But if you get into a discussion over which bible passages require the use of the liturgy then you have already lost the argument. For then you are pleading for the use of the liturgy according to the law, which will eventually force you to explain whether it’s a human law or a divine law, both of which will lead you away from orthodox Lutheran worship.
The liturgy is not a worship of the law. On the contrary, worship which departs from the liturgy of the Church through one's personal preference, desire, or ability to give something to God is worship of the law. As our confessions state:
“The worship and divine service of the Gospel is to receive gifts from God. On the contrary, the worship of the Law is to offer and present our gifts to God” Ap V:189Don’t argue for the historic liturgy using the law.
Use the Gospel. Use what the liturgy says. Let it speak for itself. The Divine Service is not a jerry-rigged, cut-and-paste, gallimaufry, mishmash of disconnected scripture references. Its not an experimental construction developed from your pastor’s imagination. It’s the proclamation of the pure gospel of Jesus Christ as it has developed in the life of His bride, the church. The liturgy has a rhythm and flow which leads you through from the invocation made at your Baptism to the reception of Good Friday's gifts in the Lord’s Supper, much in the same way that the four Gospels lead you through the life and death of Christ. In it’s various parts, you hear the Gospel you need, ultimately culminating in the reception of that Gospel in the sacrament of the altar (see more in depth information on the parts of the liturgy here).
Thus, Lutherans retain the historic liturgy not because the law requires us to, but because the very nature of the Gospel necessitates its proclamation to be pure and unadulterated. As such, the liturgy - which we have inherited from our Fathers, which the Holy Spirit has preserved for us in our Mother, the Church, which proclaims the Gospel in all its fullness - is something upon which we simply cannot improve.
“The chief worship of the Gospel is to desire to receive the forgiveness of sins, grace, and righteousness.” Ap V:189
Thanks for reading.
No. If you argue by the Gospel, you will lose as well. Because the Gospel is freeing (Gal 5:1) and the Gospel is all about grace — so when a Christian, a Lutheran, sits down and thinks "How can I bring the Gospel to my people in a way that shows them love — that is contextual, understandable, bringing the blessings of Christ — and that is what CoWo is — how can this go wrong through the grace of God?
ReplyDeleteIt can't. That is what the Confessions are all about — that is the quote you give, isn't it?
So, I'm sorry, but the ONLY argument you have is one of the Law. Which is why it will continue to be used. But I do appreciate your thoughts on the subject.
Yes the Gospel is freeing and is about grace, thus the liturgy says "here's the gospel, here's grace." Why depart from that? Rather, most (not all) contemporary worship is a departure of the Gospel. It's centered on the individual and what I want, what I feel, with I am entertained by, and not on Christ and Him crucified. Does God's grace still work through the faulty working of man? Yeah. But I cannot demand (i.e. use the law) that people use the liturgy any more than I can demand that they take their medicine when they're sick. Thanks for the comments though.
Delete"Why depart from it?" is a statement of the law, is it not? :) But the answer is "Out of love for my neighbor."
DeleteI disagree with the statement that "most (not all) contemporary worship is a departure of the Gospel." I see contemporary worship as exactly what is quoted above: “The chief worship of the Gospel is to desire to receive the forgiveness of sins, grace, and righteousness.” This is what contemporary worship brings. It certainly is what my contemporary worship brings.
So, obviously then, it seems as though the real issue is "Why do we see this same worship in two entirely different ways?" Don't you think? Isn't that really at the core of the issue?
If contemporary worship is a departure from the Gospel, then certainly, no one ought to use it. But if it is not — if it is exactly what the Confessions describe, then making people feel guilty for using it is sinful, is it not?
Thanks for allowing me to comment. :)
mgll the point is not to try to make people feel guilty but to show that the benefit of the liturgy is the benefit of the Gospel. It's simply words taken from Scripture. Yes it takes some teaching to learn it's benefit because it doesn't look like every other entertainment venue out there, and there's a reason for that. Pr. Fouts' comment does well to show what the confessions are talking about. If you think that contemporary worship is what the confessions are describing then we either have a different definition of "contemporary" or a different "confessions."
DeleteShow me what contemporary worship gives you that's not in the liturgy other than a man-centered, emotion-centered, entertainment driven show. Show me how contemporary worship promote order, peace, and tranquility in our synod.
What I'm saying is: it's not a "you have to follow the liturgy" it's a "you get to follow the liturgy." And no that's not a law statement.
The best reason to not use the Law is that the Law can't motivate anyone to do anything except sin. The best reason to use the Gospel is that it is delivered in no better way than in the liturgy.
ReplyDeleteA year or so ago Larry Beane did a lovely segment on Issues, Etc. in which he said that the Confessions are descriptive of what Lutherans practice. I was surprised by this approach, but he's right.
If the Confessions don't describe your practice, you aren't a Lutheran, but that doesn't mean that you can browbeat someone into using the liturgy. I do think, however, that you can joy them into it.
Pr. Lehmann - I agree, well said. Pr. Beane's presentation on the confessions being descriptive was very good and very helpful for understanding issues such as worship.
DeleteThanks for the comment.
"The best reason to use the Gospel is that it is delivered in no better way than in the liturgy."
DeleteHow does one measure the veracity of this statement? I mean, how exactly is this statement to be determined to be true or false?
"If the Confessions don't describe your practice, you aren't a Lutheran..." — I believe this to be true, as long as we are looking at statements like the above.
The problem comes when people say "Using the historic liturgy is what Lutherans do; if you don't do that you are not a Lutheran." This is problematic because the sine qua non of being a Lutheran is holding to Scripture — and Scripture does not mandate any particular worship.
Which is why the law doesn't work when commanding people to use the liturgy. It is not a failure of the law — you CAN have people act in a certain way and then they will DO that way on their own, having seen its rightness — the problem is the Law doesn't demand use of the liturgy. That is why using the law doesn't work.
First, let me say that I agree 100% that there is simply too much arguing from the Law and "pragmatics" when it comes to worship and liturgy. However, not to seem facetious, if "we simply cannot improve" upon the liturgy, then why are there 5 in our hymnal, or why the addition of things like "Corporate Confession and Absolution"? It seems that we are always trying to "improve" or "adjust" the liturgy in some manner. I guess what I am saying is that the Church has always seen the liturgy as "flexible", yet not optional. It can be "improved" in a sense, made more clear, or even reformed when necessary. Or not. I am open to correction.
ReplyDeleteJoshua, thanks for the comment. Yes, you're right, I'm using a bit of hyperbole. We shouldn't be cutting out the kyrie, for example, in favor of liturgical dance, but I'm not suggesting that we should still be using latin or something. It all depends on the criteria for determining what "improve" means. I just hoping that we pastors point to the benefit of the liturgy more often.
DeleteThere is a difference between "liturgy" and "rite." A rite embodies the liturgical pattern, but is not the liturgy. Particular rites will vary, as Luther emphasizes, according to person, place and circumstance. Particular forms, chanting, hymnody, or four piece bands exist to serve litugy, but can and do vary according to rite. Liturgy is God's relationship to His church... It is the pattern whereby He speaks, and we reply. He gives the gift, we response in thanksgiving. Much of the confusion today is over rites, which can and should vary, not over liturgy. So long as liturgy, properly speaking, is there and reflected in whatever rite (formal, or informal) a congregation uses... We are, in fact, using the same liturgy. Quetions of music or instrumentation will vary according to situation. When we condemn one another according to rite, or instrumentation, we become no different than the pharisees. We can disagree about what is beneficial in various contexts without causing scandal or division. Too frequently, though, we necessitate rites and judge one another according to the traditions of men. Further, we tend to look for something to oppose, something to criticize, with no charity. The LCMS isn't suffering from a crisis of liturgy, but a cricis of legalism regarding particular rites.
ReplyDeleteRyan, well said! Agreed. Wonderful comment, thank you.
DeleteThe sine qua non of being a Lutheran is having doctrine and practice which are in accord with the Lutheran Confessions (which are, of course, a correct exposition of the Scriptures).
ReplyDeleteThere are things we agree to in the Confessions which are not, strictly speaking, the only biblical practice.
The statement "This is problematic because the sine qua non of being a Lutheran is holding to Scripture — and Scripture does not mandate any particular worship" is false in two ways:
1. Lutherans hold to Scripture in a particular way.
2. The Scripture actually does mandate a particular form of worship, as Pr. Fouts has demonstrated.
"There are things we agree to in the Confessions which are not, strictly speaking, the only biblical practice."
DeleteAnd it is hard to hold to a position of sola scriptura, when we say "To be a Lutheran, you must hold to this position that comes from man, and is not, strictly speaking, the only biblical practice."
As to the falsehoods:
"1. Lutherans hold to Scripture in a particular way." — > How is this false?
"2. The Scripture actually does mandate a particular form of worship, as Pr. Fouts has demonstrated." —> Hey, if that is what we want to agree to, I would be game. That is a very broad form and I'm good with unity around that form.
I fail to see how Pr. Fouts demonstrated that scripture mandates a particular form of worship. I would like to see where that is. He made the claim that that is how God speaks to us. .. but where in scripture can I read that?
ReplyDeleteEverywhere. It is the teaching of the entire Word of God.
DeletePr. Fouts, I think, makes an important observation. You can understand liturgy to be an order of service (which is probably better understood as a rite) or as the way in which God gives and Christians worship--the pattern of receiving and responding. It's also good to recognize ceremonies, such as posture and gestures, vestments, church furnishings, instrumentation, etc.; all the external things.
ReplyDeleteWhile rites and ceremonies can and should vary depending on local circumstances, it's also important to examine what a particular rite or ceremony is saying about THE liturgy, and if it actually presents another liturgy, which is really another Gospel. External things are external, but they are not neutral.
Also, the Gospel creates its own context; contexts don't create a form of the Gospel.
Agreed, and these are things we should discuss with charity and humility. What best embodies liturgy in a particular rite is a matter we should all strive toward. We can dis agree about whether or not a particular rite or practice is beneficial, but when we condemn one another over questions of what is beneficial, we create a greater scandal than the first.
DeleteThe Apology IV is, in my mind, the most paradigmatic text for Lutheran Worship we have.
Something helpful that I revealed to my Bible study on Sunday was that the order of the liturgy mimics the order of the Christian life both daily and life long, as well as matching the history of the people of God from creation to redemption and unto eternity.
DeleteThe liturgy ought to be patterned after the history of salvation, since its the history of your salvation. Thus, it the liturgy of the Word and Sacrament.
Great comments here! It might have been misunderstood from all the divergent conversation but my point, to clarify, was not to condemn those who have a less than beneficial practice in worship but instead to encourage us Lutherans to show forth the benefits of the liturgy and why it's a blessing, instead of using trying to force it upon others as a standard of regulated rites and ceremonies, which is exactly how the rest of the world see it.
DeleteI tend to have a more sympathetic view of contemporary worship practices than most here, I'd imagine. That said -- I also have a great appreciation for our traditional rites. For some, the fact that I'm not expressly "opposed" to contemporary formats makes me "less Lutheran," but I don't see it that way. I see expressions of Liturgy, properly speaking, in both currents of practice. Nonetheless, I don't adore the traditional orders of service because someone showed me that other practices were "bad." I don't adore the liturgy merely because someone said it's "better" than something else. I do because I adore what it confesses, the beauty of the Gospel it proclaims.
ReplyDeleteWhat you're getting at here really is a "shift" in our theological task. We often get far too caught up focusing on the "borders" of our theological landscape, defining ourselves at the margins of what is "in" and what is "out." Thus, we often have come to identify ourselves as much by what we're against as by what we're for. That said, what this approach tends to do before the World is present the Church as fearful (we can't let anything bad in, or everything will fall apart!) and ultimately faithless. As serious as error is, and there is a place for rebuking it -- a single kernel of Gospel Truth in the hands of the Holy Spirit is infinitely more powerful than a mountain of error. Rather than focusing on "border patrol" theology, and "negative" theology, we ought to instead focus on the TOWER of our Confession, the heart of the Gospel at the center of our lives. The allure of that Confession, and the Gospel we confess, has an infinitely greater ability to "draw" us together at the heart of our life together than "border patrol" theology will ever have to keep the "good guys" in and the "bad guys" out. When we begin to identify ourselves in distinction to what we're against, we really do what we're TRULY about a grave disservice. Like I said, there is a place for rebuking error, and doing a bit of border patrol -- but that should always be the ALIEN rather than the PROPER work of the Church.
Flushed out my thoughts a bit more on my blog... I've been doing a lot of thinking lately about the place of "pure doctrine" in the ordo salutis, etc., as well. http://ryanfouts.com/towers-fences-reprioritizing-focus-church
DeleteRyan I'm intrigued by your tower metaphor. I agree that there is a difference between arguing over where we draw the line in worship and living confidently and securely under the blessing of the tower. When we force the worship issue into "where do we draw the line," which I see many people do, it ends up looking like they're worshiping the liturgy instead of focusing on the Word and Sacrament received through the liturgy. None of this should be about which rites and ceremonies are to be mandated, but how do we faithfully cling to Word and Sacrament in the life of the Church.
DeleteThis has been an intriguing dialogue. I appreciate the thoughtfulness and collegiality of its tone, as well as the willingness to engage one another’s perspective.
ReplyDeleteI think James Waddel draws these questions out in his helpful 2009 book, "A Simplified Guide to Worshiping as Lutherans." The whole book offers great points of dialogue. But as to this thread, perhaps these words pose some important considerations for us to dialogue about:
“What does it mean that the sacraments are to be given in accordance with God’s Word? Is this an implied reference to 'the liturgy that the Lutheran confessions assume,' as some have said? Or do they refer to ‘the meaning and the intention of the Lutheran Confessions’ comments about worship,’ with the preconceived conclusion that the Confessions are referring to a specific liturgical form. Here I would simply ask of those who say this, which liturgy is that? Would it be Luther’s Latin Mass (1523) or Luther’s German Mass (1526)?” p.27
Totally agree -- if we always dialogued with one another with this sort of tone, it would do wonders for unity in Synod.
DeleteTen points for the use of the word "gallimaufry". Good article, Anthony!
ReplyDelete;) Thanks!
Delete