphatic complaints dealt with the “proper” number of fingers to use (two or three) when making the sign of the cross.
I realize that there was more to it than just that (the Orthodox church had made a slew of reforms), but you wouldn’t know it from visiting the small Old Believer museum at the abbey in Mt. Angel, Oregon. Caption after caption describes how old paintings or icons were found depicting someone holding up two fingers, proving the Old Believers right and the Russian Orthodox church wrong. I had a hard time respectfully not laughing at the federal case they were making out of such a trivial detail.
God help us to see when we are making a big to-do out of adiaphora.

Ritual is always to be designed to teach. . . and the questions must be as follows:
1 – What are you trying to teach with this ritual?
2 – Do people know that you are trying to teach them something?
This is why things don’t have to be cookie-cutter similar in every place – in each and every place not all points need be emphasized.

If I might play devil’s advocate for a moment (and I *am* playing devil’s advocate, because I can’t really disagree with anything you said)…. With quite a few Lutherans today (at least in my experience) being a bit fuzzy about the Real Presence and about the sacraments in general, maybe there’s something to be learned from Catholics. Perhaps there is something fundamentally and properly instructive in the classic Catholic liturgy, which we lost in our zeal to distance ourselves from their false teachings.
What say you?
McCain:
I’d say that the classic Lutheran Divine Service is in fact the answer/solution to the problem you pose. We do not need to import a bunch of Medieval-era rubrics to “improve” it. In other words: Say the black (the words of the liturgy), to the red (follow the rubrics) in the Synod’s hymnals. We do not need to go back to a level of ritualization of the Communion service that was born directly out of the view of the Mass as the propitiatory sacrifice in order to safeguard the Real Presence. That’s what I say.

Thanks for this, not only for the reminder that hyper-ritualism serves no one except Satan but also for admitting that much if this in the LCMS is an over-reaction to an over-reaction. The heart that beats for the lost over-reacts when it takes on the growth concepts of Arminian Evangelicalism. The heart that beats for the purity of the gospel over-reacts when it turns form in substance. What is interesting–and tragic–is that, in both cases, the over-reactions display a failure to trust the gospel: in the first case a failure to trust the gospel as creator of faith, and in the second case, a failure to trust the gospel as preserver of faith.

Excellent post! Pastor Cwirla once said on Issues Etc, “we should not judge or be legalistic on how others worship but look to the scriptures and how the church has worshiped over the centuries and ask ourselves “is there a better way?”" I agree with that. It is ok to say there is a better way. There are so many abuses in Christian worship these days that a local church, not a synod, has the right to state that this is how we worship. How else can a local church defend it’s practices in it’s worship services unless it thinks that it is practicing a “better way”? The local Main Street tongues speaking church thinks that they have a better way. High church and legalism is a tight rope that Lutheran Churches must continue to walk. May God protect us from harsh legalistic judgementalism in how we should worship and protect us from worshiping like pop culture, “American Idol” style.
Kyrie Eleison
Christe Eleison
Craig

I agree that we can certainly take things too far. I’m for recovering such things as the traditional Lutheran vestments (including chasuble), the sign of the cross, bowing, lifting up host and cup at the Pax Domini, basic prayer gestures for the liturgist, chant, using the lectionary, but most of these things go more to the early church and early middle ages. There was a post on Cyberbrethren some time ago that described the early Lutheran practice. That says it fairly well (Thirty Years War and earlier). What we don’t need is epiklesis, eucharistic prayers enveloping the Verba, worries about which thumb is on top, or worrying about whether our hands are folded with fingers alternating or palms pressed together.
While the ritualism (something the sainted Dr. Korby also decried) is certainly a problem, the more prevalent problem is liturgical incompetence or apathy (both in liturgical theology and rubrics). How much did most of us have on liturgy when we went through catechism class as youths. Not much I would guess.
The Confessions are rather traditional but basic on these things:
At the outset we must again make the preliminary statement that we 1] do not abolish the Mass, but religiously maintain and defend it. For among us masses are celebrated every Lord’s Day and on the other festivals, in which the Sacrament is offered to those who wish to use it, after they have been examined and absolved. And the usual public ceremonies are observed, the series of lessons, of prayers, vestments, and other like things. (Apology XXIV)

I can’t say that I disagree that things can be overdone, overcooked in both directions – no liturgical decorum, no reverence – or too much so that a visitor from a middle of the road LCMS church does not even recognize their own service. We critique a pop-music LCMS church for doing their own thing with no regard to the church catholic, likewise it is fair to critique a pastor or congregation doing their own thing in liturgical services and leaving behind those congregations who are not so fortunate to have been catechized as thoroughly in liturgical practice. I suppose there just has to be freedom, but used with some sense of responsibility.

“Pastor Cwirla once said on Issues Etc, “we should not judge or be legalistic on how others worship but look to the scriptures and how the church has worshiped over the centuries and ask ourselves “is there a better way?”"
I don’t remember saying that, but it’s a cool quote.
Our Confessions remind us that such ceremonials need not be everywhere alike nor do they add anything to the Word and justification, but they are useful for pedagogy, good order, and peace. Therefore we retain and rejoice in the traditional rites and ceremonies where these can be used without harm to the Gospel (AC and Ap XV). This summarizes the Lutheran confessional position quite nicely:
“Here we have Paul as a constant champion, who argues everywhere that these ceremonies neither justify nor are they necessary additions to the righteousness of faith. Still, we teach that freedom should be so controlled that the inexperienced may not be offended and, because of freedom’s abuse, may not become more opposed to the true doctrine of the Gospel. Nothing in customary rites should be changed without a reasonable cause.” (Ap XV, Concordia, 194)
I borrow a line from Robert Farrar Capon when people ask me, “Do we have to do it that way.” My answer: “Not necessarily.” It is the non-necessity of these things that keeps them from becoming a pharisaic legalism, or as the sainted Kurt Marquart brilliantly termed it “liturgical pietism.”

I understand the admonition to “say the black, do the red,” and I think there is real danger in departing from the synodical resources. I’ve seen it happen before in both directions (adding liturgy or taking it away) with disastrous results. However, there is the question of what the “red” ought to be, and that seems to be the real question at hand. LSB, like TLH, is not a step in the development of a divinely guided tradition, the way that the Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholics look at church tradition, and as a result I think we are able to critique the synodical publications in relation to previous practices.
A number of years back I (layman) wanted to find out what the good Confessional Lutheran answer was to what I should do with my life, regarding education and career choice. I read a book on Luther’s doctrine on vocation, and of course it didn’t give me the answer. I think there are some similarities with regards to what Christian freedom is–it is critical to remember, but by itself it gives no answer to the pastor or the layman’s question, “So what should I do?” We can’t simply answer “Whatever you want,” or “The right thing,” because those aren’t real answers. The question is what the content of the “red” ought to be.
Generally speaking, a church body can arbitrarily determine what the “extras” are by removing practices and publishing a new hymnal. The previous practices then become “extras.” Maybe this is because they’ve been eliminated on the basis of an excellent criterion; maybe not. I’m not claiming at all that this is what the LCMS did with LSB, but the possibility always remains for any revision or reissue of the lex orandi.
At any rate, I think we ought to retain the ability to determine whether “extras” as practices not included in the current hymnal are good or bad, and to judge some of them as good.

I ask that not everything done by those who study and follow liturgical practice be accused of being “too Roman Catholic” or as leaning towards “transubstanstiation.” That is a Lutheran cop-out that when we see or hear something we are not familiar with, even something done out of good Gospel motivation, it gets accused of being “Roman Catholic.” Some pastors are accused of this charge simply for chanting a collect or two in a Matins service, even when they have taught the good reason for the practice and extolled the beauty added in adoration to God.
McCain: No argument here. But here is the greater point. If by chanting a collect or two you are scandalizing a congregation, then don’t do it. If after patient teaching and instruction, a congregation is still offended. Then don’t do it.
My post is not about proper Lutheran worship traditions, but rather speaking against trying to import into the Lutheran Divine Service the rubrics that were established, devised, and created precisely to prop up the Mass as sacrifice. Hyper-ritualization has no place in our circles, and obsessing over rubrics is unhealthy.

Too many follow the Eastern Orthodox idea that by doing the liturgy in exactly the “right” way we are getting closer to heaven and to God. The Divine Service becomes an attempt to mystically enter heaven by our right actions. Does anyone recognize this as salvation by works?
How many students are taught by osmosis that the Divine Service is “divine” in itself and we must create its perfect form? How many of them expand this to the point of joining the EO?
McCain’s response to Mr. Lewer’s remarks: Here I would have to say that I’m not aware of anyone advocating extending rituals and rubrics beyond Lutheran practice advocating any such view. As such, Mr. Lewer’s remarks would be a good example of over-reaction to the over-reaction.

I’m a new Lutheran, coming from 30 years in and out of various evangelical denominations with no formal liturgy whatsoever. I want to like the Lutheran liturgy, but the hyper-ritualists make this awfully hard to do. It becomes a real source of self-righteousness — if I mention that my church doesn’t do some adiaphora-covered ritual in the service, I get snide remarks that I ought to discuss it with my pastor and perhaps find another church. I have even gotten into discussions with committed Lutherans who claim that the liturgy has the same level of infallibility as Scripture itself.
So I think all of the LCMS could use some of the wisdom coming up here.

I have mentioned not a few times to my congregations that the ceremonies we use are not commanded by God, that they do not make our celebration of the Sacrament anymore valid than those churches that do not use them, and that all of them could be omitted without sinning. We use them for the sake of good order, to express love towards God and towards one another, and humility and reverence. I also say that we use these to teach. The only thing we are trying to repristinate is the reverence with which the early Lutherans conducted the Mass.
Will you fault us for trying to be deliberate and purposeful in our conduct of the service? I know I will not.
Are some of us a bit overly fussy about liturgical practices? Perhaps. Is it detrimental to the Gospel? Doubtful.

And Robert has had it explained to him, by a Lutheran, that the infallibility remark refers to the fact that liturgy simply emerges from scripture itself. [[McCain response: It is an uncareful way of speaking though, and should be avoided.]]
Liturgy comes to us, and brings gifts to us. It is for us, in the same way that Christ Himself is for us. It is the moment we on earth merely join into the ongoing worship in Heaven.
The Gottesdienst idea of divine service is an invaluable reminder that we aren’t accomplishing anything through the liturgy, but receiving and responding to what’s been done for us.
I imagine that, without constant attention to Gottesdienst, we’re prone to trip over ourselves. We fail to recall that it is we who must learn to mean what the liturgy says, not the liturgy that must conform itself to what we would mean.
Isn’t it really just another form of enthusiasm, to become hyper-ritualistic? Just a pietism that overthinks what’s going on? [[McCain:Yes, it is, precisely so.]]

Where is the rubric that directs this practice in our service books? I ask because you speak of it as a rubrical concern, but in our Service Book I do not find such a rubric. [[McCain: Good question! Those advocating such rubrics appear to be picking them up from Medieval Latin Mass rubrics, which have come back in vogue in the Roman communion with the Pope's reintroduction of the Latin Mass.]]
It IS referred to in Piepkorn’s *The Conduct of the Service* ["The celebrant was careful from this point on to keep his thumbs and forefingers joined, except when it was necessary to separate them, lest a fragment of one of the hosts adhering to his thumb or finger fall to the ground. With the same reverent concern he would later lightly rub his thumbs and forefingers together over the chalice to remove any fragments of the hosts which may be adhering to them. The use of the houseling-cloth (from the Middle English word Housel - Host) developed from the same concern." Concordia Seminary Print Shop, 1965] But note that he is not writing rubrics here, merely observing the customary practice of the medieval mass.
[[McCain: I suspected as much...Piepkornianism.]]
While I do not know of any Lutheran rubric regarding the care of the fingers, the use of the houseling cloth was certainly not uncommon in Lutheran practice for some time, as a confession that we are here handling and dealing with the most holy body and blood of the Savior. You have some art on your site that depicts it, don’t you?
[[[McCain: My most recent research has shown me that such practices were actually relatively isolated in German Lutheranism.]]]

Thanks for the posts, dear Rev. McCain. I am in agreement with your comments, especially the “hold the fingers…” sort of rubrics. Being a Piepkornian in principal, but not necessarily rubrically, I believe that the formation of Pastors in the LCMS needs to be directed toward the rubrics of the Divine Service to maintain the simple dignity of the DS. I have noted so many more LCMS Pastors presiding in a very sloppy, nonchalant way than I have those trying to repristinate the Medieval Mass.
I strive to maintain a balance between dignity and passion as I preside at the Divine Service. There is a fluidity of movement, an inflection of excitement at times, solemnity at others. I do, for example, genuflect after the consecration as a gesture of solemn reality that Christ is present on the altar. The majority of my dear folks have not even noticed that I do it, as the Agnus Dei is beginning when I do it…those who have witnessed it have commented on how my act of adoration has caused them to recall the Real Presence in a way that a detailed explanation could not capture.
More important than the absolute “correctness” in execution of the Liturgy is the realization that I am privileged, for an hour-give-or-take each week I am able to escort postmodern Americans into the sacred mysteries of the joining of “angels and archangels and all of the company of heaven” with our little church in north downtown Phoenix, Arizona.