“I once heard from the mouth of a leader of the Berneuchener Movement that the forensic doctrine of justification of the Formula of Concord was an absolute blasphemy. This man came form the city of Andreas Osiander. It is certainly no accident that one finds precisely in America, among Lutherans who are close to the Liturgical Movement or working in it, a doctrine of justification which is reminiscent of Osiander, as though the Christ dwelling in us is our righteousness. How correct were the Lutherans of the 16th century, and even Calvin, when they aw that Osiander had returned to the medieval Catholic and Tridentine doctrine of justification! The deeper reason that High Churchism has brought down so many appears to me to be that we modern Lutherans no longer correctly understand justification. . . . Thus, we lack the compass which directs our course with certainty. For this reason, we no longer have Luther’s keen sense for what of the liturgical heritage of the older church is evangelical and for that which has been brought from strange fires and placed upon the Christian altar. This is the reason that now the Catholic concept of priesthood and the idea of so-called apostolic succession—which is neither biblical nor Christian—are quickly appearing. And this is the reason why a man like Professor Piepkorn himself can take over the prayer for the dead from the Roman Canon of the Mass. It is absolutely clear that when the sacrifice of the Mass is renewed, it means apostasy from the Gospel.”

Source:

Hermann Sasse, “A Brotherly Warning Against the ‘High Church’ Danger,” translated by M.C. Harrison in The Lonely Way: Selected Letters and Essays (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2002), pgs. 304-305.

“There is true and false church. There is correct and false liturgy. The great Gnostic sects of the second century—to which a great portion of Christianity of the day, perhaps the greater part, fell sacrifice—won men by means of their liturgies, so far as the sources allow us to determine. The great mystery religions of the ancient world did the same before the Gnostics. The ancient Christian liturgies arose out of the language of prophecy. Here lies the beauty and force of the language of the liturgy. But there is true and false prophecy. Wherever true prophecy appears, there also false prophecy arises. This is so in the time of the OT and the NT, and in the history of the church. It belongs to the greatness of Luther that he had the gift of discernment. He was brought up in the liturgy and lived in it. He desired to maintain whatever of it could be retained. And he never gave up any of it frivolously, and he often hesitated long before he finally made a decision. Luther had the gift of discernment. He had this great gift of the Holy Spirit, without which the church cannot exist, because he had the Word and Sacrament, to which the Spirit of God has bound himself in the church. He could judge liturgy because he possessed the measure on which it along can be judged: the holy Gospel, the saving message of the justification of the sinner by faith alone, the article from which nothing can be granted even if heaven and earth should fall and nothing remain. On this article depends not only our salvation, but also the church and the liturgy of the true church. “Where this article remains pure, so too Christianity remains pure and in beautiful harmony and without any divisions. [… ]But where is toes not remain pure, there it is not possible to repel any errors or heretical spirit.” [cited in FC SD III.6]. In this sense we ought all begin and end our work in the realm of liturgy with this prayer: “Lord, keep us steadfast in your Word.”

Source: Hermann Sasse, “A Brotherly Warning Against the ‘High Church’ Danger,” translated by M.C. Harrison in The Lonely Way: Selected Letters and Essays (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2002), pgs. 314-315.

I received a note from a Lutheran district executive that a parish musician and organist in a Lutheran congregation is interested in a new position of service in the church, at a congregation with a "strong traditional Lutheran music and liturgy." The note indicated that his present congregation has grown and now his duties are more "administrative." I was curious to learn more so I checked the congregation’s web site and noticed they offer a predominantly so-called "contemporary" worship style. Their web site provided a sample of songs sung in their contemporary services. I’ve posted the lyrics of several of them below. They explain why a musician wishing to serve at a parish with "strong traditional Lutheran music and liturgy" would wish to serve elsewhere. Perhaps somebody can explain what, precisely, is "Lutheran" about any of these songs? Where is Christ and His Gospel in them? Where the objective proclamation of Christ and Him Crucified?

Read more…

We like to comfort ourselves these days with the thought that our times are so different and so unique from the times and situations faced by the founding fathers of The LCMS. What utter hubris! Here in America they were outnumbered tremendously by the Methodists and other revivalists. Did they choose to bring into our churches the "style" of popular American Christianity forms? No. Today however it seems to be popular, even "politically correct" to "bless" whatever any congregation chooses to do in their ‘"freedom" when it comes to worship practices. "Missional" seems to be a word used to excuse a lot of sloppy practice these days. Call me "old fashioned" but I want my father and mother, myself, and my children, to be prepared to face their Maker in heaven with the historical Lutheran liturgy and classic chorales on their lips and in their hearts, rather than insipid  ditties like "Shine, Jesus, Shine" and other such pop-evangelicalism banality. Call me an old stick-in-the-mud if you must, but that’s how I see it. A Lutheran pastor I’ve always respected has quite a lot to say about doing away with historic Lutheran worship forms. Tough words? Perhaps. True words? You better believe it!

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 Roman Catholicism in outward things. It is a pity and dreadful cowardice when a person sacrifices the good ancient church customs to please the deluded American denominations just so they won’t accuse of being Roman Catholic! Indeed! Am I to be afraid of a Methodist, [or a non-denominational Christian, or a Calvinist, or an Evangelical], who perverts the saving Word, or ashamed in the matter of my good cause, and not rather rejoice that they can tell by our ceremonies that I do not belong to them? We are not insisting that there be uniformity in perception or feeling or taste among all believing Christians, neither dare anyone demand that everyone be of the same opinion as his in such matters; nevertheless, it remains true that the Lutheran liturgy distinguishes Lutheran worship from the worship of other churches to such an extent that the houses of worship of the latter look like lecture halls, [theaters or auditoriums], while our churches are in truth houses of prayer in which Christians serve the great God publicly before the world. . . . Someone may ask,” What would be the use of uniformity in ceremonies?” We would answer, “What is the use of a flag on the battlefield? Even though a soldier cannot defeat the enemy with it, he nevertheless sees by the flag where he belongs. We ought not to refuse to walk in the footsteps of our fathers.

Source:
C.F.W. Walther, Essay on Adiaphora in Essays for the Church: Volume I (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1992), p. 193-194.

The new Lutheran hymnal, Lutheran Service Book, is selling briskly at Concordia Publishing House. The response to the hymnal has been overwhelmingly positive. I’m hearing a lot of great things from folks about it. Over the weekend I heard what, so far, takes the cake in the "silly rumor" category about the new hymnal. A person wrote to me and said the he had heard that, "Lutheran Service Book cut the number of hymns by Martin Luther in half!" Oh? Let’s see. The Lutheran Hymnal contains twenty one of Luther’s hymns. Lutheran Worship contains twenty five of his hymns. Lutheran Service Book has … twenty seven hymns by Martin Luther. [Which modern American Lutheran hymnal has the most Luther hymns? Evangelical Lutheran Hymnary has twenty eight]. I thought it would also be interesting to check on some more famous non-Lutheran hymn writers and how frequently they appear in TLH and LSB. TLH contains seventeen of Charles Wesley’s hymns. LSB contains nine hymns by Charles Wesley.  [ELH has 13 of Wesley's hymns]. TLH contains thirty one hymns by Isaac Watts. LSB contains fifteen of Watt’s hymns. To be fair TLH contains a couple more Gerhardt hymns than LSB. In my opinion, we could have done with at least two more Gerhardt hymns in LSB and a few less of the more modern hymns in it. But, LSB does have one Gerhardt hymn that has never before seen the light of day in English, and it is stunning: "All Christians Who Have Been Baptized" Hymn 596.

Without comment, here is how one Lutheran congregation describes its "informal" and "formal" worship.

Our Sunday worship offers two different types or experiences of worship, both based on the same word of God and generally the same format or order.

Informal worship is at 8:00 and lasts about 45 minutes. As the name bears out, it is more informal, relaxed, without the pastor wearing vestments, or using the pulpit or candles being lit. It serves those whose schedule does not permit them to attend the later service. It usually involves a small group of people who get to know each other well. The songs tend to be more contemporary, folk or gospel tunes or spirituals. A keyboard, guitar or piano is used by volunteer musicians.

Our Sunday 10:00 a.m. service is our formal worship, utilizing a formal order of worship form the hymnal, it is offers a sung liturgy in addition to the hymns. It serves the needs of those who prefer a more formal service or a later time on Sunday morning. This service reflects the liturgical heritage and tradition from centuries past in a meaningful way. Normally Holy Communion is celebrated weekly: 8:00 a.m. at the at the second and fourth Sundays and 10:00 a.m. on the first and third Sundays. Additional spe cial services are held during Advent (the four weeks prior to Christmas), Christmas Eve and Day, Lent (the six weeks prior to Easter, Easter Tanksgivinvg, and at other special times. The worship is led musically by our beautiful Werner Bosch pip organ that was installed in the sanctuary in 1962 and is played by our accomplished organists.

What Paul writes, 2 Cor. 6, 14. 17, shall and must obtain: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what communion hath light with darkness? Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord. Likewise, when there are useless, foolish displays, that are profitable neither for good order nor Christian discipline, nor evangelical propriety in the Church, these also are not genuine adiaphora, or matters of indifference. (Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, X.6-7)

Here is a link to what "contemporary worship" looks in some churches these days. The praise band is crowding out the altar and baptismal font. The rock music is blaring and they are trying to lead the congregation in singing the song "House of God" [lyrics follow this commentary].

A week or so ago we enjoyed a spirited discussion about one Lutheran congregation’s decision to have a Marian shrine in its nave, or so it would seem to most who view it. How does a congregation decide it has the right to go on its own in this manner? How does a congregation decide it has a right to go on its own in the manner featured in this post?

The praise band rocking away in the chancel … is this really how anyone wishes to suggest our Lutheran Confessions intend worship to be in the church? Is this evangelical freedom in action, or a "foolish display," if not worse? What does such a practice say about Lutheran theology, if anything? Is this the way we worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness?

Here is the video clip of the praise band doing its thing

Here are the lyrics to the song "House of God" — compare this hymn of "invocation" or "welcome" with "Come, Holy Ghost, God and Lord" — now ask yourself…which hymn actually proclaims God’s Word, praises Him and confesses the truth? Which hymn is more a device to stir human emotion?

House of God

Welcome to the house of God my friend All are welcome, all may enter in Come experience the peace and hope within 

We come here, for God and God alone The house of God All draw near, make Yourself at Home The house of God 

Come and celebrate His majesty Dance and shout like those who've been set free It's about you Jesus and all of your glory 

Come, Holy Ghost, God and Lord,
With all your graces now outpoured.
On each believer’s mind and heart;
Your fervent love to them impart.
Lord, by the brightness of your light
In holy faith your Church untie;
From every land and every tongue
This to our praise, O Lord, Our God, be sung:
Alleluia, alleluia!

Come, holy Light, guide divine,
Now cause the Word of life to shine.
Teach us to know our God aright
And call him Father wit delight.
From every error keep us free;
Let none buy Christ our master be
That we in living faith abide,
In him, our Lord, with all our might confide.
Alleluia, alleluia!

Come, holy Fire, comfort true,
Grant us the will your work to do
And in your service to abide:
Let trials turn us not aside.
Lord, by your power prepare each heart,
And to our weakness strength impart
That bravely here we may contend,
Through life and death to your, our Lord, ascend.
Alleluia, alleluia!

Hymn # 154 from Lutheran Worship

Dr. Holger Sonntag offers these poignant comments on the issue of liturgy, worship, orders and freedom.  The post of last week or so on adiaphora elicited quite an active discussion, and a number of comments, of varying quality. Pastor Sonntag offered this as a comment to that thread, but it was so good that I felt it deserved to be featured as a separate blog post.

First, I want to respond to a comment on this blog site about my connecting liturgiology and ecclesiology. I don’t quite see how this would make liturgy part of the areas in which we need to agree before we can have church fellowship. All I meant to say here is: Lutheran churches with Lutheran theology should also worship in a recognizably Lutheran way.

AC VII, esp. when we take it together with Ap. VII-VIII, shows very clearly that Lutherans navigated the double dangers of a liturgical uniformity that was of a meritorious nature and a confusion of freedom of faith with liturgical license. What they opted for, for the sake of public harmony and tranquility, was liturgical uniformity that is of a non-meritorious nature.

They applied it in such a way that sovereign cities and principalities would have uniform orders which needed not to be identical all across Germany and Scandinavia.

There is a difference between necessity and usefulness. Just because something is not necessary (and liturgical uniformity is not necessary for church fellowship) doesn’t mean it’s bad. Good works are not necessary for salvation, but they’re not bad…

Now, not to start a chicken-egg hunt here, but as to a person’s more recent quoting from Luther’s German Mass on Luther’s respect for those who already have "good orders" (LW 53:62), it might be good to determine how this applies to us today.

Wasn’t it this way that some among us felt the need, beginning perhaps sometimes in the 60s or 70s, to take it upon themselves to alter the "good orders" already in existence in congregations (TLH) and to replace them with their own creations and alterations. That’s now history, I know, but we also shouldn’t pretend that the "new orders" we’re talking about in our context somehow emerged in anything remotely similar to the liturgical vacuum created by Luther’s reformation which necessitated decisive *theological* (not: stylistic) changes in the traditional liturgy to reflect the rediscovered gospel.

Here pastors felt the theological need to act, and probably rightly so; and Luther respected their sincere work. — Yet is that what happened in the last 30 years, was TLH (or LW) in such a dire need of *theological* reform that everybody was called to try their hand in this "state of emergency" to create the "diversity" that exists today?

In the same context (about LW 53:62), Luther nonetheless talks about that it would be nice to have uniform ceremonies in the principalities (he just can’t help it, it seems!). These territories were, in my recollection of German history, the basic sovereign units of the German empire: they could wage wars, enter into confederations, etc. And they also had the right to reform (and defend) the church (ius reformandi) and to establish ceremonies (ius liturgicum) — a mayor in, say, Saxony, didn’t have these rights independently because they were held by his sovereign. In other words, these little states were different from the individual states in America.

Practically speaking, they were also the basic point of reference for most people. Yes, they were all Germans (esp. against Rome), but they were, perhaps first of all, Saxons, Prussians, Bavarians, etc. Only a few merchants, or mercenaries or theologians, would ever travel outside of their tiny nations. Most were farmers and craftsmen.

And, if I’m not wrong, you also couldn’t simply leave you home country and move to a different place. You belonged to the prince; he was your "father" (see the LC on that one), he owned you as his subject (this is why suicide was a crime against the prince: you were defrauding him of his possession).

This ties in to the point Luther makes elsewhere: let’s avoid confusion and offense. Well, if all are uniform in one territory; if all are basically never leaving that territory, you clearly don’t need a "German" solution to a problem that can be solved on the Saxon or Prussian level.

Again, is that our situation today? It is not. People travel, snowbirds come to mind when you live in MN. Folks spend several months away from home; they visit their children in other parts of the country. — Any congregations out there where that’s caused discussions and perhaps even ugly divisions??

We can’t pretend that we’re still shepherding a flock of stationary farmers and little merchants who don’t have the money to go to town more often than once a week, much less the means to leave the state.

And, these pragmatic considerations aside, the early Missourians whose members also didn’t travel a lot, still strove to be uniform liturgically in CA, MN, MO, AL, NY, and MI — nationally, in other words! They took pleasure in looking the same as fellow Missourians everywhere (that’s love too) — and they wanted to look different than those not in fellowship with us based on agreement in the areas mentioned in AC VII. This is different from sectarianism.

Why do we worship the way we do? Because its theologically sound and, after careful and respectful consideration of our (Lutheran) heritage (4th Commandment!), we’ve freely and lovingly agreed to do it this way. Isn’t is possible to be a Lutheran and worship based on a slimed-down version of the divine service without all these cumbersome canticles? Probably, but that’s just not what we’ve agreed upon. Otherwise, we’d only abide, e.g., by the agreed-upon bylaws and constitution of synod, not by its agreed-upon hymnal and liturgy. That’d be pretty sad.

Finally, as in the case of Luther (and the Early Church, I read somewhere), the point of reference for our liturgical practice (and reform) ought to be those of the household of the faith, not potential members or heterodox communions.

Evangelism, at least in the previous millennia, I venture to say, didn’t exactly happen in the worship service. It happend in the home, at work, and wherever else Christians and unbelievers rubbed shoulders in the context of their vocations. As the opening invocation indicates, the worship service is chiefly for those who already rightly know and believe in the triune God; only they can call upon him in a God-pleasing manner. Others may visit (and we welcome them, except at the communion table — oops…), but they can’t be made the defining yardstick for Christian worship. To understand and appreciate the divine service, you need to know the catechism, LW 53:64.

By the way, the catechism is perhaps a good example for our discussion here. Is there anything in God’s word that tells us we have to use catechisms to instruct unbelievers? No. Is there anything in God’s word that tells us that we must use Luther’s catechism? No. Can Christian doctrine be taught *correctly* in any other way than Luther’s? I guess so! So, why are we then urging congregations to use the SC (or maybe we aren’t urging them — so why should we urge them …), by means of the hymnal? Because we’re Lutherans, and Luther has put it together so well, and we have / should agree upon it to do it this way.

The catechism, as well as the liturgy catechetically understood (another thought in Ap. VII-VIII), provide us with the Christian language; they helps us to understand the bible’s language correctly which is the Spirit’s speaking; they help us to speak this language faithfully and accurately to our neighbor, so that he and we would praise God with one voice and in one common understanding, Rom. 15.

Everybody using their own version of a little catechism? Possible. Good? No.

I was recently viewing church web sites and bumped into this photograph, as I have in the past. It is a statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary, holding the infant Christ, a very beautiful one at that. Quite beautiful. I like it a lot. However, it is to be found in a Lutheran church’s nave, where the people gather for Divine Service. One notices lit candles before it. Here is an interesting case study in adiaphora. I’m not mentioning the church’s name, for that is irrelevant. What are the issues here?

Given the long association of lit candles before a statue of the Blessed Mother of Our Lord with the Marian cult in the Roman Catholic Church and the evils associated with it, what do you think? Is it good, bad or indifferent that one should have a statue of Mary with burning candles in front of it?

The burning candles are what are known as "votive" candles and, in the Roman Church, represent the prayers that have been said to the particular saint before whom they are lit. In this case, Mary. Lutherans use candles. We have statues. Are statues of Mary out? Candles out? Put them together and is there any issue? How best to think through these issues?

The church web site on which this photo appears states that the statue is Christ, being held by Mary, which of course is true, the photo from the site however is titled "Theotokos" — God Bearer — the ancient [entirely correct] description of Mary. The other picture here is of a statue of Christ being held by St. Mary is one I took in the Roman Catholic Cathedral in Worms, Germany.

The issue here goes back to what I have written about before. Congregations that love the historic liturgy and worship life of the church are no more free to "do their own thing" than congregations that want to imitate the local E-Free congregation, with hand waving and other such American pop-Christianity practices. The principles of liturgical life together espoused and set forth in our Lutheran Confessions are very clear that we do in fact have obligations to one another in matters liturgical. At the time the Lutheran Confessions were written, as the church orders authored by the same men who authored the Formula of Concord make clear, it was commonly understood that decisions regarding practices and liturgy were made together, and there were mutual obligations. Simply because a pastor, or a smaller group of pastors, determine that in their Lutheran Church they are going to follow what they perceive to be "better" or "more Lutheran" customs is no reason for them to do it.

Is it good, right and salutary for a congregation that is pledged to the Lutheran Confessions in the Book of Concord to feature a statue of Mary, with burning candles, in its sanctuary? Are we to regard this as yet another way we Lutherans can "rehabilitate" a practice from the Roman Church, much as some claim we should and can do with Corpus Christi festival? Is this an appropriate way to make sure Lutherans do not throw the Blessed Lady out with the bath water of anti-Roman polemic? What do you think?

Now even though external rites and orders … add nothing to salvation, yet it
is un-Christian to quarrel over such things and thereby to confuse the
common people. We should consider the edification of the lay folk more
important than our own ideas and opinions … Let each one surrender
his own opinions and get together in a friendly way and come to a
common decision about these external matters, so that there will be one
uniform practice throughout your district instead of disorder …
For even though from the viewpoint of faith, the external orders are
free and can without scruples be changed by anyone at anytime, yet from
the viewpoint of love you are not free to use this freedom but are
bound to consider the edification of the common people…

–Martin Luther, The American Edition of Luther’s Works, Volume 53:47

The responses and discussion generated by my recent post on worship and liturgy matters have been interesting. Some have responded by saying, "Yes and amen." Others have said  I’m being slavishly legalistic and trying to "do liturgy by rubrics" or "impose" traditional high-church liturgy on the church. Others have informed me I hold a romantic view of the liturgy and seem to regard 1941 as a "golden era" for the church’s worship life. Others have bristled at my suggestion that doing your own thing, high-church style, is really, on this matter of uniformity, not different in kind than doing your own thing, low-church style. Still others have said that if not for them and a few handful of other parishes The LCMS would never have made any liturgical progress. One person said that LSB offers up only bland Missouri synod liturgy and so he can’t use it. Another friend told me that LSB is too restrictive. Interesting responses. I encourage this discussion. Others have simply chosen to dismiss this discussion by saying all I’m really doing is just pushing sales of the new hymnal. What is most intriguing to me is that many responses, unwittingly, have proven my point dramatically: we all have a very, very hard time "surrendering our own opinions" for the greater good of the church in matters of adiaphora. Some seem to regard the use of an electric guitar or a chausable as nearly a sine qua non for faithful ministry. I’m not convinced.

Name the person who wrote the following statement about liturgical uniformity. Who was it that dared to restrict the use of Christian liberty in matters pertaining to worship?

Now even though external rites and orders … add nothing to salvation, it is un-Christian to quarrel over such things and confuse the common people. We should consider the edification of the laity more important than our own ideas and opinions … Let each one surrender his own opinions and get together in a friendly way and come to a common decision about these external matters, so that there will be one uniform practice throughout your district instead of disorder … For even though from the viewpoint of faith, the external orders are free and can without scruples be changed by anyone at anytime, yet from the viewpoint of love you are not free to use this liberty…

Or how about this one?

It is the cause of much incorrectness… when the external church ordinances, divine service and ceremonies are not held with reverence, or in orderly fashion, or in like manner. Also certain pastors purpose to act in these matters without uniformity. They shall carefully see to it that the ceremonies which have to do with hymns, clothing of the priests, administration of the sacrament … as well as the festivals, be maintained in an orderly and uniform fashion, at one place as at another, uniform and in accord with such as occur at Wittenberg and Torgau, in accord with the Holy Scriptures…*

One more quote:

Ceremonies [should be instituted] which give the external indication that in the congregation 
great, high, serious dealings are present, so that the ceremonies lead, stimulate, admonish and move the people to join together their thoughts, lift up their hearts in all humility. That there be in the congregation heartfelt devotion to the word, the Sacrament and prayer … Christian freedom has its place in this matter, as the ancients said, “Disagreement in rites does not take away agreement in faith.” It still brings all sorts of benefit that in ceremonies, so much as it is possible, a uniformity be maintained, and that such uniformity serve to maintain unity in doctrine, and that common, simple, weak consciences be all the less troubled, rather strengthened. It is therefore viewed as good that, as much as possible, a uniformity in ceremonies with neighboring reformed churches be affected and maintained. And for this reason, henceforth all pastors in the churches of our realm, shall emphatically follow this written church order, and not depart from the same without specific, grave cause. *

To suggest that the better way for the church to order herself is for there to be the greatest amount of liturgical uniformity as possible strikes some ears as a call for a slavish formalism, some even go so far as to use the word "legalistic" whenver this comes up. That never has made sense to me. I’ve never heard anyone in favor of traditional Lutheran worship say that its use is required for salvation. It seems that some in the Lutheran Church have dismissed discussion of the dangers of liturgical diversity and the blessings of the great possible liturgical uniformity. Why? Sadly, in an era that has witnessed a trend toward doing whatever is right in the eyes of an individual pastor, or congregation, the blessings of liturgical uniformity are being woefully neglected. We have lost our understanding of the blessing and advantage of striving to have as common a liturgical practice as possible.

The thought that a pastor would, from Sunday to Sunday, reinvent the church’s worship service
was an alien thought to the Lutheran Confessors, and hence the Lutheran Confessions. Rev. Matthew Harrison, some years ago, did a study on the practice of the Lutheran Church in the sixteenth century. In it he uses the "church orders" of the time to demonstrate how one should, and likewise should not, interpret the comments on adiaphora in the Lutheran Confessions. It is quite fascinating and very revealing. You can read a copy here: Download liturgical_uniformity.pdf

Some might assume that my remarks are directed only toward those who have chosen to embrace "contemporary worship" or "blended worship" with its Sunday-to-Sunday "newness." But that would be a mistake. I would also direct these remarks to those who choose to "do their own thing" in a more traditionally liturgical direction: that is, those who choose to embellish and otherwise change the church’s received liturgies in a direction that they regard as "better" or "more faithful" or "more liturgical."

I have been concerned for years that some of those most stridently speaking against the
liturgical diversity in our Synod turn right around and in their parish create their own little variation on the Lutheran liturgy, claiming that they are doing it better, or more historically, or more traditionally. I’ve seen horrendous mixta composita of liturgical services slapped together from multiple sources, all of course perceived as being "historically Lutheran" and these undertakings have always struck me as problematic in the same way the cut and paste "services" in contemporary worship contexts are.

I do not see any difference between this and those who chose to go another direction in terms of a sensitivity for the good order of the church. It may be that a
liturgy is more similar to a particular 16th century German Divine Service than others, perhaps even more similar than anything in any present hymnal, but I find no justification for deciding, as an individual pastor or parish, to "go it alone" in this direction, any more than I find justification or benefit in creating new liturgies from Sunday to Sunday. The goal of liturgical uniformity is not repristination of what happened in the Sixteenth Century, any more than it is should be the goal to toss our the liturgy.

My opinion is that it would be a tremendous blessing to our church body if we would all set aside
our pet theories, our cherished preferences, and even our favorite hymnals, and embrace the use of one hymnal: Lutheran Service Book. 

I believe it is essential for all of us to set aside a fixation on"contemporary worship" [as if there is any worship that is not contemporary"] and stop dividing up our Sunday mornings between "traditional" and "classical grace" or "contemporary" or "blended" and just start having "church," period. It means that we need to stop turning the church into a popular opinion poll from Sunday to Sunday. It means that we use the church’s hymnal. Use the church’s liturgies as they are printed in the church’s new hymnal and use the many opportunities for variety within that structure. I see as little wisdom in trying to mimic some specific territorial German church order, as I do in trying to take our cues from the non-denominational "Evangelical" worship forms prevalent in our nation among many Protestants.

There are some who would like to use the Tenth Article in the Formula of Concord to justify a practice by which each individual congregation in our Church can just go ahead and "do its own thing" when it comes to worship practices. But this is truly a misuse of this article, and was not, by any stretch of the imagination, what the Lutheran Confessors had in mind when they prepared the Formula of Concord. Here is a very helpful insight into the attitude toward liturgical uniformity that was in the minds of those who prepared, and subscribed, to the Formula of Concord from 1577-1580.
As Rev. Harrison notes in his paper: "The final Church Order here  referred to is one of the most significant
for interpreting FC SD 10, 9. Duke August I of Electoral Saxony was the driving force behind the Electoral Saxon Church Order of 1580, and Andreae its author. The order came out after the adoption of the Book of Concord. In fact, it calls for ministers to subscribe to the Book of Concord. What FC SD 10 means when it states, ‘no church shall condemn another’, is crystal clear in ‘IX. Regarding Ceremonies in the Churches’."

Pastors and ministers, on the basis of God’s Word, and at the instigation of the declaration published this year (1580), and incorporated in this book [The Book of Concord], shall diligently instruct their flock and hearers in their sermons, as often as the opportunity avails itself, that such external ordinances and ceremonies are in and of themselves no divine service, nor a part of the same. They are rather only ordained for this reason, that the divine service, which is not within the power of human beings to change, may be held at various times and
places, and without offense or terrible disorder. Accordingly, they should not at all be troubled when they see dissimilar ceremonies and usages in external things among the churches. They should much rather be reminded herein of their Christian freedom, and in order to maintain this freedom, make profitable use of this dissimilarity of ceremonies… Nevertheless, so unity may be maintained in the churches of our land…the following ceremonies shall be conducted according to our order or incorporated church agenda, until there is a general uniformity of all churches of the Augsburg Confession … And it will be granted to no minister to act contrary to the same [agenda] to introduce some revision, no matter under what pretext. *

Liturgical uniformity and the good it brings to the church’s life is more important than any personal interest in doing it "better" or "different," and that cuts both ways.

If I may use a crass analogy, imagine if you would that McDonalds decided tomorrow that they
no longer cared what any of its restaurants looked like. No more standardization of the logo, or clothing, or ways of doing things. Every McDonalds would be told, "Do whatever you feel is best and whatever feels right to you." That would make little sense, would it? How much more than does it make sense for every Lutheran congregation to be running off in its own direction, doing what feels right to it? Now, granted, every McDonalds has some minor differences, but there never is any doubt that you are at a McDonalds. See the point?

That’s my .02 cents worth. As always, your mileage may vary.

By the way, the person who said the first quote, that we are not free to use our liberty in matters pertaining to liturgical uniformity was…Martin Luther. And the second quote? It is from the Wittenberg Church Order of 1542, prepared by Jonas, Cruciger, Bugenhagen, Melachthon, Luther, and others; Sehling, I:202. The third quote? It is from the 1569 Church Order of Brauncshweig-Wolfenbuettel and was prepared by none other than Martin Chemnitz and Jacob Andreae, the chief authors and architects of the Formula of Concord. [Sehling VI.1, 139, 40]. The final quote is from: AL Richter ed, Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des
sechszehn ten Jahrhunderts. Urkunden und Regesten zur Geschichte des Rechts and
der Verfassung der evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland, Leipzig, 1871, vol II:, p. 440.

Fellow Lutheran blogger, Pastor Walter Snyder has a good "Q and A" on the crucifix.

The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, in which I serve as a pastor, has prepared a new Lutheran hymnal. I have been aware of, and involved in certain ways, in this project for many years. It began when in the mid-1990s, Rev. A.L. Barry, of blessed memory, was serving as president of The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod. Rev. Dr. Paul Grime, Executive Director of the Synod’s Commission on Worship, some time soon after he came to serve in this position, began talking about the need for a new hymnal to replace "Lutheran Worship." Dr. Barry, at a meeting of the Commission on Worship, indicated that 2007 would seem like a good year for a new hymnal to be made available to the Missouri Synod and so the ball was set in motion. Dr. Grime, with the able assistance of his co-worker in The LCMS Commission on Worship, Rev. Jon Vieker, started into the project, a preliminary step along the way being the production of "Hymnal Supplement ’98." Well, we are at the point now where the new hymnal will soon be, God willing, a reality. And it is  fantastic. It has been prepared by the LCMS Commission on Worship and has been worked on for many years by committees consisting of literally hundreds of people who have, for the past number of years, devoted themselves to producing for The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, and the wider English-speaking Lutheran community, a hymnal that provides the best of both old and new.

A new web site has been established that will provide a "one stop shop" for news and information about Lutheran Service Book and its various companion pieces, as this information becomes available.

I’ve seen recently first pages of the new hymnal and it is simply gorgeous. It is going to be a tremendous resource, in both style and substance.

I invite you to visit the CPH Lutheran Service Book web site, and bookmark and return often to keep up to date on the progression of the hymnal’s production.

Yet another interesting indication of the different tastes that are common among the the Gen X, twenty and thirty somethings, as opposed to 40, 50, and now… 60 something baby boomers.

Latin returning to Mass  –  The Washington Times, America’s Newspaper.