“Divine worship in the Christian Church is not an adiaphoron. The Lord expressly commands that His Word be heard, “He who is of God hears God’s words” (John 8:47). He has only severe censure for those who forsake the Christian assemblies, “And let us…not [forsake] the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some” (Hebrews 10:25). He expressly enjoins public prayer, “Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence… I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting” (1 Timothy 2:1-2, 8). He graciously promises His divine presence at such assemblies, “For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20). He records with approval the public services of the early Christians, “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved” (Acts 2:42-47).

“But though He has prescribed the general content of public worship, though He is present in the sacramental acts of divine service, declaring and appropriating to the believers the means of grace, and though He graciously receives the sacrificial acts of the assembled congregation, in confession and prayer and offerings. He has not commanded a definite form or order of divine service. It is a matter of Christian liberty whether a congregation wishes one or many prayers, one or several hymns, one or two sermons or homilies, whether the chief assembly be held in the morning or in the evening, whether the service be held on Sunday or on another day.

“To argue from these facts, however, that it is a matter of complete indifference as to how the form of Christian worship is constituted would be bringing liberty dangerously near to license. The Lord says: “Let all things be done decently and in order,” (1 Corinthians 14:40); and again: “Let all things be done for edification” (1 Corinthians 14:26). It cannot really be a matter of indifference to a Christian congregation when the order of service used in her midst shows so much similarity to a heterodox order as to confuse visitors. One may hardly argue that such adiaphora do not matter one way or the other, when it has happened that a weak brother has been offended. And a Lutheran congregation cannot justly divorce herself, not only not from the doctrinal, but also not from the historical side of its Church. It is a matter of expediency, as well as of charity and edification, that every Lutheran pastor and every Lutheran congregation have outward significant symbols of the inner union, of the one mind and the one spirit.

“In addition to these facts, there is the further consideration that the outward acts of the Church, commonly known by the appellation “the liturgy,” have a very definite significance, which, in many cases, renders the acts of public service true acts of confession of faith. And the symbolism of many of the Lutheran sacred acts, if correctly performed, is such that the beauty of these treasures of our Church may be brought to the joyful attention of our congregations.”

— P.E. Kretzmann, Christian Art in the Place and in the Form of Lutheran Worship, p. 395-396

Also appears in “Theological Quarterly” Volume XXII:3 (July, 1918)

Debates across all Christian church bodies of which I’m aware, for quite a long time, have been going on over the question of what the Sunday morning worship service is really all about. I should qualify that last statement. This discussion is going on across those churches that actually still do regard the Sunday morning worship service as, first and foremost, the occasion when the Holy and Almighty God serves His people through Word and Sacrament and they respond with prayer, praise and thanksgiving, giving their adoration and worship to the All Holy and Glorious Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

A growing trend in such churches is to view the Sunday morning service as a tool to be used to attract non-believers to the Christian faith. Such a fundamental shift in understanding of what the purpose of the Sunday morning worship service is all about has extremely serious consequences for how worship is conducted, what goes on during the service, and so forth. Consider the following observations:

Worship is either an encounter with the reality of God, or it is some kind of attempt by man to raise himself by his own bootstraps. It then becomes an occasion for moralizing, a theatrical show, or a sort of pep rally. On the contrary, in the ancient church, the reading of the Gospel was surrounded with festive splendor because here Christ addresses His faithful followers. As the exalted Lord of the Church He today still exercises His prophetic function through His preachers and teachers. We still bear witness to His presence in the acclamations before and after the Gospel. We sing: “Glory be to Thee, O Lord!” and “Praise be to Thee, O Christ!”

- Earnest Koenker, Worship in Word and Sacrament, p. 47 HT: Weedon.

Not saying Alleluia during Lent is stupid!

There I said it, and I’m glad I did. While pastors might think that we in the pews view the fact that we don’t say Alleluia with any degree of attention or interest, they are wrong. It is stupid, silly, ridiculous and entirely fabricated out of whole cloth. But I am not the only one who thought it silly, so did Martin Luther. It’s a shame those obsessed with liturgical-trivia were able to foist the “no alleluia” rule on the Lutheran church.

Dr. Luther, in an Invocavit sermon in his House Postil wrote:

“The general duties and works of love need no new command; they are already laid down and ordered in the Ten Commandments.  We are all enjoined of God to hear His Word, to love Him, to pray to Him, to be obedient to our parents, to love our neighbor, to shun all lasciviousness and to hold matrimony in high esteem.  All this is God’s will and institution; therefore no especial call of the Holy Spirit to enter matrimony, to become father or mother, is needed.  Such matters have all been arranged and commanded of God.  But we nowhere find a command or word of God, which would demand of us to run into cloisters for the purpose of serving God, or to avoid eating meat, eggs or butter during the Lenten season, or to sing no Hallelujah in that time; and therefore all such observances are no true service of God.”

He expresses the same thought in Formula Missae (AE 53:24):

“For the alleluia is the perpetual voice of the Church, just as the memorial of His passion and victory is perpetual.”

My good friend Pastor Weedon feels strongly there is deep meaning in all the liturgical trimming during Lent. He takes his cue from O.P. Kretzmann who, in my view, indulges in rhetorical and romanticized puffery, not substance. I can’t agree, but he makes his point well.

OK, now that I have a few people thoroughly exercised, please note that I am not saying we should ignore this rubric and that we should not follow it, I’m simply saying why I think it is stupid. But since it is adiaphora, I am happy to give up a bit of my freedom and personal opinion for the sake of unity. We’d all be better off if we did that.

For instance, some might think throwing themselves on the chancel floor is a great way to observe Good Friday, but we don’t do it, that is, if we care about unity. Some think putting the Lord’s Supper away in a Tabernacle on the altar and claiming it is perpetually the Lord’s body and blood and adoring it is a good thing, but we don’t do that. We know better. Some think that ignoring the rubrics and the liturgy and swapping out for it something that looks like the local non-denominational church is ok, but it is not. As much as possible, we must all give up our freedom and our right to exercise that freedom, for the sake of unity. The wisdom of the adage “Say the black, do the red” is still very much holds, and I wish it were everywhere observed.

So, you are free to disagree with a rubric, but in love, you follow it. If we follow rubrics for the sake of rubrics, then that is a problem. When doing the liturgy “just so” becomes an end in itself, we have a problem. Rubrics are a means, to an end, not the end itself. There’s something more important here than rubrics. And this is precisely why we follow them!

Now you know the point of this blog post.

How did the founding fathers of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod regard the historic liturgy of the Lutheran Church? Let’s let Dr. C.F.W. Walther answer that question:

We refuse to be guided by those who are offended by our church customs. We adhere to them all the more firmly when someone wants to cause us to have a guilty conscience on account of them…. It is truly distressing that many of our fellow Christians find the difference between Lutheranism and Papism in outward things. It is a pity and a dreadful cowardice when one sacrifices the good ancient church customs to please the deluded American sects, lest they accuse us of being Catholic. Indeed! Am I to be afraid of a Methodist, who perverts the saving Word, or be ashamed in the matter of my good cause, and not rather rejoice that the sects can tell by our ceremonies that I do not belong to them?” We are not insisting that there be uniformity of perception or feeling or of taste among all believing Christians – neither dare anyone demand that all be minded as he is. Nevertheless it remains true that the Lutheran liturgy distinguishes Lutheran worship from the worship of other churches to such an extend that the houses of worship of the latter look like lecture halls in which the hearers are addressed or instructed (NOTE: if Walther were writing today, he’d no doubt add: they look like movie theatres in which the hearers are entertained!), while our churches are in truth houses of prayer in which Christians serve the great God publicly before the world. (Essays for the Church, Volume 1, p. 194 (St. Louis, CPH, 1992).

File this under: what’s old is new again. 18-30 year are interested in formal, traditional, classic Christian worship forms. [Pssst: Lutheran Divine Services!]. Here’s the story and here’s a clip:

“We have noticed a growing interest in ancient or meditative liturgies, particularly among the 18-30 year old age cohort. It’s one aspect of the emerging global cultural shift that is taking place,” Pogue says. “I am proud of Trinity Church in Lawrence and Father Jensen for taking this important step in opening the doors a bit wider to include those who are seeking a service like this.”

HT: Christopher Hall.

It is quite fascinating to study the historic Lutheran use of vestments. A friend, Rev. Dr. Chris Hinkle, pointed out to me the availability of an English translation of a Danish work on the historic Lutheran vestments which is a remarkable tour de force. I’m reproducing it, in its entirety below the “read more” link. Enjoy.

The Proper Communion Vestments
by P. Severinsen

The Church Historical Society of Denmark, n.d., 44 pp.
translation of De rette Messeklaeder, 1924

The following is an abstract of the above publication. It is written by a man who is considered one of the most learned of Danish Priests. We give it in a somewhat abbreviated form in the English language as we feel that part of it has a wider interest to Lutheran readers in general. We all agree that the subject of this little book belongs in the class: Adiaphora;–yet the learned priest of the Mother Church has thought it worth while to undertake the rather laborious work of research in order to present this matter. The expressions of Luther are interesting, and it is instructive to notice the position of the church in Germany in the days of Paul Gerhardt when the command was issued by a king of the reformed adherence of faith: that “the vestments” used by the Lutherans must be put away- The Lutherans insisted that while these things were “Adiaphora”–they were yet so typically Lutheran–that to give them up would be to sacrifice distinctive Lutheran features. The royal command was only emphasized and loss of office indicated to the obstinate ones. This–to a considerable extent–silenced the opposition to the royal will. The Lutheran church of Germany yielded to the reformed (the royal) command. It lost its external churchly character and became “black” as the “black school” of Scholasticism. Rationalism finished what royal commands had begun in Germany. Rationalism played havoc with much in the sanctuaries of Scandinavia, yet–the churches of Scandinavia were never subjected to humiliations like those of Germany. But is it not peculiar to notice what time accomplishes: Many are apt to think it particularly Lutheran when all in the church is “black”. The priest before the Altar is “black” as a raven, the singers are black–and yet to realize that all this “blackness” does not go much farther than 150 years back–and that only in a portion of the Lutheran church that had to yield repeatedly to influences from powerful Calvinistic quarters. But time performs strange transformations. Bearing this in mind one may well wonder, but–at the same time–realizes easier–the admiration at times expressed in certain quarters of our American Lutheran Church for “our friends the Presbyterians”–and also how the reformed practice of quarterly or half yearly communions are not only tolerated but reckoned quite normal. A person cannot help thinking that in practical matters there as been a constant drawing away from the conceptions and ways of reformation days and a constant approach to the ways and conceptions of the church of Calvin.

We of the churches of Scandinavia may well be aware that in the Mother-Church of those Northern countries may he easier be recognized the church of the days of Luther and he church alluded to in the Augsburg confession–rather than in the portions where concession after concession had to be made to those of another faith.

We have from time to time been requested by churchmen of the English branch of our church to help make known o English readers the historic customs of the Church of Denmark as a portion of the Lutheran church in the world and the Church Catholic of the ages. We believe the little book of Severinsen’s, published in 1924, has a purpose to serve in his respect and will be grateful–if time permits–to render it intelligible to those who are unable to read the Scandinavian languages.

We omit a number of the notes of purely local interest and for the same reason a number of explanatory paragraphs are abbreviated. Our aim is, however, that nothing of value to the general reader shall be omitted. (J. M.)

Chapter I: The Ritual–Its Rule.

In the Ritual of 1685 for the “Church of Denmark and Norway”, page 11, we read: “The priest who has charge of the Communion Service comes before the Altar immediately after the bell has been rung the last time and puts on the “proper Vestments” which are: a white linen Surplice (alb–Messeskjorte) and a Chasuble.” and “while the service closes with a hymn the priest puts off the vestments, but remains standing before the altar until the service is ended.”

A general rule for the priest’s apparel during the service is found on page 52: “It must especially be observed hat the priest having charge of the service must not wear the chasuble when he leaves the altar to perform any service: Preaching, baptism or otherwise. He shall put off the chasuble and leave it by the altar. If the service at the altar is to be continued later, he shall again put it on; but the surplice (alb) shall be worn during the entire service from beginning to end”. Read more…

I ordered a book from Germany titled Historische Bilder zum Evangelisch-Lutherischen Gottesdienst, which translated, is Historical Paintings of the Evangelical Lutheran Divine Service. It is by Helmut Schatz, published as a digital printing by Druckerei Hage GmbH, Kösching. It contains a large collection of images from throughout Germany and Denmark, one from the Czech Republic as well. When and where I find them on the Internet and am able to copy and paste them into my blog, I will.

Here is one from Denmark. It is found on the altar at the Torslunde Church, a church that dates back to the year 1,200. The painting dates from 1561. As you can see it is painted on the altar itself.

Here is a close up:

Thanks to Pastor Weedon for this blog post, which I’m simply copying here. I should note that the book to which Pastor Weedon refers in his post prefaces the reworked prayer by noting that the Reginia Coeli, is an evil prayer in its original form.

Emendata

That is, fixed, emended. Today I’ve had the joy [thanks to a heads up from Pr. Paul McCain and the kind sharing of Pr. Ben Mayes] of looking over two texts that were rewritten, apparently by Urbanus Rhegius (confessor of Smalcald and evangelical bishop of Lüneburg). The originals were very popular and beloved antiphons to the Blessed Virgin. In the Lutheran Reformation, they were transformed into hymns to Christ (and the original chant lines preserved). I’m no Latinist, so pardon any goof ups in the translations, but I think they’re mostly on target:

Here’s the Salve Regina:

Salve, Regina, Mater misericordiae,
Hail, Queen, Mother of mercy,
vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra, salve.
our life, sweetness and hope, hail!
ad te clamamus
to you we cry
exsules filii Hevae,
exiled sons of Eve.
ad te suspiramus, gementes et flentes
to you we send up our sighs, groaning and moaning
in hac lacrimarum valle.
in this valley of tears
Eia, ergo, advocata nostra, illos tuos
Turn, our advocate, upon us
misericordes oculos ad nos converte;
Your merciful eyes
et Jesum, benedictum fructum ventris tui,
And Jesus, the blessed fruit of your womb,
nobis post hoc exsilium ostende.
show to us after this exile,
O clemens, O pia, O dulcis Virgo Maria.
O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.

What happens with the Lutherans got hold of it? Check it out:

SAlue Iesu Christe, Rex misericordiæ,
Hail, Jesus Christ, King of mercy,
vita dulcedo & spes nostra,salue,
Our life, sweetness, and hope, hail!
ad te clamamus exules filij Euæ,
To you we cry, exiled sons of Eve
ad te suspiramus gementes & flentes,
To you we send up our sighs and moanings
in hac lacrymarum valle,
in this valley of tears,
Eya ergo, aduocate noster, illos tuos
Turn, therefore, our Advocate upon us
misericordes oculos ad nos conuerte,
Your merciful eyes
O Iesu benedicte, faciem patris tui nobis
O blessed Jesus, show to us the face of your Father
post hoc exilium ostende,
after this exile.
O clemens, O pie, O dulcis Iesu Christe.
O clement, O loving, O sweet Jesus Christ.

Similarly, the Regina Coeli:

Regina caeli, laetare, alleluia:
Queen of heaven, rejoice, alleluia:
Quia quem meruisti portare. alleluia,
For He whom you merited to bear, alleluia,
Resurrexit, sicut dixit, alleluia,
Is risen, as He said, alleluia,
Ora pro nobis Deum, alleluia.
Pray for us to God, alleluia.
Gaude et laetare, Virgo Maria, alleluia.
Rejoice and be glad, Virgin Mary, alleluia.
Quia surrexit Dominus vere, alleluia.
Because the Lord is risen indeed, alleluia.

is now sung with these words to the old chant:

LÆtemur in Christo redemptore Alleluia
Rejoice in Christ the Redeemer Alleluia
quia quem percussit pater ob scelus populi sui Alleluia.
For he was struck by the Father for the sins of his people Alleluia.
Resurrexit (Cœlos ascendit / Spirtum
misit) sicut dixit (sicut dixit / Vt promisit) Alleluia.
He is risen (to heaven ascended/ sent the Spirit) just as He said (as He said / as He promised) Alleluia
Ora pro nobis Christe, qui ad dexteram Dei Patris locatus es
Pray for us, Christ, who at the right hand of God the Father are located
victor peccati, mortis, inferni,
Victor over sin, death, hell,
vnus es nobis propitiator pontifex, ecclesiæ caput:
Our one propitator, high priest, the church’s head
O rex pie, Fac nos tecum resurgere (Fac nos tecum ascendere / Da nobis tuum
Spiritum) Alleluia.
O loving King, make us rise with you (make us ascend with you / give to us your Spirit). Alleluia.

If the medieval Marian cult had for all intents and purposes shoved our Lord off the center and placed His most holy Mother there, it only makes sense that in the Lutheran Reformation, the beauty of the chants would be retained, but the spotlight would shift from the the Most Blessed Virgin to Him who was born of her, and to the triumph of what He accomplished and His constant intercession for us before His Father.

[The emended texts, by the bye, came from this work that Pr. Mayes showed to Pr. McCain this a.m. - I'm jealous! I want a copy!!!]

Often, one is given the impression that that only those congregations that are willing to move away from the historic liturgy are those that are “missional” churches and “mission-minded” congregations. This video of a congregation that uses the hymnal, goes “by the book,” if you will, and celebrates the Lord’s Supper every Sunday, with a liturgy that would be considered “high church” by many, is very much growing. The congregation is pastored by a convert to Lutheranism, from the Baptist Church, and, as you will see, is attracting many young people, with families, to  a deeper, fuller, richer and more meaningful life of prayer, meditation on the Word, a Christ-centered approach rooted in the historic worship life that we Lutherans, as heirs of the Western Church liturgy, have always fully embraced throughout our history. They are attracting people who are finding it to be a great and wonderful blessing to be able to turn away from the shallow theology and worship life commonplace in American Protestantism. Here is a video about Grace Lutheran Church in Tulsa, Oklahoma:

I found this video of a performance in a Lutheran Church yesterday. What do you think?

As I was driving with my family to our church for one of the Holy Week services, I was struck with the thought that I really do feel sorry for Christians who attend a church that does does not follow the Church Year. Why? Because the Church Year is such a remarkably good and useful teaching tool, a way for us to organize our time and our thoughts around all the major events in the life of Christ, “salvation history” as some might say: both the Church’s and our own personal and individual salvation as part of the body of Christ. Plus imagine being a pastor with no lectionary to help shape and guide our thinking and preaching. The Church Year is such a blessing. The older I get, the more I realize how much we “cradle Lutherans” take for granted about the unique aspects of our Lutheran church life. The Church Year is one of those things. So is the liturgy. Across Christendom, there are ongoing tensions, debates and so forth over worship practices. I find it instructive to read the thinking and reflection of folks from non-liturgical churches. It is interesting that just as some in my church are heading away from the liturgy, we are passing folks on the highway who are headed toward it, with great interest and joy. Here are a couple pieces I’ve found recently on the liturgy that I found helpful. Maybe you will too.

An interesting read, for those of us in church bodies experiencing tension when it comes to traditional v. contemporary worship trends. Are there ways to transcend the traditional v. contemporary debates? Can we find a way to be deeply liturgical without seeming to be ossified? Here is a clip:

“I was suddenly made aware of the myriad ways the church has worshiped throughout history, and I decided to experiment with some of these forms in the young adult ministry I led. It sounds cliché now, but we started by darkening the room and lighting candles and incense. We began singing some hymns and the Doxology. We also recited readings and prayers from The Book of Common Prayer. One of the elders at the church was concerned. He asked me, “Are you going Roman Catholic on us?” The older generation may have been confused, but the younger adults found the changes refreshing. All they had known in church was pop bands and video screens. The introduction of ancient practices helped them feel grounded and rooted to something bigger than themselves. Then I spoke at a conference about our rediscovery of liturgy and tradition. The room was packed—by that time liturgy had become a very hot topic. During my presentation, a leader raised his hand and commented in a very disappointed tone. “I don’t understand,” he said. “You’re telling us that young adults are drawn to liturgy and ancient worship forms, but I serve at a liturgical church and our young people want to get away from liturgy and traditions. They think it’s boring. I came to this conference to learn new ideas from contemporary churches. I want to move forward, not back.” I realized that worship trends among the young were complicated. Those raised in contemporary churches found practicing liturgy and following the church calendar refreshing and meaningful. But some who had grown up in traditional and liturgical churches saw these same practices as lifeless or routine. They were eager to incorporate more contemporary forms. One group wanted to rediscover the past, and the other was trying to escape it.”

And here’s another blog post I came across that I found interesting:

“Liturgy is gaining popularity again. It has wide appeal to emergent communities because it seems to make the sacred accessable, and hearkens back to a time where the church seemed to be more…pure…authentic. Whether this is a passing trend remains to be seen. I hope it isn’t! Liturgy has much to offer, and I continue to grow in my appreciation of it. First, liturgy helps us to keep the facts of faith from becoming muddled. The Apostles and Nicene creeds and hymns like the Nunc Dimmitis and Magnificat witness to a message that doesn’t change with history and trends. Whereas the speed of life seems to narrow our focus to the tyranny of the so-called urgent, what liturgy points to remains unchanged and becomes a vital source for touching the eyes of our hearts and restoring our sight. Second, liturgy is pedagogy: a repeated reenactment of the redemption story. In this reenactment we are doing more than going through the motions of some kind of divine skit. Redemption happens. Through confession and absolution, scripture readings, the preaching of God’s word, and the celebration of the Lord’s Supper God meets us with his gifts of forgiveness and strength to live our faith. Spiritual amnesia comes easily. The repeated reminder of our need for grace and forgiveness is vital for us to remain what Luther called “pure receivers”. Without this, we so easily drift out of the arena of God’s favor. In a word, liturgy keeps me humble. It doesn’t leave room for the cancer of self-effort.”

I had an amusing little exchange, but also kind of sad, by way of follow up to a post I made here. A certain pastor felt a need to level the charge that unless a person holds his fingers together after the consecration, so as not to permit any particle of the host to fall to the ground, then that person must be a receptionist since they do not care that the body of Christ would be allowed to fall away during the Sacrament.

Hmmm….interesting point of view, no? So, all you pastors out there who are not using 13th century Papal Rubrics are placing yourself under suspicion of being a bunch of “receptionists”, or, as this pastor put it recently, you might be among those who “don’t really believe in the Real Presence.” Got it? Just thought you should know.

On the other hand, as I informed this pastor, given his scruples, I am shocked he celebrates the Lord’s Supper at all! For surely he must know that there are atoms, molecules and other bits and particles of the Blessed Body and Blood that are here and there on the altar and no doubt not ending up where they are intended: into the mouth of the communicants, and so, I suggested shock that he would do anything that might possibly result in such a situation, up and including celebrating the Sacrament at all!

And so the wheel of rubric-obsessive legalism of the hyper-ritualists turns!

I’m quite sure our dear Lord suffers His body and blood to be accidentally dropped, and the atoms, molecules and otherwise that do are, within the proper use and action of the Sacrament, truly His body and blood. Why, I think I read somewhere that He even suffered His body and blood to be splattered and scattered by scourge, nail, and spear, for us, and for our salvation. Reverence? Yes. Hyper-ritualization? No.

There has been a bit of a buzz across the Lutheran Blogosphere with the [thankfully few] pastors who are committed to insisting that the bread and wine that remains after the Divine Service, remain perpetually the body and blood of Christ. One chap delivered himself of the opinion that in spite of what Luther and Chemnitz has to say on the practice, and what our Confessions have to say about it, it is not what they say that counts here, but what they don’t say that really matters. This strange argument from silence, shaky as it is, is being put forward as a legitimate reason to reserve the elements after the Sacrament, regarding them perpetually to be the body and blood of Christ. Here is my response to these latest musings.

I’m really quite puzzled why men who have pledged themselves to the Lutheran
Confessions, who have read how Martin Luther is appealed to as the
“chief teacher of the churches of the Augsburg Confession,” and whose
writings on the Lord’s Supper are specifically held up in the vein of:
“For more on this, read Luther” in the Confessions, can, in my opinion, be so dismissive of Luther’s position. The “lost
Luther reference” has been returned to an English edition of the BOC,
adding even more weight to the position of our chief teacher on these
matters.

The entire freight/weight of the issue as addressed in the Confessions stands firmly against reservation, for any reason. Further,
an argument constructed to support reservation based on the silence of
our Confessions is even more difficult for me to understand.

Read more…

Rev. Ben Harju posted this story on his blog. It is an example of the kind of attitude toward worship and the liturgy that is understandably why some Lutherans let the pendulum swing too far the other direction in their reaction against such inane irreverence and foolishness. And who can possibly blame them? Why, this story is almost enough to make me join the ranks of the Polycarpathian hyper-ritualists [calm down: just teasing guys].

Now, I suppose I could say, “Thankfully, this was not in one of our congregations.” But that would be hypocritical. Over the years I’ve witnessed “clown eucharists” in one of our Synod’s congregations where a guy dressed up like a clown did a “mime” Eucharist at the altar, complete with dipping a crucifix into a chalice of wine. In a few of our congregations, there have been events in which people are re-baptized to remind them of their baptism: yup, the whole nine yards, down to hopping in a backyard swimming pool. In another congregation, we’ve had a bed in the chancel during Lent for a sermon series on sex, advertised by people dressed up as Wookies on street corners. I have had to sit through “worship experiences” while listening to a “worship leader” do a great imitation of a Las Vegas lounge lizard tickling the ivories. Oh, yes—there are plenty of dumb things to go around in our circles too, to be sure. But this particular story struck me as a great example of the kind of dumb things you sometimes see in churches. And this story is precisely why I’ll gladly, any day of the week, and twice on Sunday, genuflect and adore the Blessed Lord Christ during the Most Venerable Holy Sacrament of the Altar. For it is His body and blood that is present under the consecrated elements, than ever feel any affinity for this kind of nonsense. Truly, God is with us.

My questions for all of us is this: Do we, in truth and fact, by the blessing of God, in the power of the Spirit, truly believe, teach and confess that it is Christ’s body and blood that we are receiving in the Eucharist? Do we hold firmly to the blessed reality of what is happening in the Lord’s Supper? It is the Risen, Ascended and Ever-Living Lord who deigns to feed us with His body and blood? Are we fully aware of the majesty of His glory when He is present among us in this way? Do we realize precisely to whom we are singing when we sing the Agnus Dei after the consecration? To the Almighty Lord of Sabbaoth who has lovingly come among us, under the bread and wine? This truth, and this reality, should shape everything we do in the Divine Service. Let other Christian confessions who do not believe, teach and confess the actual presence of our Lord under the bread and wine find their substitutes in emotionalism, irreverence, trite and flippant actions and behaviors in the house of the Lord. Let us however always realize that we are in the presence of the Holy One of Israel and act accordingly.

Here is Pastor Harju’s post.

Some time ago I received word from one of my parishioners about
something strange they had encountered while visiting a relative’s
congregation. Apparently, during the distribution of the Blessed
Sacrament, this congregation was handing out Goldfish crackers to the
children. While the parents were receiving our Lord’s Body, a dish with
Goldfish crackers was distributed to the children at the communion
rail. I suppose this was meant to include the children in the
distribution or something like that.

Upon hearing this, I promptly asked for some details, warned against
receiving the Sacrament at congregations not in our fellowship (this
was at a parish outside the Big Three Lutheran denominations in America
- yet Lutheran), and politely explained that it’s quite devilish to
hand out anything BUT our Lord’s Body and Blood during the
distribution. Certainly, something was *fishy* about this whole thing,
smelled of the Evil One himself, and should be avoided at all costs
(aside: how does he keep getting us with food?!)
In this sort of way I warned the flock entrusted to my care.

Fast forward to not so many weeks ago. This congregation has a new
pastor, and has for a little while now. Some of us have gladly
befriended him. Yet the poor sod made the mistake of inviting me into
his church to have a look around (with a couple of others). For those
of you who have played “Baldur’s Gate,” when I get into a new nave,
chancel, and/or sacristy I become a liturgical version of Noober.
“Heya. What’s that? Why’s that there? What do you use that for? What’s
in there? How long has that been here?” And so on. The poor man didn’t
see it coming. I’m just genuinely curious and interested in broadening
my horizens.

So while in the sacristy the pastor is showing us his communion ware,
and I see a little bag of Goldfish crackers. And so I say, “Oh, that’s
right. This is the church that was handing out the Goldfish crackers
during communion.” And the pastor kind of looks around uncomfortably
and says it is. So I cheerfully and casually explained that I’ve warned
my parishioners to avoid him/them. So
then I say, “But you don’t still do that, do you?” The cleric becomes a
bit squeemish, saying, “Yeahhhh.” So I say, “Oh.” Keep in mind, I am
trying to be polite, not to mention keep my thinking in the boundaries
of “best construction.” So I say, “Well, it’s not like you’re blessing
them, right?” Again the cleric becomes squeemish. “Oh,” I say. “Well,
it’s not like you’re putting them on the altar during the consecration,
right?” Now the poor cleric is really squeemish, and says, “Well….”
Oh, the cloud of disappointment that fell upon that sacristy.

It seems they still have been placing Goldfish crackers on the altar,
blessing them at the consecration, and distributing them to the
children. I’m pretty sure they’re not being blessed with the Verba
(oh please oh please oh please oh please). Truly, I expected the
opposite response to each of those questions I asked. In case this
pastor (who shall remain nameless, and whose congregation and location
shall remain nameless) reads this: PLEASE STOP WITH THE GOLDFISH
CRACKERS. THIS IS A BATTLE WORTH PICKING.” I pray changing this
practice will be no battle at all for him.

Continuing a series of posts on some thoughts and concerns on matters of worship, forms, rites and rituals, I’d like now to address the issue of whether or not the word “Mass” is the best way for us to refer to the Divine Service, or the Service of Holy Communion. It has become, in some circles, nearly a de rigeur mark of a certain commitment to historic Lutheran worship forms to use the word “Mass.” Frankly I’ve noticed the term used in a sort of an “in the know” kind of way. It has become a way to distinguish the “us” from the “them” in certain segments of our Synod. That is unfortunate.

It is my contention that the word “Mass” has a huge amount of theological baggage associated with it that makes its use highly problematic, at best, and, at worst, extremely hazardous to including good and proper understandings of the nature, and purpose, of the Divine Service. Appealing to its use in the Augsburg Confession and Apology, as if that simply settle the question, fails to take into account the nature and context of the AC and Ap.

Rev. Daniel Preus, head of the Luther Academy, and former First Vice-President of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod wrote the following article that appeared in LOGIA magazine. I’m reproducing it here because I believe Rev. Preus really goes to the heart and core of the concerns inherent in using the word “Mass” to refer to the service of Holy Communion.

Luther and the Mass

Justification and the Joint
Declaration
Daniel Preus

BY THE TIME THIS ARTICLE
APPEARS, [this article appeared in 2001], about two years will have passed since the signing by Rome and various
Lutherans of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. Few
ecumenical events in recent church history have received the attention that the
adoption of this document has produced. Supporters continue to laud the
Joint Declaration as a major ecumenical break-through. Detractors remain
no less adamant that the Joint Declaration represents no progress at
all, indeed, that it is a compromise or even a concession of the worst kind.
Perhaps one of the most compelling arguments supporting the latter view is that
made by the Department of Systematic Theology of Concordia Theological
Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana in the April 1998 issue of the Concordia
Theological Quarterly. In response to a preliminary form of the Joint
Declaration, it quotes from the Evangelical-Roman Catholic Gift of
Salvation paper, another document produced through the dialogue process,
that

spells out “diverse understandings of merit, reward,
purgatory, and indulgences, Marian devotion and the assistance of the saints in
the life of salvation, and the possibility of salvation for those who have not
been evangelized” .For Lutherans it is nonsense to speak of consensus on
justification if these issues remain unsettled.¹

Read more…