A Brief Explanation of Lutheran Hymnody: For the Lutheran who asks regarding the Beautiful Hymns of His church

Three weeks ago, we published a lengthy post entitled, An Explanation of Lutheran Worship: For the Lutheran who asks the Meaning of the Beautiful Liturgy of His church. The body of that post contained a full Explanation of the Common Service — the order of Divine Service beginning on “page 15” of The Lutheran Hymnal which was published by the Synodical Conference in 1941. An English-language harmony of sixteenth century Lutheran liturgies published in 1888 by the General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, it still serves as a benchmark of liturgical excellence. Indeed, in our recent post, Lutheranism and the Fine Arts: Dr. P.E. Kretzmann and the Necessity of Continuing Catechesis, we quote Dr. Kretzmann referring to the Common Service as “unsurpassed in the entire history of the Christian Church.”

The Explanation we published two weeks ago was taken directly from catechetical materials developed by the General Council for the distinct purpose of educating Lutherans regarding the doctrinal integrity and catholicity of genuine Lutheran worship. Indeed, this Explanation of the Common Service, published in 1908, was dedicated to the “Young Lutheran who asks the meaning of the beautiful liturgy of the Lutheran Church.” In our introductory remarks preceding the explanation, we marveled at this. Lutherans these days don't educate their youth about Lutheran worship, and if they do, they don't do so in a way that extolls it's beauty as a work of Fine Art, nor do they do so in a way that reinforces its doctrinal integrity, nor do they do so in a way that embraces its catholicity. One of the bright shining exceptions to the lamentable reality that contemporary Lutherans no longer value their heritage of worship enough to bother passing it down to their youth, is the LCMS-affiliated organization, Higher Things. Outside of this organization, the best one can hope for is a one- or two-lesson explanation of Lutheran worship which neither extolls its beauty nor places value on its doctrinal integrity and catholicity, but uses the opportunity to deride our heritage by vaunting its status as “an adiophoron” and setting it on equal footing with just about any form of Sectarian Worship imaginable – as long as one wears the appropriate set of blinders as he goes about imagining. Yeah, sure, you can do it, but why would you want to? In answer to this one needs but a “reason,” and in the world of adiaphora that merely means “opinion.” Thus one “reason” is as good as another, and anything one can “justify” has open license attending it.

But we further asked the reader to notice the use of language this Explanation employed. It was not written for functionally illiterate Lutherans who find reading and understanding anything written above the sixth-grade reading level to be a hopeless struggle. On the contrary, being dedicated to the “Young Lutherans,” it was written to Lutheran Youth, and plainly assumed that they had command of their own language. If it was written above their level, then it served the noble purpose of lifting them out of their immature literacy and colorless task-oriented-use of language, through the rich vocabulary and precise grammar employed in the distinctive and enculturating language of the Church. Contemporary Lutherans, it seems, no longer value the uplifting qualities of higher literacy, either.

Regardless of what the so-called wise-men of contemporary times insist upon, I am not ready to succumb to such disrespect for others that my operative assumption is that they are all functionally illiterate. I don't think all, or most, or even a significant minority of educated Lutherans are just a bunch of dumb-dumbs who can't read. Some very-well may refuse to read anything more complex than a comic book, but that is a separate matter – a matter of sinful obstinacy, and perhaps even rebellion. It is not a matter of literacy. So today, we are going to continue our use of materials having high-literary quality to provide a brief explanation of Lutheran hymnody.

What is a Hymn? A Canticle? A Carol? An Anthem?
We begin with the source pictured at the top left: The Handbook to the Lutheran Hymnal, by W. G. Polack – who was the chairman of The Lutheran Hymnal committee. This work first appeared in 1942, essentially accompanying the publication of The Lutheran Hymnal, and went through several revisions thereafter. It is a book which catalogs all of the hymns used in The Lutheran Hymnal, identifying their authors and sources, providing a history of the circumstances under which the hymn was written (if notable), reproducing the hymn in its original language alongside the English version which appeared in the hymnal and identifying (sometimes justifying) alternate readings from the original composition. It is considered a classic in the field of hymnology.

An Explanation of Lutheran Worship: For the Lutheran who asks the Meaning of the Beautiful Liturgy of His church

Last week, we published an article entitled, Lutheranism and the Fine Arts: Dr. P.E. Kretzmann and the Necessity of Continuing Catechesis. It stood in stark contrast against the depraved junk being pushed by the Church Growth Movement (CGM), which, though vaulting the latest in “scientific methodology”, nurtures anti-intellectualism as much as it promotes mediocrity, turning its back on the preaching and teaching of sound doctrine and repudiating the hard work of rigorous catechesis in order to make Christianity more outwardly attractive to the unregenerate who despise Christ and the teaching of His Word. Another term for this among CGM advocates is, “Evangelism.”

But most importantly, that post emphasized the need not only for rigorous catechesis, but of a broad catechesis that includes more than just Bible study. In that post, Dr. Kretzmann and the Walther League strongly encouraged complementary catechesis in areas of Church History, of Christian Missions, of Distinctive Lutheran Doctrines, Customs and Usages of the Lutheran Church, of Church Art, of Science, and of Literature. And within the category of Church Art was included the very important topic of Liturgics.

In fact, the catechesis of the Lutheran Worshiper was the topic of another recent post on Intrepid Lutherans, The Catechesis of the Lutheran Worshiper: An antidote to the “itching ears” and “happy feat” of CGM enthusiasts?. In that post we drew the distinction between those who favor so-called “contemporary worship,” as those who Congregate before Entertainers, with those who retain a wholesome catholicty and still embrace the distinctive practices of historic Lutheran liturgy, as those who Congregate before the Means of Grace.

But what is such “wholesome catholicty”? What is the “distinctive practice of historic Lutheran liturgy”? Do American Lutherans of the 21^st Century even have such a thing? If so, is it at all in general use? Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but one thing is for sure: they certainly had such in the 19^th and 20^th Centuries, AND they had catechetical materials to go along with it for the purpose of teaching successive generations about Lutheran worship.

Lutherans of these bygone times highly valued the wholesome catholicty of their historic Lutheran worship practices, that served to starkly contrast them with the American sects which surrounded them — which had in many cases been given over to the evangelical revivalism of Charles Finney, and to practices emanating from the Holiness movements within American Methodism (as discussed in our recent post, The Church Growth Movement: A brief synopsis of its history and influences in American Christianity). Even in confessional Lutheran churches in America, the allure of the Anxious Bench became increasingly difficult to resist, and Methodist hymnals were, distressingly, in growing demand (as Dr. C.F.W. Walther laments, in our post, C.F.W. Walther: Filching from sectarian worship resources equals “soul murder”). It was within this environment that the confessional and liturgical movements of the 19^th Century grew, and worked toward the establishment of confessional unity among Lutherans in America, and to distinguish and insulate American Lutheranism from the poison of sectarian influences.

In 1908, the General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America published an Explanation of the Common Service – a harmony of sixteenth century Lutheran liturgies published in 1888, in the English language. This is the same Common Service found in The Lutheran Hymnal, which was published by the Synodical Conference in 1941, and which is still used in many Lutheran congregations even today. It is my understanding that, in many circles, this liturgy of the Divine Service is still referred to as a benchmark of liturgical excellence. Indeed, in our recent post, Lutheranism and the Fine Arts..., Dr. Kretzmann refers to the Common Service as “unsurpassed in the entire history of the Christian Church.” Sadly, however, though many Lutherans still use it, most Lutherans, and nearly all young Lutherans, are completely ignorant of this fine and beautiful liturgy, having never had the privilege of being consistently guided through worship under the rubrics of this Common Service.

Interestingly, the Explanation published in 1908 by the General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, was dedicated to this very group of people, to the “Young Lutherans who ask the meaning of the beautiful liturgy of the Lutheran Church.” As you read this Explanation, notice its use of language. Consider the fine education and catechesis “Young Lutherans” must have enjoyed a century ago, which was deliberately reinforced by the church in books such as this. Do Lutheran publishing houses have such respect and concern for the youth of today? Certainly, they target young people with a great deal of material, so concern unquestionably exists — but does the quality of these materials generally rise to this level? Does it specifically advocate and reinforce Confessional practice? Does it refer to the liturgy as something “beautiful” and as something to be valued? I don't believe I've seen this sort of thing coming from the main Lutheran publishers.

Therefore, in the interest of those who would otherwise never have the opportunity to know, the following Explanation of the Common Service is offered. It explains Lutheran worship according to what has been considered the definitive Lutheran liturgy yet produced – a liturgy which is nevertheless disappearing under the short-sighted tyranny of “contemporary relevance,” and an explanation whose need has long been disregarded as counterproductive to progress and to the future of Evangelical church practice.

Note: the reader may recognize this Explanation as having appeared on Intrepid Lutherans in the past. In fact, it was published as a series in the Summer of 2010, as follows: Intrepid Lutherans: Explanation of the Common Service — Part 1 Intrepid Lutherans: Explanation of the Common Service — Part 2 Intrepid Lutherans: Explanation of the Common Service — Part 3 Intrepid Lutherans: Explanation of the Common Service — Part 4 It is offered, below, in a single unbroken post. Note also that this explanation, though long out of print, is now available in book form from Emmanuel Press, one of the fine confessional Lutheran publishers listed in the right-hand column of this blog.

---

The Catechesis of the Lutheran Worshiper: An antidote to the “itching ears” and “happy feat” of CGM enthusiasts?

As has been mentioned on Intrepid Lutherans many times, the problems of the Church Growth Movement (CGM) are not recently identified, nor has public discussion of them among WELS Lutherans begun only since the time Intrepid Lutherans first started publishing, in May 2010, when we “burst onto the scene” with the shocking declaration:

Many of us see our common enemy, the devil, threatening our unity as a synod, mainly through the backdoor of our practice. We sing and preach about unity, but it is becoming increasingly clear that there lurks among us a spirit of disunity. It is certainly not everywhere; but it is there. Let us acknowledge where the devil is mounting his assault so that, by God’s power and might, we may defeat him: worship practices that are inconsistent with confessional Lutheran theology; Church Growth theology and methodology; paying lip service to the Means of Grace while mimicking the practices of the churches that deny the efficacy of the Means of Grace; forfeiting our confessional Lutheran identity, either by neglect or by choice.

And hasn’t this ubiquitous “spirit of disunity” been amply demonstrated over the past two-and-three-quarter-years? We continued in that first post:

Many would like to simply agree to disagree on these matters rather than disturb the Church over them. That would be understandable if the issues revolved around personal preference. But the issues are theological, not personal. True spiritual unity is not preserved by ignoring theology. What we are advocating is an open theological discussion with solid theological conclusions. If we are misunderstanding one another, let us make things clear. If arguments have been built upon logical fallacies, let them be exposed. If any have strayed from confessional Lutheran doctrine or practice, let them take note and return. For our part, we have made a small beginning at such a discussion by creating this blog where we will be posting articles that promote and encourage confessional Lutheranism... Contribute what you can to the discussion... What we ask you not to do, dear brother, is absent yourself from the discussion as if there were nothing to discuss, as if it didn’t apply to you, as if you could close your eyes and shut your ears and pretend you have no responsibility to defend the synod you call your home from the devil’s divisive schemes. This is only a beginning, a first step (not to imply that we are the first or the best to speak about these issues). What we seek is unity – true confessional Lutheran unity within the WELS, a goal that only the Holy Spirit can bring about.

One of the predecessor forums to Intrepid Lutherans, run by WELS members, which treated of issues in WELS, was aptly named “Issues in WELS.” Now defunct, many laymen discovered through this organization that WELS wasn’t the paradise they were led to believe it was – not that they were especially successful at broadcasting their existence and distributing their materials; but a simple Google search with the words “issue” and “Lutheran” seemed to do the trick for many WELS Lutherans. For others, they either already knew, or figured out for themselves that something was amiss. Most, it would seem, are still oblivious – for better or worse. Another forum, run by WELS members, which also treated of issues in WELS, was the blog Bailing Water. Now relatively dormant, the blog owner continues to maintain it as a Confessional and historical resource. The reader, if he is unfamiliar with it, is encouraged to peruse that “resource,” to get an idea of the nature of discussion up to the time Bailing Water wound down its active life. In many ways, the nature of discussion on Intrepid Lutherans is made dramatically different by the requirement that commenters post under their real names. Thus, in commenting on Intrepid Lutherans, one puts his good name and reputation on the line, not only for his peers to evaluate, but their posterity. One result has been that commenters seem to more carefully measure their words when they post. Another has been that many simply will not allow their opinions, concerns or positions on certain matters to become publicly known.

“Contemporary” Worshipers Congregate before Entertainers or shall we more charitably say, “congregate before other worshipers.”

(top) Lakewood Megachuch, Houston, TX (bottom) Hillsong Megachurch, Sydney, AU

Regardless, many good and interesting discussions were had on Bailing Water, especially with respect to CGM, one of which is the subject of our post. A commenter in the Bailing Water post, Anything that isn’t unbiblical is fair game, makes some interesting points, though arguing that only the text matters in identifying hymns and liturgy as Lutheran or not, and ultimately expecting the act of worship itself to merit blessings from God:

Here’s another aspect of the discussion that I rarely see raised. When people talk about how contemporary services are more “engaging” than liturgical ones, I would argue that the problem is not the liturgy, but the liturgy done poorly. I have been in many WELS churches where the pastor mumbles through it as though what were going on were NOT special... was NOT opening the gates of heaven. I’ve been in churches where the Gloria, a joyful hymn given to us by the angels, was sung at the tempo of a funeral dirge.

To say that because the Western Rite shares the Word of God, then whether or not it is done well makes no difference, is to overstate the Scripture. Yes, the Word is how the Spirit works. But if I am a pastor (or a congregation) and my efforts to use the Word are so half-hearted, then I’m not sure why I would expect the Spirit to bless my efforts. To state it more succinctly, if the Western Rite is done badly, when it could be done well, why WOULD God bless it? The pastor and congregation’s half-hearted worship means they are luke-warm towards the Gospel that worship proclaims. Therefore, while confessional, their worship is an affront to him, as Jesus’ words to to the church at Laodicea makes clear.

Therefore, I’d like to see more WELS congregations doing what I know some are - looking at how they utilize the Western Rite. Where does the chant from TLH come from? It’s like 18th century Scotland? I honestly don’t know. But I can’t imagine that 18th century Scotland was a bastion of confessional Lutheranism. Therefore, let’s not be too emotionally attached to the chant. Perhaps there’s a better musical vehicle in which to couch the Gloria, Agnus Dei, Sanctus, etc. That’s VERY Lutheran - keeping the text, but updating the melody - as the vast number of hymns in the “Hymns of the Liturgy” section demonstrate.

To sum up, what I’d like to see is the Gloria sung in all our churches, but a version which might be a better vehicle than page 15 of TLH or page 16 in CW. Same with all five canticles of the Western Rite. I’d like to see them done in a style that - yes - enthuses people. No, I am not an enthusiast. I’m a musician, who finds bad, tired singing a stumbling block when trying to worship.

Maybe, if the Western Rite were done well, there wouldn’t be such a rush to contemporary services.

Another commenter responded, addressing the “way” worship is done, and whether it impacts anything. Not for a moment admitting that the “act of worship merits blessing from God” the way that the first commenter did, he did identify how careless, or even deliberate mediocrity distracts worshipers from the centrality of Christ in the congregation’s worship, just as much as “worship ministers” and other stage entertainers distract worshipers from the True Object of their worship, who serve to fixate the attention of worshipers first on themselves:

You state on 1/16, “I would argue that the problem is not the liturgy, but the liturgy done poorly. ...Maybe, if the Western Rite were done well, there wouldn’t be such a rush to contemporary services.”

Speaking purely in human terms, I agree that there seems to be a superabundance of, well, mediocrity in our worship. I see it when I travel, and it distresses me, as well. However, having spent nearly thirty years as a pop-church Evangelical and about three years as a praise-band guitarist, I can tell you for a fact that Contemporary Worship is no panacea – they struggle with the same problem. And what is that problem? Our own sin and weakness of faith.

Many Lutheran congregations in the 70's and 80's left behind their catholic and confessional heritage, thinking that the “more engaging” music and worship forms of the sectarians would better serve the interests of faith, by removing the “stumbling block” of forms that “fail to enthuse” (as you seem to put it). A disturbing percentage of these congregations (by my estimation) eventually left behind the Lutheran Confession entirely, failing to cure their sin and faith problems with the sectarian worship forms they imported from the heterodox, but having been taught by these forms, and the passions they engender, to trust their own acts of worship as Means through which with Holy Spirit works to strengthen faith. This is lex orandi, lex credendi in action. Under the guidance of then popular Lutheran leaders, like Rev. Larry Christiansen (a household name as I was growing up), the teaching of the Means of Grace was mutilated, most notably forcing a distinction between water Baptism and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, in order to justify Worship as a Means of Grace, or specifically, a Means through which the Holy Spirit works to strengthen faith. I know the process...



Lutheran Worshipers Congregate before the Means of Grace

(top) St. Matthew Ev. Lutheran Church (ELCA), Wauwatosa, WI (bottom) Grace Ev. Lutheran Church (ELCC), Oakville, ON

So, what is the solution to sin? You know it – faith in Christ, and His completed work on behalf of all sinners. What is the solution to weakness of faith? You know that, too – the Holy Spirit, and his work through the true Means of Grace. Sectarian worship forms that take the focus off of Christ and shift it to the man in the pew, that exchange our catholic and christocentric forms for unavoidably anthropocentric forms, are nothing other than forms of robbery in which the Thief delights. Christ is diminished and one of man’s three great opponents rushes into the void – the lusts of his own flesh. Sectarian worship forms that themselves beguile the worshiper over time into a pursuit of pleasure, that by repeated experience displaces the true Means and supplants them with a counterfeit, are themselves forms of deceit spawned by the Father of Lies calculated to defraud us of our faith. Indeed, the Devil prowls about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. We must be vigilant. Contemporary Worship is no friend of the Church. Although it may seem to for a time (and this is the danger of applying visible measures, like statistical trends, as measures of faith), it does not strengthen faith. Instead, it excites human passions in ways that mimic the fruits of faith, while in fact starving faith until nothing is left but striving works.

So, assuming that proper Gospel motivation is behind a desire to pursue excellence in worship, rather than remain content with mediocrity, are there practical things that a congregation can do to “do the liturgy and traditional hymnody richly” rather than “poorly?” I think that there are.

Instrumentation
Whenever instrumentation in the Divine Service draws attention to itself, it distracts the worshiper from his confession and from focus on Christ. Worship accompaniment is nothing other than a companion to the worship of Christians in the assembly. It melts in with the voices of the congregation, and serves only to assist in guiding the melody – much like the individual two pews over who sings a little louder than everyone else. Worship accompanists are nothing other than co-worshipers. That is what makes the organ so perfect as a worship instrument. Despite its kingly size and wide range, it is almost invisible to the worshiper – it fills the chamber so completely that it has no location, and coexists in unity with the single voice of the congregation. Rock 'n Roll “praise bands,” with their stage antics and entertainment presence, by their nature draw attention to themselves. Likewise do self-absorbed vocalists (men or women designated as so-called “Worship Ministers”), who launch into their own impromptu monologues and prayers in Representational capacity during the worship they are designated to “lead” (and, yes, I know for a fact that this happens in WELS congregations – I’ve seen it on St. Mark Depere’s website, and my own Pastor has indicated to me how upset he has been with a local WELS congregation which has embraced Contemporary Worship, where he has witnessed one of the female “worship ministers” preach her own exhortational mini-sermon, in front of the congregation, during the course of worship!). As distracting as this is, a poorly maintained organ, wheezing, anemic, and out of tune, is offensive to the ears. A poorly trained organist is worse. They draw attention to themselves and away from focus on Christ for negative reasons, and create aversion for the Divine Service itself. Organs, as a simple matter of stewardship, need to be maintained, and ought to be replaced when their service life is ended. Organists ought to be encouraged to continue their training, and I would think that continuing lessons ought to gladly be sponsored by the congregation.

Pastor’s Role as Liturgist
Pastors, one would think, would be so full of faith that, in their role as liturgists, they couldn’t fail to make obvious the significance of their Representation, and of the congregation’s corporate confession, through appropriate presence and tonal inflection. Sadly, I’ve heard far too many drones to make this assumption, [and worse, I’ve heard far to many clumsy lovers romance their congregations from the pulpit, “mouthing their verse and moaning their tragedy” – DL]. Pastors ought to make it a practice to examine how they express themselves in public, and make conscious effort to complement their words with congruent inflection, and to speak with the authority one would expect of a man who stands by the command and in the stead of Jesus Christ.

Catechesis of the Worshiper


Church Architecture Among the chiefest of Liturgical Devices

(top) A 19th Century color plate showing the “city scape” of Strasbourg, France. On the left is the Cathédrale Notre-Dame-de-Strasbourg, on the right, is Église Saint-Thomas (at that time referred to as “the Lutheran Cathedral,” as by then the Cathédrale, which lies to the northeast of Église Saint-Thomas, had returned to the control of the Roman Catholics.) Prior to the 20th Century, Christian church buildings were the most prominent man-made feature of European and American city-scapes and country-sides. Much more than four walls and a roof, these liturgical devices are full of meaning in their appearance, preaching Law and Gospel by their mere presence just as much as the liturgy itself – and broadcasting that message to everyone within view of them. (bottom) Considered one the of the most beautiful churches in Latvia, Velēna Ev.Lutheran Church is, at 115 years of age, a very young neo-gothic structure. It is pictured above in a photo by Gatis Pāvils linked from his website, Ambermarks.com

Again, assuming that worshipers are genuinely looking to their faith, and, motivated by the Gospel, genuinely aspire to excellence as they offer praise, thanks, and adoration before God, are there practical measures that a congregation can take to assist them to this end as they seek to do so within the context of the Western Rite and traditional hymnody and instrumentation? Yes, I think so. And I think the answer is catechesis.

I mentioned in a previous entry, above, that worshipers ought to be taught to think the words they recite and sing, to take ownership of those words as their own thoughts, and give them their due expression. They need to come to understand the gravity of the words they use, and the reason they are recited together with others.

Worshipers also need to be taught the meaning of what they are doing, and what the pastor is doing, as they are carried together by the liturgy through the Divine Service. Which parts of the service are Sacramental? Which parts are Sacrificial? When do the Sacramental and Sacrificial parts of the service take place, and where do they take place? When and how is the Pastor acting Representationally, and who is he representing at various points in the service? When is the Pastor to be absent from the Chancel and why?

Worshipers need to be taught the meaning of what they see. The appointments in the Nave and Chancel are liturgical devices, which communicate in the symbolical language of ecclesiastical art. For those blessed with stained glass, these works of art often speak for themselves. But what of altars, triptychs, lecterns and pulpits, fonts, vestments in their variety, paraments, crosses and crucifixes, candelabras, and various vessels of the Eucharist? What do they mean and why are they placed where they are? Why is the pulpit and lectern positioned off to the side? Baptist and Evangelical churches have a single “lectern/pulpit” mounted in the center. Baptist churches generally don’t have an altar. Why the difference? The language of these symbols needs to be taught if they are to be used beneficially.

Of course, the most prominent of liturgical devices is the architecture of the church building itself! The neo-gothic architecture is the product of centuries of experimentation, to perfect the functioning of the building with respect the Western Rite. Why is there a bell tower? Why is there a cross mounted on top? Baptist churches don’t have crosses, they have spires. Why the difference? Why is the Nave and the Chancel separated? Why are the Sacristies located where they are? Why is the organ and choir located in the rear? Baptist and Reformed churches have the organ and choir mounted in the front? Why the difference? (Related to these questions, unfortunately, is the painful topic of the utter tragedy of contemporary church architecture...).

The answer to all of these questions is, doctrine – which emphasizes the importance of teaching pure doctrine through our practice (lex orandi, lex credendi). [Indeed, Professor John Schaller himself notoriously emphasized the need to emphasize doctrine in relation to what Lutherans uniquely DO, especially compared to what sectarians DO! – DL]. One of the best books I have ever read on these topics is an old book, by Dr. P.E. Kretzmann, Christian Art, In the Place and in the Form of Lutheran Worship. In addition to these questions, it also covers the history of the liturgy, hymnology, heartology, and the content of Lutheran liturgy. Published in 1921, it is also available used, and via "print on demand" from CPH...

The final point of the second commenter, above, the point titled Catechesis of the Worshiper is vitally important in my opinion, and probably one of the most conspicuously neglected aspects of Lutheran liturgical life. And it was this point which was very ably addressed by Rev. Michael Berg (WELS), at our 2012 Conference of Intrepid Lutherans, Church and Continuity. He not only lectured on the Western Rite itself, and the relevance of historical practice with respect to it, he also walked through the catechetical materials he wrote and uses in his congregation – some of the finest materials I think I’ve encountered. It is with his presentation that I leave the reader, and urge our pastors to consider. I’m sure that Rev. Berg could be contacted, and would be willing to share his materials.


Conference of Intrepid Lutherans: Church and Continuity ~ June 1-2, 2012
Bethlehem Lutheran Church ~ Oshkosh, WI
The Beauty of the Western Rite, Part 1
The Beauty of the Western Rite, Part 2
by Rev. Michael Berg (WELS)

Church and Continuity Conference Review: The Beauty of the Western Rite – by Rev. Michael Berg

The third presentation on Saturday was given by Rev. Michael Berg: “The Beauty of the Western Rite, Part 1.” More than a simple explanation of the parts of the historic Divine Service, the first section of Rev. Berg’s paper explores the sacramental nature of Lutheran worship and how various worship forms are a response to the fundamental question, “Who is present?” in worship. Like Rev. Boehringer, Rev. Berg also emphasizes the bound will of man, the theology of the cross and Christian vocation, and suggests that an evangelical and catholic Lutheranism that remains true to its theology holds out exactly what a postmodern world needs.

In "The Beauty of the Western Rite, Part 2," Rev. Berg tells a short story called, "Any Given Sunday," in which he illustrates in a very down-to-earth way how the Divine Service confronts real-life sinners in the midst of their troubles, struggles, joys and sorrows and brings the Word of God to them right where they need it.  This section also includes an explanation of the benefits of offering Holy Communion every Sunday.


Conference of Intrepid Lutherans: Church and Continuity ~ June 1-2, 2012
Bethlehem Lutheran Church ~ Oshkosh, WI
The Beauty of the Western Rite, Part 1
The Beauty of the Western Rite, Part 2
by Rev. Michael Berg.

"The Western Rite" - Deutschlander - Part 10

(This is the final installment from Prof. Em. Daniel M. Deutschlander’s essay, “The Western Rite: Its Development and Rich History and Its Relevance for Our Worship Life Today.”)

THE THANKSGIVING

What is there left now but to give thanks? We sing the Nunc Dimittis, following the usage of some of the earliest Reformation liturgies — though not Luther’s Deutsche Messe. It is a most fitting thanksgiving, uniting as it does the Incarnation with our Lord’s gift of himself for us and our joyful acknowledgement that we have received him and his peace. The Post Communion liturgy again is very brief and to the point. There is just this one hymn of thanksgiving, as there was hymn at the close of the first communion service in the Upper Room and then a brief prayer. The first of the post-Communion prayers in our hymnal was written by Luther, or is, at least, his re-working of an older prayer.

Our Liturgy omits the closing Salutation and the Benedicamus and goes straight to the Benediction. Personally I would have preferred keeping the two preparation lines before the Benediction. But, be that as it may, the important thing to keep in mind here is that the Benediction is not just a churchy Goodbye! Y’all have a nice day! No, it is the one blessing that God commanded in the Bible (Numbers 6:22-27). The pastor in his final priestly act raises his hands and communicates from the God who sent him the blessing that the whole service has intended to give to his people. How does it work, that this simple act blesses people, makes a difference? I don’t know the answer to that any more than I can fathom how God’s gospel otherwise blesses us. Again, I know the what; the how is God’s concern. And so we close as we began, with a threefold blessing, with the Trinity. And so we close as we began, with the sign of the cross by which every blessing is ours. And so we close as we began, with knees trembling just a bit at the awesome work which the Lord our God has entrusted to us and which he now has brought to conclusion. Was kann man ja weiter sagen: Gott sei Lob und Dank in aller Ewigkeit für seine unaussprechliche Gnade! — und dass solch ein Werk mir, einem armen Sünder, von Gott anvertraut ist!

CONCLUSION

How could anyone think of this worship as boring or tedious or irrelevant? If people find it thus, perhaps that’s in part the pastor’s own fault when he offers the Liturgy as though he found it boring and tedious. Perhaps it is our fault in general that we so rarely explain its beauty and its historic function in the preservation of orthodoxy over the centuries. After all, in the darkest days of the Arian heresy, to mention but one example, it was the Christo-centric hymns and liturgy that proclaimed the gospel and kept faith alive. To this very day in many a liturgical church where heresy and rank unbelief rule in the pulpit, it is the Western Rite alone that still proclaims law and gospel. To get people used to a new form of worship every ten minutes or so is to make it all the easier for some Ketzer to introduce new doctrines with ever new and changing forms.

Is the Liturgy of the Western Rite written in stone or divinely inspired? Obviously not; it has undergone change throughout its history. Is it a foregone conclusion that anyone who tampers with the Western Rite is a heretic or at least the way-preparer for a heretic? No, that too is not inevitable.

Aber doch ... The changes that we make in forms of worship should reflect fidelity to the purposes of worship mentioned at the beginning of this paper. Changes should be chaste and slow. Changes should be more than the whims of the moment and the preferences of the individual. And certainly changes should not be designed to pander to the popular lust for diversion and entertainment. Let me say it one more time: Wir besuchen den Gottesdienst. We visit God in his house at his invitation to receive the banquet he has prepared for us there. We behold his glory in the lowliness of the font, of the table, of the Tabernaculum of his Word in the pulpit. Whatever we do then, let it be done with that in mind, and we will probably not go far wrong. Yes, and we probably will not go all that far away from the Liturgy of the Western Rite either. Permit me to close with the ancient prayer that I use at the close of every liturgy, whether celebrated at church or at home:

Adoramus Te, Christe, et benedicimus Tibi,
quia per sanctam crucem Tuam redemisti mundum et me.
Adoramus Te, Christe, et benedicimus Tibi! Amen.

D. Deutschlander
The Feast of the Annunciation
March 25, 2008

"The Western Rite" - Deutschlander - Part 9

(from Prof. Em. Daniel M. Deutschlander’s essay, “The Western Rite: Its Development and Rich History and Its Relevance for Our Worship Life Today.”)

THE SACRAMENT

No section of the liturgy has undergone more tinkering and tampering than this section. Our hymnal’s presentation of the Sacrament appears to climb mountains of controversy in order to get to the essentials clean and pure. It concentrates, as do a number of Lutheran liturgies going back to the Reformation and before, on the basics of what God is doing in the Sacrament. It lets God speak and God act with as little interference from his minister as possible.

And so this most ancient section of the Liturgy begins with that customary greeting in the Preface which signals that something awesome is about to take place. For the miracle about to happen we ask God’s blessing on all present, pastor and congregation. The special nature of this miracle is that God through the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament will make personal what up until now has been general and universal. That’s the special role of the sacraments. Now especially the one hiding behind the pillar in the temple and still smiting his breast in despair because of his guilt should come out from behind the pillar and look into the face of God with rejoicing. If he had to struggle with unbelief when God through the pastor spoke a general absolution, perhaps the miracle of Christ’s presence will win him. For if Jesus feeds us with himself, with the very price of our salvation, then when God looks at us, he sees — Jesus! How can God then still be angry? The Sacrament is a banquet of forgiveness and salvation, yes, even for the one who struggled to believe the Word of Absolution, and who, even if just for the moment, lost in that dread battle.

Lift up your hearts! We lift them up to the Lord. Yes, we should indeed lift up our hearts to the Lord. That is such a full and beautiful expression. We lift up the heart in confession; let God see it, every bit of it, all that no one else will ever see or know. We lift it up in joyful expectation and adoration before the mystery that so soon Jesus will come to us with the very price of our salvation. Having no gold or goods on the night in which he was betrayed, he nevertheless wrote a will. In it he left us a bequest: Himself! And how much is packed into that! He gives himself to us as individuals, but in fellowship with and not apart from one another, in the fellowship of the church.

Then we sing one of those wonderful biblical expressions of understatement: Let us give thanks to the Lord. It is good and right so to do! The Sacrament is called the Eucharist from this line of the liturgy.

The Proper Preface follows and then the exultant Sanctus. The Sanctus is one of those great masterpieces of solemn simplicity. Heaven and earth are joined as we intone the chant of the angels in Isaiah 6. The Old and New Testament are joined as we pass from the song of the angels to the Old Testament hymn sung by the disciples on Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem. It is the song of the church in this place and of the church for over a thousand years, biding welcome to him who comes to us so completely in his Sacrament.

The Words of Institution follow. This is the part that, oddly enough, gets most argued about. Luther took a meat cleaver to the formula of the Mass that, upon close examination, exalts not Christ but the priest and the pope who sent him. For all the church in heaven and earth joins, as already noted, to pray that the priest’s sacrifice may be acceptable. After Luther’s meat cleaver hacked away all of that abomination, others sought to expand the Words of Institution with an assortment of prayers that were often more didactic than prayerful or that emphasize our sacrifice of thanksgiving more than Christ’s gift to us in the Sacrament. Luther wanted God’s Word to say it all. Personally, I’m satisfied with that. Given that people these days have the attention span of gerbil, some might want to argue that a little more should be said by way of the real nature and blessing of the Sacrament. And it is certainly true that also in our circles there are a lot of silly notions that persist: Dear, should we go to Communion this Sunday? Ans.: I don’t know. Did we go last time? That all-too-common approach betrays the notion that in the Sacrament we are obeying a law or doing God some sort of favor. That our people need to be reminded more than just in Confirmation Class or on Maundy Thursday of the nature and blessing of the Sacrament cannot be argued. Whether the sacramental liturgy is the best time to do that reminding or not is worth thinking about. But if one decided to do it there, he will do it best if he is very brief and to the point. Again, Luther’s emphasis here is worth remembering: It’s not about you; it’s about him and his gift of himself for you.

The Pax follows the Words of Institution. Luther often praised this little sentence in the Liturgy (though he did not include this line in the Deutsche Messe). Like all of the other blessings of the Liturgy, this too is an application of the doctrine of the means of grace. For the Pax gives what it says, and it is thus the best preparation for the reception of the Sacrament. It emphasizes the fruit of absolution and the blessing about to be imparted in yet another wondrous way in the Sacrament. The Amen of God’s people declares their faith in what is offered in absolution, in the Pax itself, and in the Sacrament about to be received. Jesus spoke of this Pax, this peace, so fulsomely just before he went to gain it for us (John 14:25-27) and it was the first blessing that he gave his disciples when he came to them after his Resurrection (John 20:19-21) — and he said it twice in less than a minute. Could he have been more in earnest or emphatic in the way that he gave this gift of peace?

The Words of Institution follow. In them we set aside earthly elements for a sacred use. The Verba do not change the elements. There is no magic involved in their recitation. Arguments about the moment of the Sacrament, frankly, have always seemed a little silly to me: The Sacrament is whole cloth; no Word of God, no Sacrament; no use, i.e. reception, no Sacrament either. The rule still applies: Extra usum, nullum sacramentum! I’ve always thought it interesting that the very order of Christ’s words suggests that. He doesn’t say: This is my body; take eat. He says: Take eat; this is my body. In it all it’s the what that matters, not the when. Arguments about when tend not only to distract from the what; they tend to shift the emphasis away from Christ and his gift on to the pastor and his acts — the opposite of the intent of the Lutheran reform of the communion liturgy.

Then comes the beautiful Agnus Dei, an addition to the communion liturgy from about the year 700. It again gets our priorities right. All that we need comes from the Lamb who was slain. All that we claim is his mercy, not our merit, our excuses, our good intentions. And now we are about to receive the evidence of his mercy and the peace which is its fruit in the banquet spread before us. And that’s what the Sacrament is all about: His giving what he won on the cross, our receiving thereby all that he is and all that he has.

"The Western Rite" - Deutschlander - Part 8

(from Prof. Em. Daniel M. Deutschlander’s essay, “The Western Rite: Its Development and Rich History and Its Relevance for Our Worship Life Today.”)

THE OFFERTORY, OFFERING AND PRAYER OF THE CHURCH

Most I suppose think of the Offertory as a response of the congregation to the sermon. Actually and historically this whole next part of the service is really a preparation for the Communion Liturgy. But I see no crime if we think of it as pointing in both directions at the same time.

If we think of the Offertory as a response to the sermon, then it is the prayer of the faithful that after they have been washed with the gospel, they may have cleansed hearts to live what they have heard. If we think of it as pointing ahead, then it is a renewed and solemn prayer to God that he may give us proper and pure attention and devotion to the next miracle that he is about to perform in our presence and for our growth in grace.

In the ancient church, up until about the end of the Middle Ages, the Offering was done in procession by the faithful to the altar. There they would lay their gifts which were to be used for the support of the church and especially for the poor, for orphans and widows. From those gifts would be taken the bread and the wine which would be used in the Sacrament.

The prayers that follow the Offering reflect the unity of God and his people and the unity of his people with one another. We were passive suppliants at Confession. But now we have been cleansed. We have been renewed. We have been fed and strengthened by the Word. And so we respond with thanks to our Host in the offerings that we bring for the benefit of the church and for those in need. It’s the liturgical equivalent of a guest bringing some small token of appreciation when invited to dine at the home of another. We join to those offerings our prayers for the church and the state and all sorts and conditions of men. In those prayers we again have another reality check: All that is good comes from God, and it comes from him so that we may give it back to him again in our hearing, in our devotion, in our prayers, in our lives with one another. I’ve always especially liked the way that the prophet Joel puts it when he prays for deliverance from pestilence and famine; he doesn’t ask for rescue so that he and his people will again have enough to eat and be saved from starvation. No; rather he prays that God will restore the harvest so that they will have something to bring to the Temple, something to give back to him (Joel 2:14).

It is this section of the Liturgy that underwent the most dramatic reformation during the Reformation. In the Roman liturgy the prayers are chuck full of so much false doctrine that this part of the liturgy all by itself make the Roman Mass what our Confessions call it: an abomination. For here the priest calls on the people and all the saints to pray for him that the sacrifice that the priest is about to make may be acceptable to God in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead. Can you even count how many abominable heresies there are there? During the Lutheran Reformation the General Prayer which had existed in a rudimentary form generations earlier was reintroduced. Initially it appears as a series of petitions or litanies based on the petitions of the Lord’s Prayer. Later the Lord’s Prayer became the conclusion of the General Prayer and the intercessory prayers. These prayers were more and more clearly separated from the Liturgy of the Sacrament. It is that separation which makes us think of these prayers as a response to the Word proclaimed rather than a preparation for the Sacrament. We used to have more of a connection between these prayers and the Sacrament when the last of them began with the invitation: Let us pray for our Communicants.

The prayers here offered are not supposed to be a rerun of the sermon, just in case people didn’t get it the first time. While its opening lines may well reflect the theme of the day and of the sermon itself, the prayers then move on as expressions of our Christian love and concern for our lives in the church and in the world. They go from the universal to the particular, from the world and the church at large to the parochial and the individual needs of brothers and sisters in Christ. They are prayers in which the pastor and the congregation are united with Christ in prayer; for they all end with an invoking of his name as the reason why we dare to pray and expect to be heard. In the Old Testament the high priest spoke to God wearing a breastplate with stones that bore the names of the children of Israel. With no breastplate visible we nevertheless approach with the names and cares of our people inscribed on our hearts. Christ ornaments our prayers with his blood and adds to them his merit; he carries them behind the veil into the heart of the Father in the heavenly temple not made with hands. It is a holy time indeed!

Our hymnal has placed the Lord’s Prayer at the end of the general and intercessory prayers. Formerly it was part of the Communion Liturgy. The move to my mind is a good one. The Lord’s Prayer is such a perfect summation of all that we have to say to God. We pray it with total confidence that it is a prayer pleasing to him, since his Son has taught us to pray it. It presents us with yet another reality check: It is a prayer in which we express our complete dependence on God for all good things spiritual and temporal. And who could fail to notice it: Spiritual needs dominate. Other needs are important too and they find their place in the fourth petition. But the most important thing in our life is not health and wealth; it is that God’s name be holy among us. This is the prayer of those who remain children to their dying day and are happy that that is so. Clearly we could spend a day on the prayer and its beauty and still only scratch the surface of all that is in it. Permit me to encourage you to read Luther’s comments on this prayer in his Large Catechism. For the present, allow me just two observations:

1) Notice the arrangement of the petitions. We do not ask for forgiveness until we have asked for every possible spiritual and temporal blessing. Since Jesus has taught us to pray this way, we have every confidence that these petitions are granted generously and in abundance by God in his Word and in his providence. Now then, if God has given us everything that we need for the support of body and soul in the first four petitions, what possible excuse could we have for sin in the future? Absolutely no excuse at all! All our needs have been provided for. Thus fear, doubt, greed and lust should reasonably have no place in our lives. Nevertheless Jesus knows us so well and loves us still. And so he bids us still pray for forgiveness and deliverance from the evil one. He knows that having everything, we will forget, and through our fault, our own fault, our own most grievous fault we will not only sin but at times even run headlong into the arms of the Tempter. What an amazing thing, just the placing of the fifth and sixth petitions!

2) Whether the doxology at the end of the prayer is canonical or not, we will leave for others to argue. To my mind it is a perfect ending to the prayer: So great are the blessings we seek in it, they could be granted only by him who has all power, the whole kingdom, and all of the glory in his keep. And therefore with confidence we lay these petitions at the feet of our Father and confidently say: Amen!

"The Western Rite" - Deutschlander - Part 7

(from Prof. Em. Daniel M. Deutschlander’s essay, “The Western Rite: Its Development and Rich History and Its Relevance for Our Worship Life Today.”)

THE SERMON HYMN AND SERMON

The Confession of Faith is followed by the sermon hymn and the sermon. Again, because these are Propers, we will just make a couple of observations about them. The sermon hymn is such a Lutheran thing: We want to prepare and be prepared for the Word of God that we are about to hear. We want to remember and to remind the pastor before he ever gets into the pulpit that what is coming is not about him but about the One who sent him. How jarring to the senses and offensive to the souls of the faithful if, after a hymn that focuses our attention on Christ, the pastor should mount the pulpit to talk about himself or to imagine that he is there to entertain! The ambassador comes with the message of his masters; the pastor comes from the palace and shrine of the living God – from his Word; he comes with a message from the heart of God for his blood bought children and heirs. For the preacher to imagine that stories from his own life are worthy metaphors for all things sacred and profane is to betray an arrogance unworthy of the servant of the servants of God.

Having sung the hymn we enter the pulpit for the most awesome work that God has given us to do. Now in such a special sense we get to be pastor, i.e. the shepherd of God’s blood bought flock, as we lead his sheep to and through the pure waters and nourishing pastures of his Word. Personally I always found that to be an awesome thing, so awesome that my joy at the opportunity and the honor was mixed with no small amount of dread in the face of my own ignorance and limitations. The pastor needs to hold fast to the promises of God to speak through the mouths of his servants who are faithful to his Word. He needs to cling to the promise so often given that the Word faithfully proclaimed will accomplish God’s good pleasure. Luther was so fixated on that truth that he once remarked that there are many times when the pastor can confess his sins; when he leaves the pulpit should not be one of them. For the work was God’s work and so too will be its fruit.

And so we prepare for the one time in the week when we will have the greatest number of God’s people listening to us. We have before us the simple and the learned, those who listen to God’s Word every day and those who think of it rarely. We have those who have come with aching hearts and those who have become very comfortable with their sins. It is all too awesome; God should have sent angels to do it, or at least someone better than I am. But he didn’t. Through the foolishness of preaching he is pleased to accomplish his good and gracious will. And he chose me to do it here, at this time, in this place. Therefore I bow my head and beg for his mercy while I prepare. On entering the pulpit I bow it again and ask him to bless what he has given me to do and to say. My own prayer in the pulpit since my seminary days has been an ancient sacristy prayer: Veni Creator Spiritus! Pasce pastorem / duc ducem / da daturo / aperi aperturo / emittis spiritum tuum et creabuntur et renovabis faciem terrae.

Just a word about the Apostolic Greeting from Ephesians 1:2 at the beginning of the sermon and Votum from Philippians 4:7 at its conclusion: These beautifully focus attention on Christ and the grace he extends to us in his Word preached and proclaimed. Their use at the beginning and the end of the sermon is something uniquely Lutheran, again with that unique Lutheran focus on the doctrine of the means of grace as the causa efficiens of our salvation. The words themselves are means of grace, not just churchy mood creating salutations; that is, they convey what they say, God’s grace, mercy and peace. And that is what the sermon is intended to do as well. They are a fitting way to begin and end words that are intended to expound in greater detail what the whole of the service seeks to do: Show us that God who calls us to account that he may forgive, who shows us his Son that we may all the more love and trust in him, who gives us his Spirit that we may the more nearly live in him who died and rose again for us and for our salvation.

"The Western Rite" - Deutschlander - Part 6

(from Prof. Em. Daniel M. Deutschlander’s essay, “The Western Rite: Its Development and Rich History and Its Relevance for Our Worship Life Today.”)

THE CREED

In some services the Creed follows the readings for the day and in others it follows the sermon. It doesn’t really matter much whether it comes in the one place or the other. In which ever place we use it the point will remain that the Creed is a reflection again of the doctrine of the means of grace. The Word of God has created the Creed as the response of God’s people to his Word. Its recitation is a delightful and an exciting confession of faith.

Experts argue about whether the Creed is a prayer or a proclamation, whether it is a sacrificial or a sacramental element of the worship service. Why can’t it be both? It is our response to God, a response of faith in his Word, a faith formed and fashioned by that Word. But at the same time with the Creed we say to one another: No, you’re not crazy and you’re not alone! This is what I believe too, and that in union not only with you but with the church universal for the past 2000 years!

Traditionally the Apostles’ Creed is used to remind us of our Baptism. After all, the Apostles’ Creed owes its origins to the baptismal formula. Its use was intended to remind us of what God has done for us in Baptism and our consequent pledges of faithfulness to him and to his Word. While it is a confession of the faith of the universal church, it is an especially personal confession too: The church is not baptized collectively but individuals are baptized one at a time. Hence the pronoun: I is the operative pronoun in this confession of faith. The Apostles’ Creed is most commonly used in services without Communion.

The Nicene Creed is the confession of the church collectively, of the church militant in her battles for the truth and against heresy. Its use in the Liturgy of the Western Church was considered of special importance as a counter to the Arian heresy that for so long persisted in parts of Spain, France and Germany. At the words For us and for our salvation, he came down from heaven ... there was traditionally a pause in the service to give people time to kneel in awe before the great mystery of the Incarnation. At the very least they bowed their heads when reciting the words and he became man. St. Bernard comments that there are three great miracles; the first is that God could and would become man; the second is that he did it in the womb of the Virgin; the third is that we actually believe it. Our use of the Nicene Creed acknowledges all three of these great miracles. When the Liturgy was sung, the pastor sang the first line by himself. I am assuming that that is where the practice comes from that in sung Masses, including Bach’s great B Minor Mass, the singular is used: Credo. We, in keeping with the emphasis on the truth that this is the confession of the church, we use We believe instead of I believe.

Whichever Creed is used, whether the more irenic Apostles’ or the more polemical Nicene, the Creed, too, presents us with a reality check. Not all religions are just subjective opinion, one as good as another, or at least all of them possessing part of the same truth. NO! We are not relativists or existentialists. We confess a faith whose content is absolute truth, saving truth, historical truth. That’s what makes Christianity unique. That’s what makes membership in most lodges and in the Scouts impossible for us - - such memberships would flatly contradict the confession of this faith on Sunday morning. Indeed we so joyfully confess the one, true, catholic and apostolic faith precisely because of what God has given us in his Son and through his saving Word and Sacraments. It would be insulting to him and utter folly for us, and that in the extreme, were we to come to his house, eat his blessings in Word and Sacraments and then not even confess our faith and trust in him. What would people think? Have we just come to a museum, perhaps a musical? No, not that, never that! Our faith matters and so too does our confession of it! Each of the Lutheran Confessions begins with a pledge of loyalty to the historic Creeds. We join in their insistence that we are members of the church universal when share in that pledge of loyalty in response to the Word in the Haupt Gottesdienst.

Luther beautifully expressed his love and appreciation for the Creed, especially in his comments at the conclusion of the Third Article in The Large Catechism. In the interest of “useful brevity” (— a phrase much loved by the Fathers who were about to spend another 10 pages on some point!), permit me to cite some of his last few lines on the subject:

... the Creed brings pure grace and makes us righteous and acceptable to God. Through this knowledge we come to love and delight in all the commandments of God because we see here in the Creed how God gives himself completely to us, with all his gifts and power, to help us keep the Ten Commandments: the Father gives us all creation, Christ all his works, the Holy Spirit all his gifts. (LC, Third Article, par. 69 [Kolb, p. 440]

"The Western Rite" - Deutschlander - Part 5

(from Prof. Em. Daniel M. Deutschlander’s essay, “The Western Rite: Its Development and Rich History and Its Relevance for Our Worship Life Today.”)

THE WORD

Since this section of the Liturgy belongs almost entirely to the Propers, we will be brief. It is perhaps enough to emphasize that the readings for the day are not just warm up exercises for what I am going to say in the pulpit. I remember how annoying it was when one of our vicars regularly stumbled through the reading of the lessons for the day. It seemed that he had not even looked at them before the service. The pastor will certainly remember that the readings are the words of the living God to his people, worthy therefore of careful attention from both the ones who speak them and those who hear them. They express the thought summed up in the Prayer of the Day and they have (or should have) a close connection to the text and content of the sermon. All of the Propers have a common emphasis; they are not grab bags of disconnected thoughts. To the extent that the pastor gives some expression of their coherence, to that extent it will be easier for God’s people to remember both the readings and the sermon. And to that extent there will be less of God’s Word that falls as seed on the path way or in the underbrush of the easily distracted mind, making no impression and bringing forth no fruit.

The practice of multiple readings is as old as Christian worship. It is a continuation of the synagogue practice of readings from the Law and the Prophets. Already in the days of the Apostolic Fathers readings were arranged from the writings of the apostles and from the gospels. Readings from the Old Testament were sometimes added, sometimes not. The Epistle lesson was often thought of as an extension of the work of St. John the Baptist, as preparation for the hearing of the Gospel. Accordingly the reading of the Gospel was surrounded with much ceremony, with candles and incense. We still have the echoes of that ceremony and emphasis when we rise for the reading of the Gospel and attend to it with chants of thanksgiving and praise. Again, it’s not just busy work designed to put people into a listening frame of mind. The readings are God’s descent from his throne on high to the hearts and minds of his people. By his Word he wants to strengthen and cheer, to warn and console, to bind them to himself and then in service to one another.

The responses of Glory be to you, O Lord! and Thanks be to you, O Christ! reflect well the thought that God is the one speaking to us, that Christ is truly and actually present with us in his house and in those readings. How could we not respond thus when we are thus honored by our God and Savior who has again shown himself to us in the might and majesty of his Word for us, his guests? How could we respond other than with praise and thanksgiving that he has done it in the lowliness and humility of words, not in the terrifying thunder and lightening of Sinai?

Some argue about introductions to the readings. Those who dislike the practice of introducing them maintain that anything that the pastor says will be a distraction from the important matter of God’s own speaking. Frankly, I don’t quite follow that argument. Were it valid, then one might just read the sermon text too, and leave it to the Holy Spirit to unfold it for the people of God. Nevertheless the point is well taken, if introductions to the readings become mini sermons. Introductions should be short and to the point; and the point should be to help people see the main point of the reading and how it sets or furthers the theme of the season/day. Sometimes a commentary in the bulletin can be useful in this respect. Given all the space taken up with commercials for this and that in bulletins these days, a short commentary on the theme of the day and a few lines on how each of the readings shows or explains or deepens our appreciation for that theme shouldn’t be considered too much for people to bear. If they can endure a page on the upcoming bowling tournament of the men’s club, another on the impending outing of the Ladies Aid to the candy factory, and yet another on the school’s order sheet for pizza, the proceeds of which will fund new basketballs, a page that sums up the gifts of God in his Word for that day shouldn’t be thought of as a bother.

"The Western Rite" - Deutschlander - Part 4

(from Prof. Em. Daniel M. Deutschlander’s essay, “The Western Rite: Its Development and Rich History and Its Relevance for Our Worship Life Today.”)

THE GLORIA IN EXCELSIS

There follows the call to respond with more than just Amen. If the angels rejoice over one sinner who repents, how can we who are forgiven fail to join in their hymn of praise. Traditionally the pastor intoned the first line of the Gloria in Excelsis, speaking for the angels. Then the people of God joined in with this exuberant cry of praise and thanksgiving for all that God is and for all that he is for us. It used to follow the Kyrie and was seen as a thanksgiving hymn of adoration not only for Absolution but also for God’s expected answer to the Kyrie and the litanies that attended it. In many of the German liturgies, the pastor sang the opening line in Latin and the congregation responded with the rest in German. The Gloria as part of a number of liturgies is so old that no one knows exactly when it first was written. St. Athanasius makes mention of it, and it was in common use in the Western Church by the end of the 5th century. It runs along lines similar to those used in the great Te Deum (whose author is arguably St. Ambrose). The Gloria was usually omitted during Advent and Lent. It was thought to be a bit too exuberant for the Penitential Seasons; either a seasonal hymn or the Benedictus was sung in its place.

What a hymn this Gloria is! Can you count all of the doctrines contained in it? Is it not a wonderful application of that beloved dogmatic principle: Theologia est habitus practicus! In a train that runs on steam of its own it races forward:

God is on high – So high is he that he is separated from all that is created and cannot in way be confused with it. Creation is not part of him nor he of it. He is the totally other.

And on earth peace, good will toward men – But he whom the heaven of heavens cannot contain draws near to us with gifts. His gift is his peace, a peace which comes only in the forgiveness of sin which we have just received. His gift is his own good will for creatures fallen so far that they could not rise from death and hell, nor could they assist in their rising. No, it all has come from Christ; for this is the hymn of the angels announcing his Incarnation to the lowly shepherds and now to us as well. That’s why he has come, to win God’s peace and impart his gracious good will in the accomplishment of our redemption. And the objective justification won by all that he has done has become ours, become subjective, in the proclamation of Absolution.

Therefore we worship and adore. Not to us, never to us, but to you be all glory and praise and thanksgiving. Do you see again a reality check? What is human life apart from the message already heard and that will be heard yet again but vanity, boasting, lies and deceit and all to the praise and glory of man who is but dust and ashes. But here is reality: To him who wins our peace and gives us his good will be all glory and adoration!

The middle section of the Gloria appears to be its oldest part. How completely the hymn is a confession of the doctrine of the Trinity. How altogether Christo-centric it is. How beautifully again it gives us a reality check: All that we seek from God and all that we receive from him comes by virtue of the sacrifice of the Lamb. He is and ever remains Christus pro nobis. He will receive our prayers for all that is needful in this life and the next. For he has taken away our sin and now sits exalted at the right hand of the Father. He has full power. He has complete authority. He has loved us to the end and loves us still. With full voice we worship him in union with the Father who has now become our Father, and the Holy Spirit who makes us holy by his effective presence in the Word.

THE SALUTATION AND THE PRAYER OF THE DAY

Too often the Salutation is treated as a throw-away line that just marks a shift to the next part of the Liturgy. But it really is more than that. The Salutation, to be sure, marks this and other major shifts in the Liturgy. But as well it beautifully acknowledges the union of God’s spokesman and God’s people, a union found in God’s house and formed by his Word. The pastor is about to do something that is awesome. With God’s people he is about to speak to God. That’s not a small thing. He is about to ask God to accomplish his good and gracious will in his people through the Word which God will shortly address to them through the mouth of his pastor. Therefore in anticipation of God’s favorable disposition and answer he says –

The Lord be with you – as I pray for you and you pray with me. Since he has already forgiven us, we can be sure that this greeting is not merely a pious wish or an empty hope. It rests on the assurance that the Word of God is effective, that it is indeed a means of grace.

And God’s people respond: And also with you. For without God’s gracious presence with you, your person and your prayer, dear pastor, will be an abomination, presumptuous, and of no avail. Ah, but God is with you and your spirit as you enter into his holy presence to ask a blessing on his Word which he has already promised to give. And so we give our attention to the brief sentences of the prayer and happily add at its conclusion our Amen. God will not cast us off in our prayer. He will not strike down either us or his pastor for daring to say it.

The Prayer of the Day usually sums up the blessing we seek from God through his Word. (Admittedly the connection is sometimes difficult to see.) It therefore anticipates what is coming in the Word we are about to hear. If we paid better attention to that prayer, it would help us focus more clearly on the coming readings and on the sermon itself during which God will pour forth the blessings sought in the Prayer of the Day.

"The Western Rite" - Deutschlander - Part 3

(from Prof. Em. Daniel M. Deutschlander’s essay, “The Western Rite: Its Development and Rich History and Its Relevance for Our Worship Life Today.”)

CONFESSION - (cont.)

I have spent so great a part of the time allotted me on the Confession because it is so pivotal to everything that follows. The Confession is generally missing altogether in sectarian worship. It is missing because the Arminians deny original sin. It is missing in much of Calvinist worship because, while acknowledging the total depravity of man, the need to lament it is obviated by once saved, always saved, or perhaps by the so-called double predestination which leaves God responsible for the damnation of the lost. But for us Confession is crucial because of the seriousness of sin. It is crucial because of our innate resistance to admitting our own desperate and constant, our total and absolute need of grace. It is crucial because without it there will be no real appreciation of the gospel whose promise lured us into making confession and whose absolution will relieve us of the dread burden born by Christ for us on the cross. If you are not convinced of the pivotal nature of confession, read Romans 7 and Ephesians 2. Find yourself in the Parable of the Prodigal Son, in the prayer of the publican in the Temple. Consider again Luther’s description of our need in his explanation to the Second and Third Articles of the Creed in his Small Catechism, in which he piles up terms that describe us in the totality of our need, so that we may see the more joyfully Christ, the answer to our need, our sin, our despair. Read his Heidelberg Disputations, and then read it a second time — in all likelihood you will not be able to wrap your mind around the weighty points he makes there in one reading. Read Art. I and II of the Formula of Concord. The very first thing that is wrong with much that passes for modern worship is the lack of Confession. To omit Confession is to pander to the Methodist in all of us. To omit Confession is to diminish and trivialize not only Law but ultimately and much more importantly the Gospel. For if I have no need, the solution to my need will seem unimportant. Jesus said the same thing to the Pharisees who objected to the time he spent with sinners: Those who do not know that they are sick have little use or appreciation for the physician (Matt. 9:12-13). In place of both Law and Gospel will come usually a trite presentation of the Third Use of the Law, moralizing, legalism.

While minor liturgies of Matins and Vespers do not contain a formal confession of sins, they do to some extent assume its part in the Haupt Gottesdienst by their opening responses: O Lord, open my lips. And my mouth shall declare your praise. Especially in the second set of responses they proclaim in prayer our desperate need: Hasten to save me, O God. O Lord, come quickly to help me.

Historically this vital part of the Lutheran worship service is of late origin. In the liturgy of the Roman Mass the confession really is supposed to be the priest’s own private prayer before the actual liturgy begins. As the Mass is today and as the Anglican Communion observes the Western Rite, neither have the crucial lines by nature sinful and unclean. For reasons already noted, this entire introduction to the worship service is missing altogether in most, if not in all, sectarian services. But during the Reformation Luther and Melanchthon and even more the second generation of Lutherans had to consider that private confession was no longer mandatory and with the passing of time less and less used — and that in spite of Luther’s frequent and fulsome praise of private absolution.

In German Lutheran worship services the Confession became standard by the end of the 16th century. The Confession was spoken in front of the steps of the altar, and the pastor did not go up to the altar until the Confession and Absolution were completed, in order to emphasize that worship needed cleansed souls as a prerequisite of acceptable worship. So important was the Confession that in many places also in this country there was a special Beicht Gottesdienst either the night before a Communion Service or earlier in the morning before the Haupt Gottesdienst, if that was to be a service with the Sacrament.

In our current hymnal there follows the Kyrie. One can argue about the placing of the Kyrie here as the concluding part of Confession. It has moved around over the centuries. In our former hymnal it was not part of Confession but came after Absolution and marked the formal beginning of the Ordinary. It was not a cry for forgiveness. Rather it was an acknowledgment of our total need of and dependence on God’s mercy and grace for all the sorts and conditions of men, for all of our other spiritual and temporal needs.

Its place in other settings of the Liturgy, however, did consider the Kyrie a cry for pardon. Bach seems to see that as its role in his great B Minor Mass. It fits in either place. My own thinking about it has changed over the years. If one leaves prayers for spiritual and temporal blessings to the end of the service in the muted litanies of the General Prayer, then I suppose it is best to leave the Kyrie where we have it now. When it was after the Absolution in the former hymnal, most people thought it redundant to Confession. We didn’t explain it to them. And besides that, the Kyrie in earlier years was really the congregational response to a longer litany for all the sorts and conditions of church and state, house and field.

Now comes the part of the service where, if the holy angels were capable of envy, they would envy us pastors for what we have drawn God’s people to do and for what we are about to say to them in answer to their confession. But the holy angels are not capable of envy. Instead what a racket they must make of praise to God and loud hallelujahs. For they have been watching. They have been listening with greatest intent and interest. And now, if there is joy in the presence of the angels at one sinner who repents, how great must their joy be at all the people of God assembled in this place pouring out their confession to God and trusting in the merit of his Son for their forgiveness! For now we shall see fulfilled the promise of Jesus that “he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Luke 18:14).

The lines are so clean and clear, so simple. A mere man, yes himself a sinner, hiding under a robe rises to stand in the place of God and to declare with God’s full authority behind him, the cross towering above him, As a called servant of Christ and by his authority, I forgive you all your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. There it is! The whole definition of the holy office of the ministry: The servant of Christ in the midst of the people of God. He has been sent by Christ through those he serves to do this one great thing: To forgive, forgive, forgive the sins of the penitent. In spirit they are on their knees or prostrate before the altar. And now, now with simple words spoken by a sinful man, they are raised up to the heights of heaven. For Christ has won their pardon! See, here I declare it to you, not by virtue of my merit or yours, but by virtue of my office backed up by Christ’s promise and by his all sufficient merit. See, here I proclaim it to you as the one sent from the heart of God to you; I proclaim it in the name of him whose house you are visiting; I proclaim it in the name of him who has become your Savior-brother; I proclaim it in the name of him who breathes the words that I am speaking! The whole of the undivided, eternal, holy Trinity agrees with himself in the matter. Fully, freely, eagerly, willingly he forgives. See, his Word declares it; his cross has won it; and God is not a man that he should lie or his Word deceive!

I’ve often thought that a great sigh of relief goes up from the hearts of many among those confessing; it goes up to the throne of God at those words of Absolution. My own thought and prayer every time I hear those words is: Can it really be so? You have not yet become bored with my confession or disgusted by it and me? Yes, it is true! You have put the words on the lips of your pastor. He said it because you have said it.

So the redeemed people of God respond with Amen! That’s a confession of faith and a prayer at the same time. It is addressed to God who is speaking behind the pastor and through his words. Amen — It is true, O God, what your pastor has said, and I believe it because your Word has the power not only to wash away and wipe out my sin so great and deep; it has even the power to bring me to trust that you do truly forgive, forgive, forgive. And so I say, Amen!

"The Western Rite" - Deutschlander - Part 2

(from Prof. Em. Daniel M. Deutschlander’s essay, “The Western Rite: Its Development and Rich History and Its Relevance for Our Worship Life Today.”)

Let’s see. Now that God has invited us into his house and come down to meet with us, what should we talk about? Would this be a good time to pick a bone with him, to let him know how unhappy we are with the way that he has run the world or treated us? That might be a bit presumptuous. Well then, maybe we could start with a cry for help, for the rescue of our pension fund, for some magic potion that will cure our pain wracked bodies, for a miracle cure to solve the problem of living in a family, for rescue from a tyrannical employer and disagreeable neighbors and co-workers. What should we start with?

And here comes a jolting reality check, something that brings us up short and puts everything back into proper perspective: What we start with is the only thing that really matters in time and in eternity. All things else are important in their place, but they all fade into insignificance until we encounter God on this one all important matter:

CONFESSION

Our sin is the one great thing that matters. Luther said it in the very first of the 95 Theses: When our Lord Jesus Christ says ‘Repent!’ he means that the entire life of the Christian should be one of repentance!

But I don’t want to repent! I certainly don’t want to confess! After all, compared to so many that I know, I’m not really all that bad. And considering the kind of parents I had, the sorts of horrible temptations to which I am subject in the world, the marvel is that I am as good as I am. Where I have gone astray, it either really wasn’t all that bad, or it wasn’t all my fault.

One of the hardest things in all the world to say is, I’m sorry. The only thing harder is to really mean it. The whole of our nature, the opinio legis, resists confession. The world laughs at it and the devil throws every possible obstacle in the way to prevent our repentance and our meaning it when we say the words.

And so what does the Liturgy do? Does it soften the blow and make it easy? Well, yes, in one way it does. For it begins with words of seduction. It lures us. It entices us. Consider carefully each line, each phrase:

Beloved in the Lord: Didn’t you see the cross when you came into his house? The cross tells you both how terrible sin is — your sin especially; but it also and even more importantly declares how eager God is to resolve the problem of your sin, the sin that separates you from him. You are his beloved; you can confess anything to the Lord who knows it all already and better than you do, and who nevertheless calls you his beloved!

Let us draw near to God our Father: No need to hold back, to cower and cringe. He isn’t going to hit you or strike you down. He isn’t going to say: You did what?! And that after all the good I’ve done for you and all the times I’ve forgiven you in the past. No, not that! For he is the God who knew us before we were born, knew us in eternity. And knowing us he has chosen to become our Father. Such a God invites us to come and to come again to his house and deal with the one thing that gets in the way of that relationship.

Let us draw near with a true heart and confess our sins. Before all the world we wear a mask. No one really knows us or perfectly understands us. Nor, truth to tell, do we want anyone to know us perfectly. We all have secrets that we share with no one. We all wonder what people, what our spouse or our children, would think of us if they really knew it all. But before God there is no point in hiding behind a mask. More than that, there is every reason to be completely honest with him, to strip away the mask, to tell it all, yes, to come to him with a true heart.

Asking him in the name our Lord Jesus Christ to grant us forgiveness. We may well beg. In our minds eye we may see ourselves prostrate on the floor before his cross. Disgust and self loathing may fill us and that with good reason. But we have not come to this loving Father alone. Oh no, never that! We come in the name of our dear Lord Jesus Christ. He is our Savior. He is the Anointed One. He is the sin-bearer. He is the Atonement. He is the Sacrifice for sinners slain. Yes, he has already won the forgiveness for which we plead. The Father will not refuse that Son. The Father will not turn aside his sacrifice, his full payment.

Therefore, do not be afraid. Run as the prodigal son to confession, to the open arms of the Father, holding fast the cross of his beloved Son. Triumph over the stubborn flesh and the laughing world and the arrogant devil and confess it all.

And so we do it; lured, enticed, seduced by an implicit promise, we strip away the mask behind which we hide from the world, yes and often from self as well. We pour out from the poisoned well of our soul the dreadful reality:

Holy and merciful Father – I do not expect you to change who you are as the all holy one who cannot just ignore sin or wink at it; rather I abandon myself on the equal truth that you cannot and do not want to change who you are, the merciful Father. I know that in you the attributes which we distinguish from one another are all one. I know from your invitation and from the cross above the altar that in Christ they meet and find perfect resolution and satisfaction. Therefore, holy and merciful Father –

I confess that I am by nature sinful and that I have disobeyed you in my thoughts, words, and actions. Notice Father, dear Father, I confess first what I am, and only after that what I have done. For I am rotten to the core. I have nothing in my nature that is clean. It is all leprous. It is by nature capable of nothing but sin. Nor have I been shy in proving it. See my thoughts, words and actions! There is not a one of them that is perfect, not a one done out of perfect love for you and gratitude to you for all you are to me.

I have done what is evil and failed to do what is good. There is original sin which totally corrupts my nature. I would neither know about it nor confess it, were it not for the conviction worked in me by the Holy Spirit in the law. That ignorance is doubly perverse, since I have so abundantly given evidence of my total depravity by a life full of actual sin. There are sins of commission, sins that I knew were sins, but I did them anyway. And equally beyond counting are the sins of omission, sins I most often don’t even recognize as sin. There is all the good that I could have done, the attention to your Word and to my prayers, the little acts of love to those around me, — ah, it would take me all day to recount them if I only knew them all.

For this I deserve your punishment both now and in eternity. It’s no use comparing myself to Hitler or to Stalin or to some murderer or rapist. To the extent that I was capable of evil, I have done evil. The cup of my iniquity is filled to overflowing. I have no excuse. I have no merit to offer of my own. All I can do is admit that I deserve to go to hell a thousand times over in each day of my life. Especially I call to mind how I have deserved that since I was last here in your house.

I am truly sorry for my sins — as needful as that is that I be truly sorry, I know that my sorrow atones for not one single sin; I even know that I can never be sorry enough. But still they press me sore like a weight that is too heavy for me. Beneath their dread load -

And trusting in my Savior Jesus Christ, I pray: Lord have mercy on me, a sinner. Father, dear Father, you called me beloved when you invited me to confess. And so I, a sinner, trust in my Savior, your only begotten Son, and clinging to him I pray: Take pity on me in the gutter of my guilt, covered with my shame, corrupted from top to bottom with my sin.