The "Worship Wars" Are Over
That the “worship wars” are
over in the LCMS is the import of eight theses on worship
unanimously approved by the Council of Presidents in
their September meeting.
These can be found by clicking here.
A unique
feature of these theses and sub-theses is
that they are supported only
with citations from Scripture and the Confessions. There is
no further argumentation beyond stating the specific
principle.
Certainly worship itself is
not an adiaphoron. (Thesis I) But Scriptures and
Confessions give the people of God considerable freedom in
choosing those forms, rites, and ceremonies that aid the
worship of God. (Theses II)
The third thesis identifies
how the liturgy of the Church builds a framework for the
worshiper to live the life of faith. The liturgy teaches
the full counsel of God, tells the full story of salvation,
and moves worshipers into the world to live for and proclaim
the Good News to others.
Indeed, “great care is
necessary in choosing forms, rites, and ceremonies because
they either support or hinder true worship. There are no
‘neutral’ forms.” (Thesis V)
But “imposing a certain form, rite or ceremony on the
Church burdens men’s consciences, thereby militating against
the Gospel.” (Thesis IV)
The last three theses
address what to do in the absence of uniformity or agreement
on a specific form.
VI. Recognize that
uniformity, while desirable, is not essential to the unity
of the Church.
VII. Recognize that
polarization concerning issues of forms, rites and
ceremonies is sinful and hinders the proclamation of the
Gospel.
VIII. Keep talking with each
other, under His Word, so that divisions are healed and the
Church is united in doctrine and practice.
Liturgical Renewal
The history behind these
eight theses in the LCMS is unusual. It represents reaction
to the convergence of two separate movements appearing in
the 1960s and then in the 80s. One was called the
liturgical movement, which happened among all Lutherans in
America. The Confessional movement in the 1980s is specific
to the LCMS.
Prof. Arthur Carl Piepkorn
of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis was a powerful spokesman
for rediscovering the strengths of the worship forms of
Luther’s time and then also going back to the fourth
century. Lutherans were ready to leave their ethnic roots
behind and upgrade their worship forms with classic rites
and vestments.
Significantly, “liturgical
renewal” had to do with renewing forms, not necessarily with
renewing spiritual life. By the late 1980s there was
growing awareness of declining congregational health and
membership in mainstream church bodies, including
Lutherans. Outreach-minded pastors began to experiment with
less formal forms of worship and more contemporary music.
These “contemporary” services became the source of most new
members in many congregations.
In the decades when Lutheran
leaders were advocating that more formalities be added to
worship, the culture was shifting decidedly in the direction
of more informal communication and dress. By the early
2000s a common estimate is that about half the congregations
in the LCMS were doing at least one service in a more
informal contemporary style.
The Confessional Movement in the LCMS
Given the declaration of the
newly released theses that uniformity in forms of worship is
not necessary and that imposing one specific form militates
against the Gospel, Lutherans should not have had a problem
adjusting their worship to changes in the culture.
Enter the second,
Confessional movement. Concordia Theological Seminary in
Ft. Wayne was a center for those who assessed the LCMS as no
longer conservative enough and needing to be restored to
Confessional integrity. The politics of that movement
played itself out in Synodical leadership through the 1990s
and early 2000s.
The
Confessional movement’s insistence on uniformity not only in
doctrine but also in practices included the newly
re-emerging liturgical worship forms as a requirement to be
faithfully Lutheran. To do so, they had to ignore the clear
Confessional principle (“we believe, teach, and confess”)
that the community of God in every place and at every time
has the right, authority, and power to change, to reduce, or
to increase ceremonies according to its circumstances
(Formula of Concord, Article X).
A clash between 20th
century interests and 16th
century principles is apparent in the vocabulary. “The
liturgy” is the favored term now, meaning all the components
of the classic Catholic mass, in pre-Vatican II practice.
But “liturgy” is simply not Confessional vocabulary. It
appears occasionally in English translations but is not in
the German or Latin. Lutheran terms are ceremonies, rites,
and church usages.
Insistence on using only the
worship form that became dominant after the 1950s would
surprise earlier generations of stalwart Lutheran leaders.
Imagine their amazement to discover that now they would no
longer be considered true Lutherans.
The last of the new theses
put forward by the LCMS Council of Presidents rightfully is
that the people of God, under the Word, keep talking with
each other, so that divisions can be healed. It would seem
reasonable to also add “under clear Confessional principles”
as a condition for future discussions.
With such truly Lutheran
expectations, healing can certainly happen. The classic
Catholic mass form has great strengths and should serve as a
benchmark for adaptations of forms and expressions of
worship.
Let the
healing continue.
DSL
