That blog post title got your attention, didn’t it? Good! Now, let me say this very carefully: this is not about chasables, or however you spell that word, it is about the principle of the benefit of the greatest amount of uniformity as possible. If you refuse to understand this point, you don’t understand how Lutherans approach questions of ceremony and liturgy.

A confessional Lutheran pastor in Germany sent me these very informative, helpful and deeply thoughtful comments, and I’m passing them along to you. I have put in bold and underlined the comment that some of my friends who love to add ceremonies to the Lutheran service simply are failing to account for and, frankly, I am convinced they really just don’t want to hear this, because there is within every American Lutheran the “I did it my way” American love of freedom, liberty and “rights” to do what one feels is “best.”

The last days I watched the discussion on Facebook and in your blog concerning high church liturgy. Here in Germany there is also a High Church Association within the churches of the EKD. Its roots go back to movements after WW I which eventually found a leader in Friedrich Heiler, a Roman Catholic theologian who became evangelical without leaving Roman doctrines behind. Hermann Sasse wrote an article about him and his movement in 1944 which is now reprinted in Sasse (2011), In statu confessionis 3, 231-260. The main distinguishing features of high church theologians in Germany are their zeal to get the “apostolic succession” by the laying on of hands (mostly in Scandinavia or by sympathizing Roman Catholic bishops) and to restore the practices of the Roman mass especially in regard to sacrifice language to make the “lacking” Lutheran liturgy “whole” once more.

When I studied in Münster/Westf. in 1992, I had a seminar with Prof. Martin Brecht about Luther’s reform of the mass. There we compiled the main concerns of the reformer in regard to worship in consequently purging all allusions or references to sacrifice in the Last Supper. Since the EKD was preparing a reform of their main agendas in that time, we compared Luther’s goals with tendencies in VELKD Lutheranism to incorporate prayers for celebrating the mass right out of the post-Vaticanum II Missale Romanum in their new book of worship. Of course, Prof. Brecht was highly critical of theses tendencies.

A few weeks ago you mentioned the liturgy of XYZ Lutheran Church in XYZ. I have found their ordinary of the mass as PDF on their web site. This is a most disturbing text. We not only have here problematic allusions to the intercession of the departed saints which, in my opinion, are not in accordance with Apology XXI (IX) – this tendency of invoking the intercession of the saints also exists in German High Church circles as their breviary shows in the order of Compline -, in this ordinary there are parts which speak of the Last Supper as being our offering to God. This is pure heresy and should not be tolerated in a Lutheran congregation. It is disturbing how far some are willing to go in “rediscovering lost treasures of liturgy”. The Roman Mass is no way a role model for Lutheran masses.

Another point often overlooked in High church circles is the fact that not all Lutheran churches in Germany followed Luther’s Deutsche Messe from 1525. The Lutheran Church of Württemberg with Johannes Brenz reformed their worship after the model of the medieval Prädikantengottesdienst (a simple service of the word which contained the Last supper at least once in a month). This form is used up to this day. Luther knew about the Württemberg ordinary and approved it. He deemed it not necessary that all churches had to follow the form of the mass. (But I like Luther’s form better than the Württemberg one.)

As problematic as it is that some congregations abandon the service book in favor of contemporary worship, it is equally problematic if a congregation abandons the order of service chosen by a given church body (synod) in favor of high church liturgy because the consent of all congregations is lost. Luther pointed out that, though a congregation is free to order its worship as it seems fit, it should always seek the harmony with other congregations of a given area (Letter to the Christians in Liefland 1525). Since the LCMS gave itself four forms in the LSB, it is not appropriate when a congregation ignores them in favor of their own form.

So, these were just some ramblings and musings I had to ventilate after reading the ordinary from the congregation in XYZ.

And, let’s remind ourselves, once again, of Martin Luther’s extremely important and wise counsel:

In the first place, I would kindly and for God’s sake request all those who see this order of service or desire to follow it: Do not make it a rigid law to bind or entangle anyone’s conscience, but use it in Christian liberty as long, when, where, and how you find it to be practical and useful. For this is being published not as though we meant to lord it over anyone else, or to legislate for him, but because of the widespread demand for German masses and services and the general dissatisfaction and offense that has been caused by the great variety of new masses, for everyone makes his own order of service. Some have the best intentions, but others have no more than an itch to produce something novel so that they might shine before men as leading lights, rather than being ordinary teachers—as is always the case with Christian liberty: very few use it for the glory of God and the good of the neighbor; most use it for their own advantage and pleasure. But while the exercise of this freedom is up to everyone’s conscience and must not be cramped or forbidden, nevertheless, we must make sure that freedom shall be and remain a servant of love and of our fellow-man.

Where the people are perplexed and offended by these differences in liturgical usage, however, we are certainly bound to forego our freedom and seek, if possible, to better rather than to offend them by what we do or leave undone. Seeing then that this external order, while it cannot affect the conscience before God, may yet serve the neighbor, we should seek to be of one mind in Christian love, as St. Paul teaches [Rom. 15:5-6; 1 Cor. 1:10; Phil. 2:2]. As far as possible we should observe the same rites and ceremonies, just as all Christians have the same baptism and the same sacrament [of the altar] and no one has received a special one of his own from God…For if I should try to make it up out of my own need (an order of service), it might turn into a sect.” (emphasis my own) (LW, Volume 53, Liturgy and Hymns, pages 61 and 64)

My friend, Pastor William Cwirla, posted this somewhere…..just passing it along.

Why the Liturgy? First a definition and a disclaimer. By “liturgy” I mean the western catholic mass form as it has been handed down by way of the Lutheran Reformation consisting of the five fixed canticles – Kyrie, Gloria in Excelsis, Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei. Pardon the Greek and Latin, but it sounds cool and we still use ‘em. “Liturgy” also includes the assigned Scripture texts for the Sundays, feast days, and seasons. Most of what I will say about the liturgy of the Divine Service will pertain to “liturgical worship” in general.

Now, why do we worship according to the western, catholic liturgy?

1. it shows our historic roots. Some parts of the liturgy go back to the apostolic period. Even the apostolic church did not start with a blank liturgical slate but adapted and reformed the liturgies of the synagogue and the Sabbath. The western mass shows our western catholic roots, of which we as Lutherans are not ashamed. (I’d rather be confused with a Roman Catholic than anything else.) We’re not the first Christians to walk the face of the planet, nor, should Jesus tarry, will we be the last. The race of faith is a relay race, one generation handing on (“traditioning”) to the next the faith once delivered to the saints. The historic liturgy underscores and highlights this fact. It is also “traditionable,” that is, it can be handed on.
2. It serves as a distinguishing mark. The liturgy distinguishes us from those who do not believe, teach, and confess the same as we do. What we believe determines how we worship, and how we worship confesses what we believe.
3. It is both Theocentric and Christocentric. From the invocation of the Triune Name in remembrance of Baptism to the three-fold benediction at the end, the liturgy is focused on the activity of the Triune God centered in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. Worship is not primarily about “me” or “we” but about God in Christ reconciling the world to HImself and my baptismal inclusion in His saving work.
4. It teaches. The liturgy teaches the whole counsel of God – creation, redemption, sanctification, Christ’s incarnation, passion, resurrection, and reign, the Spirit’s outpouring and the new life of faith. Every liturgical year cycles through these themes so that the hearer receives the “whole counsel of God” on a regular basis.
5. It is transcultural. One of the greatest experiences of my worship life was to be in the Divine Service in Siberia with the Siberian Lutheran Church. Though I spoke only a smattering of Russian, I knew enough to recognize the liturgy, know what was being said (except for the sermon, which was translated for us), and be able to participate knowledgeably across language and cultural barriers. I have the same experience with our Chinese mission congregation.
6. It is repetitive in a good way. Repetition is, after all, the mother of learning. Fixed texts and annual cycles of readings lend to deep learning. Obviously, mindless repetition does not accomplish anything; nor does endless variety.
7. It is corporate. Worship is a corporate activity. “Let us go to the house of the Lord.” The liturgy draws us out of ourselves into Christ by faith and the neighbor by love. We are all in this together. Worship is not simply about what “I get out of it,” but I am there also for my fellow worshippers to receive the gifts of Christ that bind us together and to encourage each other to love and good works (Heb 10:25). We are drawn into the dialogue of confession and absolution, hearing and confessing, corporate song and prayer. To borrow a phrase from a favored teacher of mine, in church we are “worded, bodied, and bloodied” all together as one.
8. It rescues us from the tyranny of the “here and now.” When the Roman world was going to hell in a hand basket, the church was debating the two natures of Christ. In the liturgy, the Word sets the agenda, defining our needs and shaping our questions. The temptation is for us to turn stones into bread to satisfy an immediate hunger and scratch a nagging spiritual itch, but the liturgy teaches us to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.
9. It is external and objective. The liturgical goal is not that everyone feel as certain way or have an identical “spiritual” experience. Feelings vary even as they come and go. The liturgy supplies a concrete, external, objective anchor in the death and resurrection of Jesus through Word, bread, and wine. Faith comes by hearing the objective, external Word of Christ.
10. It is the Word of God. This is often overlooked by critics of liturgical worship. Most of the sentences and songs of the liturgy are direct quotations or allusions from Scripture or summaries, such as the Creed. In other words, the liturgy is itself the Word of God, not simply a packaging for the Word. Many times the liturgy will rescue a bad sermon and deliver what the preacher has failed to deliver. I know; I’ve been there.

Ten is one of those good numbers in the Bible signifying completeness, so I’ll stop at ten. I’m sure there are more.

I know this is going to make some people angry, but I think it is about time we realize that when some among us say that there is a certain “level” of liturgical activity that marks what is really Lutheran or really liturgical, they are just whistling Dixie. Appealing to older practices is fine, to a point, but I’ve noticed that in reacting to really, really BAD practices among us, such as Lutheran churches dropping the name Lutheran, and ditching the liturgy, the reaction against those errors winds up just causing a problem in the other direction.

In his work documenting liturgical practices in the territory of Braunschweig, Bodo Nischan shared a delightful incident when Luther let the prince in the territory have it with both barrels. For you see, this man was very concerned with making sure they had all the liturgical finery possible and that the preachers were draped in pretty, shiny chasubles. Luther had to remind the good man that there is more to worship, liturgy and the church’s life together than obsessing over rites, rituals and rubrics in the Divine Service. There were calls in the area for continued Roman practices, which Luther rejected, such as consecrating the elements first in church and taking them to communicants, or keeping them stored up in a ciborium. And then, Luther tried to calm the anxiety of a man who was feeling bad about being forced to continue to engage in elaborate rituals:

Provided the Gospel of Jesus Christ is preached purely with no human additions and the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are observed, with no invocation of the saints, no carrying of the sacrament in procession, no daily masses and vigils for the dead, no holy water and salt, and provided that pure hymns are sung in Latin and German, then it does not matter if there be a cross of gold or silver, whether the cope be of saffron, silk, or linen; and if the Elector is not content to put on one gown, let him have three, the way Aaron wore them, one on top of another; and if doesn’t find one procession enough, let him go around seven times like Joshua with trumpets blowing; and if wants to leap with the harp, psalter, and cymbals, let him dance like David before the ark. Conscience is not to be bound, and if we have given up these practices in Wittenberg, we may have reasons which are not valid in Berlin. Except where God has commanded, let there be freedom. [Nichan, p. 22]

You see, dear reader, much as some among us would like to make you think that there is some certain “best” way to do the liturgy and that the wearing of certain vestments is the “most” or “more” Lutheran way of doing things, they are wrong and while they may want to give you the impression that unless you reach their “level” of liturgical correctness and hold your hands just so, and gesticulate in just the right way, they have no right to do so. They have no right to put themselves in the place of judging the content of the Synod’s hymnals or liturgies, or indicating that such content is not “good enough” or that there is some “better” way. Such things are every bit as damaging to our fellowship as Pastor Bob with his polo shirt and jeans parading around like a non-denominational preacher. And we must be willing to say it is or we have no credibility to criticize the other side of the coin.

Source: Prince, People, and Confession: The Second Reformation in Brandenburg by Bodo Nischan.

I get a lot of interesting communications from across the Missouri Synod here at Concordia Publishing House, on a wide variety of topics and issues. Just when I think I’ve seen or heard it all, I see something that I’ve never seen before. That happened again recently. A pastor gave us a lot of feeback and input on a wide variety of resources. He told us he has been in the ministry for twenty-five years. He commented on Lutheran Service Book and declared that only 40% of the hymns in it are “singable.” Ok. But it got more interesting. He said he likes some of the liturgies in it, but not others. Then he said, and this is a direct quote: “Some of it is not so good, DS II.  I told my secretary to tear it out of the hymnals.”

Hmmmmm….a pastor directing his secretary to “tear it out of the hymnals.” Really?

The older I get, and that seems to be happening more quickly than before, I am struck, over and over and over again, but how far removed we are from the spirit of our fathers when it comes to respecting the collective will of the Church when it comes to matters of adiaphora. The principle that what has neither been commanded, nor forbidden, is therefore free has been horribly abused among us to mean now, “Whatever is adiaphora doesn’t matter and you can do whatever you want with it.”

At the time of the Reformation the idea was that although we have freedom, we also have obligations to one another, therefore, I’m not free to thumb my nose at the church’s collective will in matters such as this. And so, here we have a pastor directing a parish secretary to deface the church’s hymnal because he, the pastor, in his vast and infinite wisdom, decides he doesn’t like Divine Service II, therefore, he, the pastor, has the right to take his congregation’s hymnals and tear a chunk out of them.

Am I wrong in my thinking here? Or does this perfectly illustrate a problem that is pandemic among us?

“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:

httpvhd://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qo0V57INpA

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.”