ACELC Free Conference on Worship

The papers presented at the ACELC Free Conference, "Christ For Us: The Divine Service," and six of the sermons that were preached at the daily prayer offices during the conference, are now available online at the ACELC website.

In addition to my own paper, in which I attempted to address my assigned topic, namely, to represent and defend a "High Church" attitude and approach to the Liturgy and worship, I would call special attention to the papers by Pr. Rick Sawyer and Pr. Bryan Wolfmueller, and to the sermons by Pr. Scott Porath and Pr. Carl Roth. I don't highlight these several contributions to make light of the others, but simply to say that I found these to be especially helpful.  I appreciated the contributions made by my colleagues, Pr. Philip Hale and Pr. David Langewisch, and I thank them for the opportunity to engage in dialogue, discussion, and debate.  I thought the preaching throughout the week was really quite good.

Kudos to the ACELC for organizing and sponsoring a great conference, and to the pastor and people of Trinity, Austin, for their gracious hospitality and their excellent hosting of the conference.  Well done, one and all!  I was impressed with the tenor of the gathering, and with the way that everything aimed at promoting and facilitating theological conversation.  It was an encouragement to the rigorous engagement of the Scriptures and the Confessions, in a way that is often hailed but seldom found.

Of course, it added tremendously to my enjoyment of the conference, that my daughter and son-in-law, and three of my grandchildren, were in attendance.  Can't beat that with a stick!  But, in addition to the conference itself and my soak-it-up-while-you-can family time, I especially treasure the opportunity provided to share the mutual conversation and consolation of the brethren.  I was reminded, again, as I have been in the past, of what a blessing and a benefit that is, and I am truly grateful to have received that good gift of God this past week.

Those Who Believed Had All Things in Common

Here is Part XI of my ACELC free conference paper (16 April 2013).  It is one of the sections that I omitted in my presentation of the paper, because of time constraints.  The entire paper will be made available on the ACELC website.

The Lutherans of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries regulated the practices of the churches within each territory, in the interest of a unified confession of the faith they held in common.  We in our day could, and should, learn something from them.

There does not need to be, nor could there be, a “lock-step uniformity” in all ceremonies.  However, a unity and harmony and consistency of practice, as belonging to our confession of fellowship in the Gospel, is desirable and would be edifying.  That was true at the time of the Reformation, and it is not less so in this modern age of internet communications and rapid mobility!

As Luther and others often cited, it is appropriate that we Christians should have common rites and ceremonies for the administration of the Sacraments, since we have the Sacraments themselves in common.  Indeed, we have one Lord, one faith, one Holy Baptism, one God and Father of all.  We are called, gathered, enlightened, and sanctified by one and the same Holy Spirit, and we all partake of one Holy Communion.  We are all one Body in Christ Jesus, because we all eat of the one Bread, which is His Body; so do we all drink of the one Cup, which is the New Testament in His Blood.  As our fellowship is found in the Sacrament, it is appropriate that our celebration of the Supper be similar.

The regulating of adiaphorous rubrics, rites, and ceremonies within the good order of the Church’s fellowship, within a particular jurisdiction of the Church’s life on earth, is not contrary to the Gospel, but serves the confession and catechesis of the Gospel within the Church’s catholicity of faith and love.  Such commonly agreed-upon rubrics, coupled with the supervision of an overseer, or “bishop,” provides for a common practice from place to place, and from week to week, while it also allows room for genuine pastoral care of the Church in each time and place.

This approach to the life of the Church, as a fellowship of congregations in the unity of the faith, is beneficial, not only to the mutual relationships of the congregations with one another, but also to the life of each congregation, and to the relationship of pastors and people within each congregation.

Pastors benefit from the use of what has been received and adopted in common.  Especially because  it is the case that pastoral piety, in both large and small ways, is never simply personal or private, but is public, “political,” and pedagogical.  The people learn from their pastor’s practice.  They also pick up on discrepancies between his preaching and his practice (as in his handling of the Sacrament).

Parishioners benefit, too, when pastors use the common rites and ceremonies of the Church, rather than inventing their own practices, or else importing practices from outside of the Lutheran Church.  Wilhelm Löhe advised, for example, that a layperson should be able to discern where there is Lutheran doctrine and Lutheran worship, by comparing what the pastor preaches and teaches with the Small Catechism, and by comparing what the pastor says and does in the Divine Service with the rubrics, rites, and ceremonies of the Lutheran Liturgy.  In any event, the people of God should not be asked or expected to pray and confess words which they have never seen before, and which they will most likely never see again.  How shall they give their “Amen” to such things, without even knowing where they came from?  Of course, they listen attentively to the sermon, which they haven’t heard ahead of time; but they are not asked to pray and confess the sermon, nor to give their “Amen” to it, without first being given an adequate opportunity to follow it through and to consider it against the Scriptures.

What Is It that I Want You to Do?

Since giving my presentation on "Consecrationism vs. Receptionism" at the Indiana District Church Workers' Conference this past October, I've been gratified by the feedback that I've received. Responses from various quarters have encouraged me in my good intentions to develop my outline and expand my notes into a proper article, blog post, or paper. I've actually managed to make some good progress on that project, but it will almost certainly have to stay on the back burner until we're well into Eastertide. Duty calls. For now, some other, preliminary thoughts.

Not all of the feedback on my presentation has been positive, though most of it has been. I've appreciated the many positive comments, of course, but I have been as much or more grateful for the few brothers who have made the effort to address their concerns and differences of opinion with me. It's a lot harder, and less fun for most of us, to express disagreement, and it's even more challenging to do so in a cordial and friendly manner. So, my sincere thanks goes out to those brothers who have showed me the courtesy of entering into fraternal discussion and debate with me. I would like to believe that those conversations have been mutually beneficial and edifying. I hope so. I know they have helped me to gain a better understanding of my colleagues, as well as greater clarity in my own thinking.

No doubt there are more brothers out there who did not like what I had to say in my presentation. I anticipated as much, and I'm not offended by the thought of it. The presentation was called for precisely because of disagreements concerning the consecration and corresponding conduct of the Sacrament, and I harbored no expectation that I would resolve the situation with a sectional presentation. What I was hoping to accomplish was the beginnings of a conversation among the brethren. Perhaps, in that respect, it has been somewhat successful so far. God grant it, for Jesus' sake.

If most of those brothers who disagree with me have not engaged me in discussion and debate, I understand. I hope they will at least be prompted to do some reading and studying of the evidence, and to engage their closer colleagues in conversation of the topic. To the glory of Christ, that is the goal.

I learned, earlier this week, that some conversation of my presentation occurred at one circuit pastors' conference. Nobody's been speaking out of school, so I don't know any details, but the gist of a concern that was passed on to me, indirectly, is that it's not feasible or practical for pastors to do what I want them to do.

That sort of response piques my interest, and gives me pause, and causes me to think: What have others perceived me to be saying and asking? What is it that my colleagues think I want them to do? And what is it that I actually do want them to do?

I'm somewhat puzzled by the comment and concern, since my presentation was basically, and almost entirely, a summary and assessment of historic Lutheran positions and practices. For the most part, I simply shared what our Confessions say, and what Luther and Chemnitz said, in contrast to Melanchthon and the later Lutheran scholastics. I also described particular practices of the 16th-century Lutherans, and the way that certain circumstances were addressed and dealt with in that day and age. Admittedly, I did also offer my own candid appraisal of these positions and practices, on the basis of my reading of the Holy Scriptures and our Lutheran Confessions.

But it's certainly not as though I, Rick Stuckwisch, were presuming to say: Here's what I want the rest of you to do. Well, okay, I was intending to say, and hopefully I did say, that I want my fellow Lutheran pastors to be "consecrationists" rather than "receptionists" in their preaching and teaching, catechesis and conduct of the Sacrament. That's true. I do want that. And I pray that it shall be so.

As far as the various pointed examples that I gave of 16th-century Lutheran practices, however, that isn't me but our fathers in the faith commending appropriate conduct and handling of the Lord's Supper. The fact that it is the Lord's Supper is an even more important point, and, I suppose, the key to what I do want and hope and pray for. I begin with myself in that regard, and seek to be faithful and above reproach in my stewardship of the Mysteries of God. Do I want my fellow stewards of those Mysteries also to be faithful? Of course! Should I not do and say what I can to help and encourage such faithfulness? Shame on me if I do not.

Faithfulness in the administration of the Holy Communion certainly includes reverence for the Body and Blood of Christ. That is at the heart of the topic, and, again, the reason for the presentation in the first place. As there is disagreement regarding where, when, and how the Body and Blood of Christ are present in the Supper, that obviously makes a difference with respect to appropriate reverence. But that isn't determined by me, nor by anyone else but our Lord Jesus Christ. Regardless of whatever other bowing may or may not be done, we must all bow our hearts and minds and consciences before His Holy Word. So, that, too, is what I want myself and everyone else to do.

Once the key point of disagreement over "Consecrationism vs. Receptionism" is taken into account, reverence for the Body and Blood of Christ may take a variety of different forms. While I have my own decided preferences and recommendations, in so far as ceremonies are concerned, I do not judge my brothers or condemn them for having more or fewer godly ceremonies than I do. Such things are free, though not insignificant; they are subject to pastoral discernment, discretion, and care. Whether another pastor elevates the Sacrament and genuflects before it, or not, does not in itself make or break our fellowship in Christ. Likewise, whether he wears a chasuble or not is neither decisive or divisive. These are things we can discuss in a fraternal spirit as Christian gentlemen, as brothers in office. Indeed, I welcome the opportunity to talk about the benefits of these and other similar ceremonies, and I'm certainly willing to hear the arguments of others, pro and con. But I have no desire or intention to press these practices upon my brothers.

What I did commend in my presentation, and I do so here and now, as well, on the basis of historic Lutheran precedent — but chiefly with respect for the Word of Christ, our Lord, and in reverence for His Body and His Blood — is a carefully considered preparation, handling, and disposition of the elements, before, during and after the consecration and distribution of the Sacrament. Such care was expected and insisted upon by our Lutheran fathers, as being of a piece with our confession of the Body and Blood of Christ.

Thus, to begin with, only as much bread and wine should be prepared upon the Altar for the consecration as may reasonably be expected to be necessary for the distribution. Exactness is difficult, if not impossible in some cases, but close approximation should not be hard: certainly not where regular pastoral care of the congregation is being exercised. In any event, deliberately preparing and consecrating far more bread and wine than will be needed for the distribution is irreverent and inexcusable. Better to estimate too low on occasion, and then to consecrate additional elements as needed, than deliberately to aim too high.

Following the Word of Christ Jesus, "This is My Body," and "This is My Blood," then, whatever a pastor's particular ceremonial may be, let his posture, movement, demeanor and conduct confess the truth of that Word! Please, dear brothers in Christ, do act like you believe it. Not only for the sake of a clear confession and consistent catechesis, but, above all, because it is true. Not as though the Lord would punish you for any frailties or mishaps, but because it is "truly meet, right, and salutary" that you should take care, and behave with dignity and decorum, as you handle and administer the holy Body and precious Blood of Christ.

The third specific thing that I do want my colleagues to do is really nothing more nor less than what our Lord Jesus Christ has given us Christians to do, namely, to eat and to drink His Body and His Blood. That seems so simple, and so obvious, and yet it isn't followed when it comes to the reliquae. Questions concerning what to do with the consecrated elements that remain at the conclusion of the distribution — which is to speak of the Body and Blood of Christ, as He Himself has declared, also concerning this bread and wine — are easily answered with the same Verba: "Take, eat." "Drink." Either immediately at the Altar, before concluding the Divine Service with the Post-Communion, or as soon after the Service as reasonable possible. For Luther and his followers in the 16th-century, the Sacrament extended from the consecration to the consumption of all the consecrated elements.

This practice, in harmony with our doctrine, rests solidly and simply on the Word of Jesus. So, yes, brothers, I do want you to do that. Because I want you to do what Jesus says. "Do whatever He tells you," the Blessed Virgin Mary also spoke to the servants of the feast. If care is taken in the quantities of bread and wine that are prepared for the consecration, it isn't difficult to consume whatever may remain. If, on any given occasion, more of the precious Blood of Christ remains than a pastor should consume by himself — since it is also wine, which is intoxicating — then he should enlist the assistance of other communicants (as the early Lutheran Church Orders also instruct).

This is that I want you to do. Not as a matter of ceremonial preference, but as a faithful and reverent administration of the Lord's Supper. Let's talk about ceremonies, too, as belonging to the catechesis and confession of the Sacrament. But do not suppose that I'm attempting to lay any weight upon your conscience concerning adiaphora. What God has left free, is free. But my real concern is with a more fundamental stewardship of this sacred Mystery of God. Test the spirit of what I am saying, then, and examine whether or not it is in harmony with the sure and certain Word of our Lord Jesus Christ. If it is not, then, I beg you by the mercies of God, show me my fault and correct me in brotherly love. But if what I advocate is in harmony with the Verba Testamenti Christi, I would simply urge you to honor our Lord and His gifts by bringing your practice into conformity with His Word.

The Consecration and the Conduct of the Holy Communion: A Bibliography

I've been doing my homework in preparation for a presentation on "Consecrationism vs. Receptionism" at the Indiana District Fall Church Workers' Conference (17-18 October).

The particular significance of this topic came to my attention a couple of years ago, in a conversation with my District President, the Reverend Dr. Daniel May. I am grateful to President May for asking me to address the topic, now, at our Indiana District Conference. Thanks, also, to the various brothers in Christ who have encouraged me in my preparations, to the dear people of my congregation for remembering me in their prayers in the course of these endeavors, and especially to my fellow Blackbirds, Paul Beisel, Gifford Grobien, Alan Ludwig, David Jay Webber, and William Weedon, for their helpful input and suggestions along the way.

The following is not an exhaustive bibliography, but it is a fairly complete list of the resources I have found most interesting, significant, and useful in my preparations. In addition to other comments, I welcome any further resources that readers might recommend; especially because, as the Spirit of Christ enables, I am inclined to write up some manner of article, blog post, or essay on this topic (though obviously not in advance of my presentation).

Beisel, Paul L. To Mix, or Not to Mix: The Sacramental Character of the Reliquiae. Unpublished paper, presented to the Iowa District Fall Pastors’ Conference, 2007.

Burnett, Amy N. “Basel and the Wittenberg Concord.” Archive for Reformation History 96 (2005): 33–56.

Chemnitz, Martin. Examination of the Council of Trent, Part II. Tr. Fred Kramer. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1978. (Especially “Concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist,” 217–332.)

Chemnitz, Martin. The Lord’s Supper: De coena Domini. Tr. J. A. O. Preus. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1979.

Chemnitz, Martin. Ministry, Word, and Sacraments: An Enchiridion. Tr. Luther Poellot. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1981. (Especially “The Lord’s Supper,” 120–32.)

Green, Lowell C. “Article VII: The Holy Supper.” A Contemporary Look at the Formula of Concord. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1978.

Hardt, Tom G. A. The Sacrament of the Altar. Tr. Erling T. Teigen, 1998. (Condensed English version of Hardt’s doctoral dissertation, Venerabilis et Adorabilis Eucharistia, 1971.)

Hardt, Tom G. A. “The Saliger Sacramental Controversy.” Lutheran Quarterly IV, No. 4 (Winter 1990): 405–18.

Harris, Paul R. “The Angels Are Aware . . . and We Are Too.” Logia IV, No. 1 (1995): 21–29.

Killinger, Keith. “Domesticating an Untamed Sacramental Rule.” Lutheran Quarterly VII, No. 4 (Winter 1993): 401–24.

Kittelson, James M.; and Ken Schurb. “The Curious Histories of the Wittenberg Concord.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 50, No. 2 (April 1986): 119–37.

Luther, Martin. “The Adoration of the Sacrament (1523),” tr. Abdel Ross Wentz. Luther’s Works, Volume 36, ed. Abdel Ross Wentz (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 271–305 (esp. 290–98).

Luther, Martin. “Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper (1528),” tr. Robert H. Fischer. Luther’s Works, Volume 37, ed. Robert H. Fischer (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1961), 151–372 (esp. 180–94, 303–41).

Luther, Martin. “The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ—Against the Fanatics (1526),” tr. Frederick C. Ahrens. Luther’s Works, Volume 36, ed. Abdel Ross Wentz (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 331–61 (esp. 341–51).

Murray, Scott R. "The Sacrament of the Altar and Its Relationship to Justification." Logia IX, No. 3 (2000): 11-16.

Peters, Edward Frederick. The Origin and Meaning of the Axiom: “Nothing Has the Character of a Sacrament Outside of the Use,” in Sixteenth-Century and Seventeenth-Century Lutheran Theology. [Th.D. Thesis, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, 1968.] Fort Wayne, Indiana: Concordia Theological Seminary Press, 1993.

Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics, Volume III. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1953. (Especially “What Constitutes the Lord’s Supper,” 365–73.)

Piepkorn, Arthur Carl; and Charles McClean. The Conduct of the Service. Fort Wayne, Indiana: Redeemer Press, 2006. (Especially “The Service of the Sacrament,” 21–35.)

Saar, David P. “Still Another View of Consecration.” Lutheran Quarterly IX, No. 4 (Winter 1995): 473–85.

Sasse, Hermann. “Consecration and Real Presence (1957).” Scripture and the Church: Selected Essays of Hermann Sasse, ed. Jeffrey J. Kloha and Ronald R. Feuerhahn (St. Louis: Concordia Seminary, 1995), 272–317.

Sasse, Hermann. “The Lutheran Understanding of the Consecration (1952).” We Confess the Sacraments, tr. Norman Nagel (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1985), 113–38.

Sasse, Hermann. This Is My Body: Luther’s Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar, Revised Edition. Adelaide, Australia: Lutheran Publishing House, 1977.

Schmeling, Gaylin R. “Review Essay: The Lord’s Supper in the Theology of Martin Chemnitz.” Lutheran Quarterly VIII, No. 3 (Autumn 1994): 321–7.

Stephenson, John R. The Lord’s Supper. St. Louis: The Luther Academy, 2003. (Esp. Ch. 5, “In His Person and Name,” 83–109.)

Stephenson, John R. “Reflections on the Appropriate Vessels for Consecrating and Distributing the Precious Blood of Christ.” Logia IV, No. 1 (1995): 11–19.

Teigen, Bjarne W. “The 1959 St. Louis–Springfield Faculty Statement in the Light of the Saliger Controversy.” Logia XIV, No. 1 (2005): 11–18.

Teigen, Bjarne W. “The Case of the Lost Luther Reference.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 43:2 (October 1979): 295–309.

Teigen, Bjarne W. The Lord’s Supper in the Theology of Martin Chemnitz. Brewster, MA: Trinity Lutheran Press, 1986.

Teigen, Bjarne W. “Martin Chemnitz and SD VII, 126.” A Lively Legacy: Essays in Honor of Robert Preus (Lake Mills, Iowa: Graphic Publishing Co., Inc., 1985), 164-172.

Teigen, Bjarne W. “The Nihil Rule Revisited.” Lutheran Quarterly VIII, No. 3 (Autumn 1994): 269–85.

Teigen, Bjarne W. “Views on Reviews.” Confessional Lutheran Research Society Newsletter, No. 10 (Easter 1988).

Teigen, Erling T. “Luther and the Consecration” Mysteria Dei: Essays in Honor of Kurt Marquart. Fort Wayne, Indiana: Concordia Theological Seminary Press, 1999.

Walther, C. F. W. Pastoral Theology. Translated and abridged by John M. Drickamer. New Haven, Missouri: Lutheran News, Inc. (Esp. Chapter 17, “The Administration of Holy Communion,” 130–145.)

Wengert, Timothy J. “Luther and Melanchthon on Consecrated Communion Wine.” Lutheran Quarterly XV (2001): 24–42.

Ziegler, Roland F. “Should Lutherans Reserve the Consecrated Elements for the Communion of the Sick?” Concordia Theological Quarterly 67, No. 2 (April 2003): 131–47.

To kiss or to refrain

As a vicar I had an off site supervisor who aided me in things such as weddings as I was not ordained. He taught me and the couple to be married that they were not to kiss at the altar but rather to wait until they had crossed from the nave into the Narthex. His reason for this was good order and to not change the decorum of the worship service from one of reverence to one more like that of the reception with whoops and hollers at the newly married kissing.

There were two weddings during my time as vicar and that was the practice established by him through me. Over the past seven years there have been other weddings and I have continued with this policy and there has been little friction in that regard. (I serve at the same congregation where I was vicar.)

I have been asked however, to rethink or reconsider this. I do not have a problem with rethinking things and in the process of such rethinking asking my brothers in the Lord's service for their input and opinions and practices and the why's of those things. Of course if the conventional wisdom is that this policy is not good or salutary, I will have to work through the complaints of those who have had it other wise. To my knowledge no one has been divorced because they either did or did not kiss at the altar.

So dear brothers, I humbly ask your input. What do you do and why? Is there an historical point that I am missing? There is nothing in TLH, LW, or LSB agenda's that call for a kiss or have words to that effect. In fact what it says in the general notes of the LSB agenda is, "5. As in all worship in the house of God, the rite of Holy Matrimony invokes the presence and blessing of God. Therefore, it should avoid triteness and empty sentimentality." In this light "Here comes the Bride" is never played as well as various other selections. The bride and groom do not write their own vows. And thus, I was taught that kissing was also not done.

I eagerly await you wise and thoughtful inputs.

Liturgical Chaos in Catholicism

If you want to see a bit of the cooky stuff that happens in the Roman Church (and some Episcopals), check out the video. I do not in anyway subscribe to the thank you given to the pope at rome at the end of the show.

HT: Bad Vestments

Thirty-Five Theses on Liturgy and Adiaphora

From the Worship & Spiritual Care Workshop, 19 September 2009, here are my thirty-five theses on the Liturgy and Adiaphora:

1. The Divine Liturgy, properly speaking (Apology XXIV.79–83), comprises the Ministry of the Gospel, which is the preaching and Baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, the confession of Christ Jesus, the ongoing catechesis of His Word, and the faithful administration of His Body and His Blood to His disciples. This Divine Liturgy is not adiaphora, but is the Holy Gospel, the Word and work of the Holy Triune God, which is fundamental and necessary to faith and life in Christ.
　
2. To be liturgical is not simply to "have" or "do" the Word and Sacrament; but to be liturgical　is to be defined by these things of the Gospel, to be governed and guided by them, entirely under their sway. To be liturgical, therefore, is to be evangelical; and to be truly evangelical is to be liturgical.
　
3. The Divine Liturgy is where and how the Church lives with God in Christ, by grace through faith in the Gospel. The evangelical mission of the Church flows out of that liturgical life in Christ, with the purpose of bringing others into the Liturgy of the Gospel.
　
4. To hear and receive the Divine Liturgy in faith and with thanksgiving is the worship of the Holy Triune God in Spirit and in Truth.
　
5. The freedom of faith in worship, as in all of Christian life, is the freedom of the Gospel.
　
6. Adiaphora simply are what they are: rites and ceremonies and other practices which are neither commanded nor forbidden by God. The teaching and confession of adiaphora goes hand-in-hand with the Gospel; that we are justified by grace through faith in Christ, apart from works of the Law.
　
7. The teaching and confession of adiaphora should not be abused (in the service of self-interest); instead, true Christian freedom is rightly used in love (in the self-sacrificing service of others).
　
8. Adiaphora are rightly used with pastoral care, and as a means of pastoral care. Pastors should exercise discretion and discernment in the use of adiaphora, but pastors should also discipline themselves in doing so, for the sake of faith and love.
　
9. In faith toward God we are free, but in love we are bound to serve our neighbor.
　
10. All things are lawful, but not all things are meet, right and salutary (1 Corinthians 10:23). Even that which is free and clear can be measured and evaluated according to its service and support of the Word of God, and thus determined to be more or less helpful to faith and love.
　
11. Love will be ready and willing to sacrifice anything and everything that is truly free, but love will never sacrifice anything of the Gospel. That is to say, love will readily give up whatever may be given up, but love will tenaciously insist upon that which is necessary.
　
12. Freedom is used rightly, in faith toward God and in love toward the neighbor, when it is used to serve the catechesis and confession of the Word of God.
　
13. The boundaries and parameters of freedom in worship are established and contoured, not only by explicit commands and prohibitions, but also implicitly by the constitutive rites and ceremonies of Holy Baptism, preaching and the Holy Communion.
　
14. The use of liturgical rubrics, rites and ceremonies is fundamental to the pastoral ministry. Rubrics are instructions for the conduct of the Liturgy, mutually agreed upon within the fellowship of the Church. Rites are the words that are spoken in the administration of the Liturgy. Ceremonies are the bodily actions, movements and adornments of the Liturgy. Rubrics are needed for an orderly conduct of corporate communal life. Rites belong to the fact that God does everything by His Word. Ceremonies belong to the fact that human life is lived in the body, occupying space and time.
　
15. It is not possible to administer and receive the means of grace without ceremonies. However, not all ceremonies are created equal. Some ceremonies are better, and some are worse than others; and some ceremonies have no place in the Church, even if they would otherwise be "free."
　
16. Ceremonies powerfully support (or contradict) the confession and catechesis of the Word.
　
17. The measure of a ceremony’s worth and benefit requires more than the avoidance of overtly false doctrine. The best ceremonies are not only true (as opposed to false) but are positively helpful in confessing the Word of God, and they are beautiful in adorning His Liturgy. Whatever is true, lovely and of good repute, excellent and worthy of praise, dwell on those things (Philippians 4:8).
　
18. It is appropriate and salutary to adorn the Ministry of the Gospel with beauty, as a confession of faith in the Word and work of Christ, and as a way of catechesis in the hidden truth of the Gospel.
　
19. Reverence toward God and courtesy toward the neighbor summarize the criteria of faith and love and thus provide a foundational response to all questions pertaining to the proper use of adiaphora.
　
20. That which is harmful to faith and love is not free but forbidden. That which is irreverent or rude is likewise not free but forbidden. (Formula SD X.1, 7, 9)
　
21. Pastors and congregations, and individual members of a congregation, should set aside their personal proclivities and preferences for the sake of faith and love (1 Corinthians 10:23–33; Romans 14).
　
22. Making changes in ceremony, including the introduction of new ceremonies, requires a special measure of pastoral care. It also requires the patience of pastors and parishioners for one another.
　
23. Love will care for the entire body of Christ, for the minority as much or more than the majority, not allowing either the few or the many to lord it over the Holy Communion of the whole Church.
　
24. Love for the body of Christ — for the Church in all times and places, past, present and future — calls for circumspection and great caution when it comes to the introduction of new practices.
　
25. Tradition is generally more conducive to the Gospel than novelty (1 Corinthians 11:1–2, 16–26); because it is received as a gift from the past, rather than fabricated in the present.
　
26. There is almost always a good reason for the traditional practices of the Church, even where the purpose behind a given practice may no longer be readily apparent.
　
27. Catholicity is generally more conducive to love than personal innovation; because it belongs to the entire body of the Church, the household and family of God, rather than an isolated individual.
　
28. The collective wisdom of the Church is usually wiser than the personal insights of an individual. Nevertheless, the nature and needs of pastoral care require the free exercise of pastoral discernment and discretion, just as the Church in each time and place is free with respect to human customs.
　
29. Frequent fluctuations and diversity in practice are unsettling to the people and easily distract from the Liturgy of Christ; they require a level of literacy, attention, energy and effort that tends to frustrate or make impossible the participation of many members in the Church’s worship of Christ.
　
30. Consistency and continuity of practice are beneficial to peace and rest in the Liturgy of Christ; they allow for the ready participation of the entire congregation in the Church’s worship of Christ.
　
31. The broad latitude of hymnody is necessarily constrained because of its affective power, and because of its vast importance and significance for the catechesis and confession of the Word. Hymns properly serve the freedom of faith in the Gospel when they are selected and used liturgically.
　
32. It is not an appropriate use of freedom when hymns, or any other practices, are used simply to fill up space and pass the time, or when they are used to entertain emotions instead of edifying the people and glorifying God by the confession of His Word (Formula SD X.1, 7, 9).
　
33. The unity of a common confession of the faith is both embodied and substantiated by a unity of practice. Church fellowship does not depend upon a uniformity in adiaphora, but the fellowship of the Church gravitates toward a common and consistent usage of adiaphora wherever it is possible. And the beauty of it is, the Church is free to do so.
　
34. It is not a violation of faith or freedom when the fellowship of the Church mutually agrees, in love, to order and conduct its liturgical life according to common rubrics, rites and ceremonies.
　
35. Especially in gatherings of the Church’s fellowship beyond that of a local congregation, the use of commonly agreed-upon rites and ceremonies is most appropriate and beneficial. In general, the same principle pertains to the practices of each congregation as a fellowship of the one Church.

Chant as Vestment for the Voice

Very often when a congregation has not been accustomed to liturgical chant (at least in the pastor's parts of the dialogue) some will have an emotional reaction to it and declare it "Roman Catholic". This is, of course, not completely accurate and represents an uninformed opinion. Liturgical chant has a long history from the time of the founding of the Missouri Synod and other synods in North America, to the time of Luther in Germany and Scandinavia, on back to the early church and indeed into the worship of the Old Testament believers. It is nothing new and it is not uniquely Roman Catholic at all. Among Christians one not only finds chant among Roman Catholics but also Anglicans (Episcopalians), Eastern Orthodox, more liturgical Presbyterians, and many Lutherans. Historically speaking, it is representative of the majority of worshiping Christians throughout the centuries. As is clear from Martin Luther, his liturgical reforms sought only to revise what was in error and leave intact and cleansed what good gifts were passed on in the church's tradition that were unproblematic (i.e., if it ain't broke, dont fix it!). Both of the Divine Service orders produced by Martin Luther featured chant prominently (Formula Missae and the Deutsche Messe). It is also historically known within The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, as this quote from C.F.W. Walther, first Missouri Synod president, testifies:
Whenever the divine service once again follows the old Evangelical-Lutheran agendas (or church books), it seems that many raise a great cry that it is "Roman Catholic": "Roman Catholic" when the pastor chants "The Lord be with you" and the congregation responds by chanting "and with thy spirit"; "Roman Catholic" when the pastor chants the collect and the blessing and the people respond with a chanted "Amen." Even the simplest Christian can respond to this outcry: "Prove to me that this chanting is contrary to the Word of God, then I too will call it `Roman Catholic' and have nothing more to do with it. However, you cannot prove this to me." If you insist upon calling every element in the divine service "Romish" that has been used by the Roman Catholic Church, it must follow that the reading of the Epistle and Gospel is also "Romish." Indeed, it is mischief to sing or preach in church, for the Roman Church has done this also . . .Those who cry out should remember that the Roman Catholic Church possesses every beautiful song of the old orthodox church. The chants and antiphons and responses were brought into the church long before the false teachings of Rome crept in. This Christian Church since the beginning, even in the Old Testament, has derived great joy from chanting... For more than 1700 years orthodox Christians have participated joyfully in the divine service. Should we, today, carry on by saying that such joyful participation is "Roman Catholic"? God forbid! Therefore, as we continue to hold and to restore our wonderful divine services in places where they have been forgotten, let us boldly confess that our worship forms do not tie us with the modern sects or with the church of Rome; rather, they join us to the one, holy Christian Church that is as old as the world and is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. [Der Lutheraner, July 19, 1853, issue, volume 9, number 24, page 163].


A helpful point of comparison may be vestments. Vestments are the various traditional garments (e.g. alb, chasuble, cassock, surplice) worn by the clergy and other liturgical assistants in churches that follow a form of the historic liturgy. The purpose of vestments is to cover the person so that we do not focus on the individual but upon the means of grace (Gospel and Sacraments) and the office that person holds. What is worn in addition to the alb or the cassock/surplice indicates the office the person holds by virtue of call, ordination or consecration. Another purpose of vestments is to adorn the liturgist and assistants to indicate the reverence, joy, and holiness of the Divine Service. This brings us back to chant in the liturgy of the church.

In many ways chant serves as a "vestment" for the voice. Chant, as a kind of combination between singing and speaking, serves to de-emphasize the idiosyncrasies of the person conducting the liturgy or assisting and helps to emphasize the mystical and sacramental unity and communion between Christ and His Bride, the Church. In this way also, chant serves as a kind of vocal "uniform" like the basic liturgical vestments or even the clerical shirt and collar. Theologically speaking, personality doesn't then matter much from one pastor to another so long as the Gospel is preached purely and the sacraments are administered according to Christ's institution (Acts 2:42; Augsburg Confession VII). Chant helps convey this uniformity in office and the transparochial nature of the church's ministerium. This means that it points to the continuity of the church beyond simply our own local congregation and beyond the moment and century that we live in now.

When both pastor and congregation chant their respective parts of the liturgical dialogue the simple fact of the liturgy as a dialogue is made abundantly more clear. The dialogue or conversation takes place in the same mode or genre, if you will. It is rather odd when the pastor speaks his parts and the congregation sings theirs. Imagine an opera or a musical conducted in such format. Or imagine a conversation in daily life like this! Why this supposedly makes sense to some in regard to worship is very likely due to repetition of a less-than-preferred liturgical practice thought to be "old Lutheran" or "conservative" which may really be Pietistic, protestant, or may simply demonstrate the lack of liturgical training and understanding on the part of a previous pastor or musicians. This is the same kind of misunderstanding which believes that Lutherans cannot have communion more than once per month or make the sign of the cross, and that old Lutheran clergy wore chiefly black gowns in the liturgy. In these instances of speaking pastors and chanting congregations, the two parts seem hardly to go together and understanding the liturgy as a grace-delivering-and-receiving conversation is lost. It may be a conservative and institutionalized liturgical version of what is often called "talking past one another."

Likewise, chant helps to emphasize that the Divine Service is heaven coming down to earth in the means of Christ's grace (Revelation 4,5; Isaiah 6:1-7 ; Acts 2:42] ; I Corinthians 11; Luke 22:27). It communicates the divine mystery of this transaction of the means of grace and faith. Chant clothes and elevates the words that are spoken so that the message is the main thing, rather than the personality quirks of the messenger (see I Corinthians 1,2). For we do not preach ourselves but Christ and Him crucified. This vestment for the voice adorns the liturgy with the joy of song in a way that also accommodates the characteristics of regular speech. The Lord's presence is a cause for rejoicing in song, even in this gift's delivery. And yet this is to be in such a way that it is not entertainment, but a high and holy encounter with the King of Kings and Lord of Lords who condescends to be with His redeemed people. In short, chant carries benefits from both song and speech in one form. This is what was understood by both the editors of The Lutheran Hymnal (1941) and Lutheran Worship (1982). This is also understood in the recently published Evangelical Lutheran Hymnary of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod. However, this understanding was somewhat lost inadvertently when the pastor's chant was not included with The Lutheran Hymnal but put into a supplementary volume of Music of the Liturgy.


While many pastors are reluctant to chant and express some shyness toward the idea of it, most pastors can, with practice and a moderate amount of training, chant quite proficiently the basic parts of the liturgy that are in our hymnals and agendae. Most pastors are not "tone deaf". A rare few are lacking of those created gifts and those pastors should probably not chant, out of mercy. A pastor could start with the salutation, the preface to the Communion liturgy, and perhaps the Benedicamus and Benediction. Later he might add the Words of Institution, Proper Prefaces, and other prayers. Or he might vary such things as suggested by the festivals and penitential seasons of the Church Year. A pastor should practice it regularly. Chant affords additional variety that is also traditional. In addition there are many chants that the parish choir might also sing, not so much as a performing "anthem" choir, but as a working liturgical choir (Introit, Gradual, Verse, or special settings of the ordinary of the liturgy). A liturgical deacon might also help with such things.


In our consumeristic culture of contemporary worship and "praise bands," chant runs against the Zeitgeist and carries its own culture that is shaped by time-tested forms rather than the liturgy du jour. The church is in the world and yet not of the world. Chant helps to emphasize this. Chant has been evident and valued in the more confessional periods of Lutheran history. May our churches be such oases of the holy Triune God's grace that we may say with one of our hymns:

Here Thy praise is gladly chanted,

Here Thy seed is duly sown;

Let my soul, where it is planted,

Bring forth precious sheaves alone,

So that all I hear may be

Fruitful unto life in me.

["Open Now Thy Gates of Beauty", TLH #1]

Who Communes the Pastor?: An LSB Rubric

Distinguishing Between the Person and Office of the Pastor in Communion Within the Divine Service

Rubrics are the directions in red print in the hymnal and other liturgical books that give instructions and suggestions on the “how” of the liturgical rites and ceremonies. In Altar Book of our new hymnal Lutheran Service Book, the following rubric is given for all five of the Divine Service settings:

The pastor and those who assist him receive the body and blood of Christ first, the presiding minister communing himself and his assistants. Then they distribute the body and blood to those who come to receive… [LSB Altar Book, pages 168, 207, 249, 270, 285].



Likewise, Martin Luther’s Formula Missae [Luther’s Latin Mass] (1523) notes: “Then, while the Agnus Dei is sung, let him [the liturgist] communicate, first himself and then the people” [Luther’s Works American Edition, volume 53, p.29]. Luther Reed, in his important book, The Lutheran Liturgy, states:

Self-communion of the minister has always been an open question in Lutheran liturgics. Luther himself approved it and repeatedly defended it (deinde communicet tum sese, tum populum [Formula Missae (Luther’s Latin Mass)]). It is quite certain that for a generation or two this liturgical action, which belongs to the integrity of the rite, was usual in Lutheran services. Later when liturgical knowledge and feeling had declined, dogmatic Biblicism and pietistic subjectivism brought about its disuse. The dogmaticians, however, generally allow it, though advising that if another minister be present he should administer it to the officiant. The Schmalkald Articles forbid self-communion only when this involves reception apart form the congregation (Part II, Art. II). Chemnitz says the minister includes himself in the confession and absolution and he may include himself in the Communion. [Luther D. Reed. The Lutheran Liturgy, p.372]



As pointed out above, the “private mass” that Lutherans condemn is not the pastor communing himself in the midst of the regular Divine Service of the congregation. The “private mass” that is condemned is a mass or Divine Service where no one communes or where only the pastor communes without the congregation. Unheard of until the latter half the twentieth century was communion of pastors by those who were not called and ordained. This is why the circuit “Winkel” conference was instituted during the time of Pietism where pastors would commune among each other. While upholding Augsburg Confession, Article XIV, the sad fact was that during Pietism those pastors did not want to be seen communing, lest the congregation think the pastor had sins! But honoring Augsburg Confession, Article XIV and having the pastor commune with the congregation is the most evangelical and biblically faithful. Of course, if there is more than one pastor present, it is certainly fitting for them to commune each other, but it is still not necessary for it to be that way.



One should not read into the pastor’s “self-communion” a motive of thinking he is “holier than thou” by this practice. Hopefully one would accord the pastor what Luther explains in the eighth commandment by “putting the best construction on everything.” It is simply distinguishing between the person of the pastor as baptized and forgiven sinner vs. the office that he holds by call and ordination. (If he thought he had no sin, why would he desire to commune and so receive the forgiveness of sins?) We confess in our Augsburg Confession, Article XIV that, “no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called”[Latin rite vocatus/German ordentlicher beruf]. The doctrine of the royal priesthood of believers (I Peter 2:9) is not so much about “everyone a minister” or “everyone a pastor” but it is about being a “go between” between your neighbor and the Lord for their sake. We do not appreciate either as a gift if we only compare the pastoral office and the royal priesthood of believers with each other in terms of who does what – each is a unique gift. If one upholds a confessional understanding of the duties of the pastoral office in regard to administering the Lord’s Supper, and if it is still asserted that the pastor could not commune himself, then one is left with the also untenable position of the pastor communing only at pastors’ conferences (and only among other pastors!). So where there is one pastor, and since he too needs the forgiveness of sins given in the Holy Supper, the pastor rightly distinguishes between his person and his office and benefits from the Lord’s Supper that way also – just as he does in absolution or when the Scriptures are proclaimed. So in the Formula of Concord’s denial that, “No man's word or work, be it the merit or speaking of the minister,” brings about the real presence is not to deny that the body and blood are, “distributed through our ministry and office” (cf. FC-SD, VII.74-77). When an elder or deacon assists the pastor in the general distribution to the congregation, he does that as an extension (auxiliary) of the pastor for the sake of the rest of the people and for good order. In conclusion, it is certainly proper and well within orthodox Lutheran practice (and historic Christianity) for the pastor, in distinguishing his person and office, to commune himself in the midst of the congregation in the Divine Service. So the pastor also benefits from the sermon and absolution he speaks within the congregation – his individual person benefits from the ministry of the pastoral office for the church.

More on Gospel Processions

Let's talk books. What do you process when you process? The bare lectionary book, a large Bible, a covered lectionary book?

We process a bare lectionary book. Not happy with it. I want a decent cover for it. Any suggestions?

Gospel Processions

Quick riff on Gospel Processions:

Every Sunday? Only at Festival days? Presider only? Crucifix? Torches? Verger? Book beaerer?

As for me and my house: Every Sunday (except in Lent), book bearer, crucifix optional depending on whether he shows up with the right shoes and long pants.

What do you guys do?

Work, Play, Worship

Note: I posted this over at my blog. A commentator suggested that I repost it here to widen the discussion.

"Most middle class Americans tend to worship their work, to work at their play, and to play at their worship. As a result, their meanings and values are distorted. Their relationships disintegrate faster than they can keep them in repair and their lifestyles resemble a cast of characters in search of a plot." (Gordon Dahl. Work, Play, and Play in a Leisure-Oriented Society. Minneapolis: Augsburg-Fortress, 1972.)

Economist Gordon Dahl was describing the disorder in middle class American society back in 1972, my sophomore year in high school. It still holds today. I've used the "work, play, worship" trichotomy myself on many occasions, most recently at the Higher Things Sola - San Antonio conference where I exhorted the kids to "work at work, play at play, and worship at worship."

I like the phrase - it's catchy, tidy, memorable. Like so many categorical distinctions, it sounds profound and everyone nods their heads. But what exactly does this mean? And do I really believe it? (Speaking to high school youth is always a good test of whether or not you believe what you are saying.)

I'm having second thoughts. It's time for a reality check.

I certainly think it's important to keep work, play, and worship distinct in our minds, but I don't think they can be so neatly divided as three separate boxes in our lives. As we Lutherans like to say, "Distinguish but don't divide." The problem with Dahl's distinctions is that the verbs and the nouns, which are the same words and make for a clever cliche, don't have the same connotations and denotations. The nouns work, play, and worship denote spheres of activity; the verbs denote the activities themselves with their various connotations.

The sphere of work is where we earn our living. Play is where we recreate and relax. Worship is where we engage God and God engages us in a particular way. However the verbs work, play, and worship are not so easily confined to their noun boxes.

Here's what I mean. I work at play. I work at my scuba diving, not only for the sake of safety, but also for the sake of enjoyment. I work at my wood craft. It's even called woodworking and you do it in a workshop at a workbench. When I used to downhill ski, I worked at that too and did a lot of working out at the gym in order to enhance my skiing. I know guys who work on their cars, their dirt bikes, their Harleys, all for the sake of play. Any play worth engaging seriously calls for some serious work.

I play at work. I daydream. I write blogs. I skim books. I play with words. Creativity is a form of play; ask any artist or musician. Poetry is playing with words. God's work of creation is very playful. Consider the clownfish or the peacock. Look at the absurd lion fish and the gaudy parrot and tell me God isn't playing around. Look at what He came up with when He played in mud! Even manual labor has an element of play. When I worked in the seminary bookstore, we used to have collating contests. When I worked in a lab, we used to drop things in liquid nitrogen and then toss them out the window. We'd blow things up for fun. Some experiments were "just playing around," which occasionally led to discoveries. Work without play is called drudgery or better slavery.

What about worship? Worship involves receiving - hearing, eating, drinking - passively being given to. It also involves prayer, praise, thanksgiving, hearing, thinking, confessing, which are all work in some sense. Try singing one of those Reformation rousers and tell me worship isn't work. I broke a sweat by stanza eight of Salvation Unto Us Has Come this past week and it wasn't from the Texas heat. I Bind Unto Myself burns about 100 calories per measure. Look at all the preparation that goes into presiding well. It isn't easy making it look easy. Let's talk organ practice, choir practice, acolyte training, ushers. OK, let's not talk about ushers. Yes, I know that "Gottesdienst" is God's service, at least sacramentally speaking, but God works in, with, and under instrumental means, and He presses those means to work in His service.

Can one also play at worship? I think so. Well, the organist plays the organ and all the music. The preacher plays with words. I occasionally play with harmony when singing a hymn. Our problem is that we have a distorted and narrow view of play. We think play means being silly or childish or simply amusing oneself. Play can also mean recreation, and there is nothing more recreating than our being new creations in Christ in worship.

One definition of the verb "to play" really stands out when it comes to worship: to move about freely. Now there's a good definition of "liturgical worship." To move about freely within the fixed boundaries (fences) of the tradition. If there is going to be relaxed dignity in our services, we need to see the liturgy as a "playground" where the children of God are free to play in God's presence, respecting the boundaries but also enjoying the freedoms.

I'm starting to think that worship involves work and play and offers them up for divine service, just as we offer the gifts of bread and wine for God to give us Christ's body and blood. Yes, God provided our daily bread too, but we also worked for it. And if there is one thing that characterizes a marriage feast, it's a sense of play. Worship takes elements of work and play and lifts them up, consecrates them for holy use.

As long as I'm at it, what's wrong with worshipping at work and play? Aren't all things consecrated by the Word of God and prayer? Aren't we supposed to pray without ceasing? There is a liturgy of life beyond the benediction, and it embraces our work and play as praise to God who has redeemed the world. Isn't our priestly life a lifting up of our work and play, an offering of our bodies as living sacrifices that are holy and acceptable to God through the mercies of Jesus' atoning sacrifice? Play and work that do not worship are forms of idolatry.

The problem with rigid categories is that they tend to become a law unto themselves, defeating their purpose of clarity . Work that is nothing but pure work is sheer drudgery. Play that is all play is empty amusement. And worship without elements of work and play would be like a Zen Buddhist meditating on nothing.

I think a more apt metaphor would be the juggler who keeps a toaster, a bowling ball, and a chain saw in motion at the same time. He treats each thing for what it properly is, but keeps all three working together at the same time. Work, play, worship - all in motion around the Christ-center in one sanctified life.

So I guess you might say, we work, play and worship at our work, play, and worship. Holy juggling.

Easter Headgear for Women

"Headgear for Women - It is a laudable custom, based upon a Scriptural injunction (1 Cor. 11:3-15), for women to wear an appropriate head covering in Church, especially at the time of the divine service."
The Lutheran Liturgy, p. 427






The women of the household observed the rubric on the Feast, as did a few more in the parish. More joy all around I say.

Contemplating a Real Easter Vigil

On the impetous of my ambitious assistant and zealous young Emmausites, I'm contemplating the possibility of arranging the Easter Vigil next year as a real vigil; that is to say, watching and waiting through the night, in prayer and meditation on the Word of God, in anticipation of the proclamation of the Resurrection "very early in the morning on the first day of the week."

I'm seriously thinking about how it might work, in any case.

We'd pray an abbreviated Matins on the morning of Holy Saturday, as we have for the past number of years now; then make some preliminary preparations for the vigil before proceeding to a day of rest, whether in sleep or simply quiet and subdued activities on the day of our Lord's holy Sabbath.

The ministers of the vigil would then gather at the church at sundown or thereabouts, to make final preparations for the vigil itself. Instead of beginning at 7:00 p.m. and concluding at 9:00 p.m., as we have done in the past, I would anticipate the vigil beginning outside at 9:00 p.m. around a kindled fire. Those gathered for the vigil would proceed from there into the church in the Service of Light.

I'm envisioning the first Old Testament Reading at approximately 9:30 p.m. We would use all twelve of the appointed Readings in the course of the night, each followed by several minutes of contemplation, then the collect, then appropriate canticles and Psalmody. In the case of such Readings as the flood, we could possibly lengthen the selections from that account; or else pause in between the sections of it.

In any case, each subsequent Reading would occur at approximately the next half-hour interval: the second Reading at ~10:00 p.m., the third at ~10:30 p.m., the fourth at~11:00 p.m., and so on, until the twelfth Reading at ~3:00 a.m.

The remembrance and affirmation of Holy Baptism, and any actual Baptisms, would occur around 3:30 a.m. It seems to me that appropriate hymnody could be sung at the conclusion of that remembrance, rather than simply moving directly to the Litany of the Resurrection. I picture that Litany occuring at 4:00 a.m.

Then we would actually take the time, at that point, to prepare the church and sanctuary for the festive celebration of Easter. The black adornments of Good Friday would be removed, and the white adornments of Easter would be put in place. Flowers would be brought in from wherever they have been set aside for the purpose. Any banners and other artistic displays of Easter would be gotten out and positioned. The Altar itself would be prepared for the Divine Service, and the eucharistic vestments donned by the ministers of the Service. In short, whatever sort of transitional preparations would normally occur by happenstance during Holy Saturday, would be done at this point, between 4:00 a.m. and 5:00/6:00 a.m.

The Divine Service of the Word and Sacrament would then commence at 5:00 or 6:00 a.m., taking the place of the Easter Sunrise Service. It would be a more expansive celebration than the rites and rubrics of the Easter Vigil in the Altar Book call for, as there would be no need to restrain our exuberance at all any longer.

Those unable to keep the entire vigil would be under no obligation to do so. Of course there is no obligation to begin with; but what I mean is that those who so desire could participate in the beginning of the vigil, some parts of the Service of Readings, or simply arrive in time for the Divine Service at sunrise. This belongs to the point and purpose of demarking the vigil at roughly half hour intervals. The ministers of the Service could likewise order and arrange themselves to allow opportunity for bodily rest in the course of the vigil, like the watches of the night.

Maybe this is too ambitious or otherwise unrealistic, but it is appealing to me; and as I have had people asking me about the possibility for the past three years now, I am wondering if we need to seize the day and do it while we still have Pastor Grobien at Emmaus to assist me with the undertaking.

What say you? Would this have a detrimental impact on the Chief Divine Service of Easter Sunday?

Compass Points and the High (or Low) Altar

Dear Brother Blackbirds, and those who read and lurk:

I want to commend to everyone an article placed into the blogosphere by Rev. Larry Beane (See Link Here to Fr. Hollywood's Blog, See Article Here).

Oh, the wonder of having a large daily newspaper in Tulsa, Oklahoma, the veritable "Bible Belt" (where one of my own dear lambs labors at Oral Roberts University on a soccer scholarship, enduring much pentecostal, anti-liturgical/sacramental bleeecchh), actually publishing an article on liturgical matters, and seeking to teach people liturgical terms, and getting perspective from another liturgical pastor (and a confessional Lutheran, LCMS one at that!) - we should give thanks for these things. Make sure you read the "side-article" where Pastor Beecroft is interviewed! We should write to this reporter and thank him for such an article, whether we agree with its conclusions or not!

Now I personally emailed this article to a few pastors I know, and one responded. He feels strongly about being able to face the people at the Verba. He wrote,

"As I understand it, this [changing direction] was Vatican II's attempt to engage the people, get closer to them, so they abandoned the high altars and installed the tables in the midst of the people. I had heard that Benedict wanted to get back to the high altars. I guess it's finally happened.

Architecturally, the RCC had the wrong idea in facing the people. Facing the altar implies sacrifice as the priest offers of the sacrifice of the Mass. Thus, facing the people really gave the opposite idea.

My understanding is that Lutherans face the people for the Sacrament, indicating that these are gifts from God to the people. Thus, a position that speaks grace not sacrifice. Lutherans have had the right theology but often the wrong architecture."

He goes on to say that he would be happy with correct teaching on the Lord's Supper in our circles, considering all of the grape juice and open communion that flows forth out in our own backyard of the LCMS. In the end, facing one way or another is adiaphora, and the best thing whichever way the chancel is set up would be for us to have a Biblical (that is, Confessionally Lutheran) Sacramental piety and practice. However, our practice confesses what we believe as well! So for us, what does using a free standing altar confess? Is it what this pastor says?

Pastor Beecroft says in the article, "It [facing the "high altar" at the Verba] reflects a sacramental ritual that helps direct the people toward the transcendent... it pulls the community away from themselves and to that which is beyond us. It certainly has helped my piety as a pastor." Pastor Beecroft's congregation in Tulsa had gone back to a non-free standing altar from previously using one. The Roman bishop of Tulsa makes the point - "Everyone is the same from the back. Eyes are on the crucifix, not the priest."

Did we switch to altars away from the wall, and facing the people at the Verba (at least, some of our congregations), because of Vatican II? Or have Lutherans before this time period ever used free-standing altars and faced the congregation at the Verba, as my friend seems to indicate?

It seems to me that Dr. Weinrich in "Early Church History" class, in illustrating some of the Early Church Fathers' understanding of the definition of Church, drew pictures of altars with Bishop facing People, that wherever the Pastor and People were gathered around Christ's Sacrament and Word, there was the Church. Perhaps he was not illustrating so much the actual way it looked so much as the concept of gathering around Christ as His Body. Pastor Stuckwisch can correct me, he is the "A+" student in that class, as are others (I struggled and contended for my B+, thank you). I therefore hesitate to use names of our ancient Fathers in the faith. Does the free standing altar have precedence before our modern mis-mash thanks to Rome's triflings?

Some Lutherans have insisted on a non-free standing altar, I think precisely because of wanting to be anti-Roman Catholic in practice. That argument is easily handled, of course - we ought not do or not do things because Rome does or does not - we would never Baptize infants or read the Gospel if we worried so much about Rome.

The question is of particular interest to me. We (my congregation) have a mission plant here in Texas, and they have built their new sanctuary. The altar in the new chancel is currently "on the wall" - it has not yet seen service - and it is that way because the mother church's altar is that way, and because of a bit of what some would call "bronze-aged" Lutheran piety (understanding the definition of Lutheranism as being "not Roman Catholic") that is part of our history here.

We will be dedicating said sanctuary in January. There is time and opportunity to teach and instill a healthy, genuine, welcoming Lutheran sacramental piety, which indeed we (the Senior Pastor and myself) are teaching and confessing gently and with care. But what should we teach them about this matter of the chancel and the altar in the new sanctuary?

Gloria in Excelsis and Advent

This is not a rant against liturgical tradition nor is it a potshot against the rubrics of the Lutheran Service Book, nor is it a troll to stir up strife among the liturgical cathari.  I am sincerely seeking honest discussion.  The rubric of LSB for the Gloria in Excelsis states "During Advent and Lent, the Gloria in Excelsis is omitted."  (I'm quoting from the rubrics for DS 3 and note in passing that TLH had no such rubric at this point.)

My question is "Why?"  Is it simply a kind of "liturgical fast" from the Gloria so that it can be heard with renewed vigor at Christmas/Easter?  

In the past years under the discipline of LW, I dutifully substituted a stanza from O Come, O Come, Emmanuel, as stated by that hymnal's rubrics.  This year, after the first Sunday of Advent (using DS 3 as is our custom during Advent/Christmas/Epiphany), I made the radical pastoral decision to (gasp!) disregard the rubric (mea culpa!) and forge ahead with the Gloria in Excelsis.  

Practically, it sounded terrible going straight from the bare three-fold Kyrie to the chanted Salutation and Collect.  Clearly something had been sawed off.  The Gloria is the ordinary hymn of praise for the service of the incarnate Word.  I know it's a relative late-comer into the liturgy, but it has been around for at least 1400 years, so it's hardly an innovation.  

Liturgically, I don't approve of the idea of making any Ordinary into an option.  This encourages liturgical mischief.  

Pastorally, it makes no theological sense to remove the angelic song of the Incarnation on any Sunday, much less a Sunday in a season of preparation to celebrate the feast of the Incarnation. 

If every Sunday is a little Easter, isn't every Sunday also a little Christmas?  (I'm going to ask the same thing about the suppression of Alleluia in Lent, but we'll wait for the -gesima Sundays to take up that one.)

I'm going to refrain from commenting, but will eagerly await any insights and discussion.

wmc

Do This in Remembrance of Me

It was in February of 1998, at a small convocation in St. Louis that essentially kicked off the Lutheran Hymnal Project, that Dr. John Kleinig made a comment on the Institution Narrative and the Verba Domini (the Words of our Lord) that stuck with me and subsequently made a significant impact on my understanding of those most precious Words. It was in the course of discussion and debate on the topic of "eucharistic prayer," when Dr. Kleinig simply offered the suggestion that we should not allow ourselves to be misled by the conflated version of the Verba that we know from the Small Catechism and the Liturgy of the Holy Communion. In his usual manner, he let the observation speak for itself; he just laid it out there for any of us to discover his point on our own. I think it took me a year or two to give it my full and serious attention; not that it was all that difficult to look at the four different accounts of our Lord's institution of His Supper, but it is amazing how powerfully the conflation that we hear all the time and know so well by heart holds our thinking. It was probably another year or two more before the impact of what I found in my comparison really began to shape a new way of thinking in me.

The insight to which Dr. Kleinig's comment led me centers in this phrase of our Lord: "Do this in remembrance of Me." Surely, these are some of the most significant Words of the New Testament (to which, properly speaking, they refer quite directly). Along with the so-called "Great Commission" (the sending of the ministers of Christ to catechize and baptize), these Words, "Do this in remembrance of Me," establish the liturgical foundation of Christ's Church. They are quite as fundamental to the life of the children of God as are the words, "Be fruitful and multiply," to the life of Adam's sons and daughters. Yet, these Words of our Lord's New Testament have been subject to rather diverse interpretations and controversy.

Identifying the referent of "Do this" was a point of contention in the development of, and in responses to, the proposed eucharistic rites of the Lutheran Book of Worship in the 1970s. There are a number of points in those eucharistic rites with which I also take exception, and in many ways I remain sympathetic to the concerns that were expressed by critics of the proposal. On this particular point, however, I think that the proponents of the LBW may have been closer to the truth, even if not in their final conclusions concerning the larger picture of the Sacrament. The argument that "Do this" refers to the eating and drinking is one that was frequently made in opposition to the "Great Thanksgiving" of the LBW. It is an argument that I have not only heard but have also made, myself, on more than one occasion. But I don't believe that is the case; the texts don't support that argument.

Here is the interesting fact that Dr. Kleinig's comment led me to discover: It is in St. Matthew's account that our Lord Jesus Christ says, "Take, eat," and "Drink from it, all of you." St. Mark's account is similar, though he doesn't record either the "eat" or the "drink" as a Word of Jesus. In any case, neither St. Matthew nor St. Mark record the Words, "Do this in remembrance of Me." Those Words come to us from St. Luke and from St. Paul; but neither of them include "Take, eat," or "Drink from it."

When the four different narratives are conflated, as in the Catechism and in the Divine Service, we hear: "Take, eat" and "Drink from it," followed shortly by "Do this in remembrance of Me," and the natural conclusion is that we as communicants are to do the eating and drinking in remembrance of Jesus. Never mind for the moment that there's been any number of different interpretations of what that means; the assumption is that "Do this" refers to the eating and drinking. If one reads the actual texts of the Holy Scriptures, however, the "Do this" seems clearly to specify the verbs that have immediately preceded this Word of Jesus: verbs that Jesus is doing, rather than His communicant disciples; that is, taking the bread and the cup, giving thanks, and distributing His gifts with those particular Words that are basically the same in all four accounts: "This is My Body," "This is My Blood." Which is to say that, as it now seems clear to me, "Do this in remembrance of Me" refers not to the reception but to the administration of the Supper.

This distinction is underscored by the fact that St. Matthew (explicitly) and St. Mark (by implication of the preceding verses) write of the disciples at the Last Supper, whereas St. Luke writes of the Apostles reclining at the table with Him; and St. Paul is addressing the Church concerning the way in which the Supper ought to be administered. St. Matthew and St. Mark address the Institution Narrative toward those who are given to receive, to eat and drink the Sacrament; whereas St. Luke and St. Paul address those who are given to hand over the Sacrament to the disciples of Jesus. These are matters of emphasis, not of exlusive distinction, but I believe the difference is instructive to a proper understanding of the Holy Communion.

The Sacrament is to be administered "in remembrance of Me." What does this mean? It really is remarkable how many different ways the "remembrance" has been interpreted, and I'm not inclined to suggest that those various interpretations are mutually exclusive of one another. Löhe speaks of our Lord first of all remembering us by giving us His body and His blood, by which we, in turn, remember Him. Luther speaks of these Words in a variety of ways, too, depending on the context in which he is addressing the matter. Historically, the remembrance has been clarified by way of the ritual anamnesis, following the Verba, in which the incarnation, life, death, resurrection and coming of our Lord for judgment are confessed with the lips. Such things are meet, right and salutary, but the heart of the matter is deeper and more comprehensive.

St. Paul's account in 1 Corinthians is perhaps most helpful, especially in following the second "Do this in remembrance of Me" with the explanatory Words: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." I should certainly acknowledge and point out, to begin with, that both the doing of "this" and the "remembrance" are indeed to be connected to the eating and drinking, even if that holy consumption is not the referent of "Do this." Rather, "this" is to be done "as often as you drink it." In contrast to the convoluted meals that the Corinthians were having, they were to eat the bread and drink the cup according to the rubrics of the Lord Jesus Christ, who instituted His Supper in His own way. Instead of one man taking for himself and leaving others hungry, and another man getting drunk, the Christians are to come together as the Church and to give and receive the gifts of Christ Jesus as He has given.

Luther has somewhere interpreted the phrase, "you proclaim the Lord's death," not as an indicative but as an imperative. To paraphrase the point, "as often as you celebrate the Lord's Supper, you must proclaim the Lord's death." This coincides precisely with my observation: the administration of the Sacrament is done "in remembrance" of Jesus by the preaching of Christ the Crucified, which is the good work of the Church and Ministry in giving out the gifts. Thus, I would say that the "remembrance" is rooted, first and foremost, in the preaching of the Gospel; and the Sacrament should never be administerd apart from that preaching.

In connection with the preaching, I believe the "remembrance" characterizes the entire eucharistic rite: in the confession of the Creed, in the Prayer of the Church, in the Preface and Post-Sanctus, in the Anamnesis, the hymnody, etc. That is to say, the entire celebration of the Sacrament is encompassed within the confession of Christ, dependent upon the preaching of repentance in His Name, and given voice in prayer, supplication, intercession, praise and thanksgiving to the Father in His Name.

The Minister's Positioning at the Invocation

The rubrics in Lutheran Service Book Altar Book give the following option at the Invocation: “The presiding minister may face the altar and sign himself, or he may face the congregation and mark them with the sign of the cross.”

I don’t remember rubrics that specified the direction the presiding minister should face in either LW or TLH. I looked quickly and couldn’t find one. In every church I attended growing up, the pastor faced the altar, and I have done so since being ordained. I don’t necessarily have an objection to facing and signing the congregation, but am wondering what the impetus is for that second practice versus the first.

Luther Reed in his “The Lutheran Liturgy” [page 254] instructs the minister to face the altar, with simple words that I would affirm:

This discussion reveals the difficulties which arise in attempting to classify parts of the liturgy too mechanically. Some are not wholly sacramental, others are not entirely sacrificial. There is a blending of these elements in some parts of the Service. Since, however, the minister by his position at the altar interprets the Service, and as there are only two positions he can take, it is necessary to determine the prevailing character of each part. In the case of the invocation it is better to take the words as Luther, the Reformers, and the ancient church used them in this connection, that is, as primarily devotional in character and not as a proclamation addressed to the congregation. … The minister [therefore] leads the devotions of the congregation in this act and faces the altar.

Maintaining Liturgical Order and Decency in a (Canon) Law-less Church Body

Proponents of contemporary worship and even those who generally use the traditional liturgical forms but substitute 'praise songs' or other 'contemporary' songs for parts of the liturgy always fall back on the argument that neither Christ nor the Apostles laid down any specific laws or instructions for how our worship is to be conducted. The only commands were to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments. The rest, so they say, is up to the individual congregation or pastor, "as long as it brings glory to God and focuses on Christ." And they point inevitably to the section of the Confessions that gives the "congregation of God" in "every time and place" the power to change or alter the ceremonies and worship forms as they see fit. Of course, it always comes down then to how broadly or narrowly we define that Confessional "freedom."

Bottom line is that confessional pastors who oppose such "experimentation" with the liturgy have a difficult time arguing against these folks. We can speak about the positive theological and practical virtues of the traditional liturgy, even show how the spirit behind the traditional ceremonies and rubrics is Biblically based (thanks Paul H. D. Lang for teaching us the four Biblical precepts behind these: Reverence, humility, order, and love). But when it comes down to it, we really can't tell our brother pastor down the street that he *may not* substitute contemporary songs for hymns and use "creative worship" in place of the rites found in the hymnal. We have to admit that in our Synod, which has no Liturgical Canon Law, we are pretty much on our own when it comes to the conduct of the service and the rites and ceremonies we use. You and I might be committed to using the orders of worship found in the hymnal and the Altar Book but that doesn't mean that Pastor Joe down the street has to follow suit, since the Synod does not legislate or make anything except the Word of God binding on the congregation (and some of us wonder if it is even doing that anymore).

Certainly we can agree that the New Testament lays down no specific "laws" for how the Divine Service is to be conducted, and that the Confessions do give to the churches the freedom to change or alter the ceremonies that are used in the Divine Service. But isn't it equally true that the New Testament does not forbid the Church to agree upon certain forms and agree to use them. In fact, I think one could argue on the basis of certain texts in the Epistles of St. Paul that this is actually desirable. I think this is what the Church Orders of the 16th & 17th centuries set out to do. They were not just "friendly suggestions" from a non-legislative church body, but instructions on how services and other rites would be conducted in a certain territory. In evangelical freedom, these theologians and churches agreed to use a uniform service, for the sake of good order, so that there weren't 10 different orders of service being used at 10 different churches.

The closest thing that we LC-MS pastors have to such a Church Order or "Canon Law" is our Agenda and Altar Book (and one could possibly argue, the hymnal itself). But even these have no binding force on the pastors and congregations of the Synod. And even if they did, would it even matter? I guess my point in this post is simply that as long as we abide in a Synod that has no liturgical Canon Law or Church Orders that require the congregations of a particular district or region to use certain rubrics or ceremonies, we may simply have to accept the reality that there will be wild and crazy stuff going on, liturgically speaking, and we are pretty much powerless to do anything about it, except try to help individual people see the value of using the historic liturgy. And to a large extent, this may be happening through the services of Higher Things.

We cannot rely on the Synod to say, "You may or may not do this or that." All we can say is: "We beseech you by the mercies of God not to do so and so." So says Lang. I'm not saying we should all just keep our mouths shut and not protest the silliness that passes for Lutheran worship in our Synod. I'm simply making the point that there is nothing inherent in our Synod that forbids it. To a large extent, the way our Synod is set up, or at least the way our by-laws are written, each individual congregation really does have the freedom to "do what is right in its own eyes." Am I off base here?