on church and liturgy

I was asked by a student who read this post where ...

2012-02-07T16:25:16.679-06:00

I was asked by a student who read this post where I found this article. I do not remember the article anymore but I passed on the following comments about Luther in my response to the student. These comments can serve too as an addendum to the post:

I do not remember the article, though I think it was from a non-Lutheran theological journal, but the gist of my post was to downplay the emotionalism of Luther and highlight the reasoning of Aristotle. In other words, they are a good balance for each other and Luther's rants about Aristotle, Aquinas, etc., while sometimes justifiable, are not always helpful (faith and reason do go together). Although Luther argues that reason is subject to the Word, faith, etc., this does not mean that reason is not also a gift of God to be used.

There is a danger among Lutherans to paint Luther in too good a light, especially vis-a-vis the pope and the errors of Rome. In other words, Luther is quoted as saying that popes and councils can err, which they can. But sometimes the same reasoning is not permitted to be also applied to Luther. This is a type of hero worship. Luther himself then becomes a "pope" of sort for Lutherans to follow. So, I believe it is OK to take Luther with a grain of salt from time to time. He is not the only "Lutheran" theologian. If he can get you to love theology without loving it just because he does then you're doing fine.

Luther is very inspirational and will raise you to the heights of faith. He will encourage you in the doctrine of justification. He is also very knowledgeable, knowing the church fathers and the theologians of his own day. Although, he ought not be the only Lutheran who is allowed to interact with others and think theologically.
Today, things are much different than the time of the Reformation. Be careful not to impose the Reformation on all church history and thought. Even the church fathers, and figures like Aristotle and Aquinas teach us. Keep an eye open too for where Luther opens doors may be mis-understood. In the long run the reformation created a can of worms.

I personally find that while I understand Luther's theology and the issues he confronts I do not understand Luther. In other words, if he were alive today, I would probably only be able to take so much of him. For one thing, I do not believe anfechtung is a requirement for faith. Not all the theologians or church fathers had the same experiences of Luther. Also, he can drive you crazy with his repetition and ranting. This is not negating his gifts. Rather, I do not believe theology always has to be of high emotion or in your face to be true. It could be argued that I am not a "good" Lutheran and that's OK too. I think to know Luther better you would have to know German. I do not know German but took Latin in high school and my thinking and thinking process are more influenced by Latin (also my personality is of a more analytical type than Luther's was). As Lutherans we can fall into the trap of thinking that those who do not have the same zeal of Luther are not saved by God's grace through faith in Christ. I do not accept that thinking. This is a long reply but I want to underline that Luther is one of the great teachers and theologians but he is not everything.

So study Luther and grow with him. He is definitely a teacher of the faith and will be of great inspiration to you in faith and life. Congratulations on entering the seminary. This will be a time of enhanced learning and growth.

If I run across the article I will pass on the reference.

"Golden-mouthed"

2010-12-07T11:52:14.936-06:00

"Golden-mouthed"

Mystery to me how LSB did not retain this observat...

2010-12-04T19:48:43.894-06:00

Mystery to me how LSB did not retain this observation. I LOVE his homilies. The soul of brevity, yet chocked full of wisdom.

Without forgetting the beginning (eternal rewards ...

2010-10-12T12:05:09.964-05:00

Without forgetting the beginning (eternal rewards purchased by Jesus), the Collect continues ". . . grant, we beseech Thee, that, meditating upon these mysteries, in the most holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary, we may imitate what they contain and obtain what they promise. Through the same . . ."

It is not necessary to have a "holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary" in order to pray the rosary. This is why I did not quote the entire Collect earlier. The origin of the rosary through Mary is questionable but this does not make the use of the rosary wrong per se. Still, we can be encouraged through means such as this to meditate upon the mysteries, imitate the good example and trust in the promise.

On a separate note, I am aware of excesses in Marian devotion. My blog is more concerned with what seems to be an inordinate amount of "fear" of Mary on our part due to a number of factors (ie, association with excessive devotion, association with "non-Lutheran" Christian beliefs and practices), almost to the point where it is hard to find Mary even in the Bible.

A few years ago I wrote something about the importance of the Incarnation and this was mis-interpreted by some as being opposed to the Cross. This was a real eye opener for me, that the Cross and the Incarnation might be seen in opposition, one to the other. I still naïvely maintain both, while appreciating more how the Incarnation itself is an act of redemption and that the Cross in incomplete without it. Enough of the aside.

I'd be curious to know what the rest of that c...

2010-10-10T22:31:39.691-05:00

I'd be curious to know what the rest of that collect said, because as the previous commenter did, I had a hard time seeing the connection in the parts of the post.

Are you referring to simply using the rosary to help organize and structure your daily prayers (as opposed to specifically Marian devotion)?

I greatly enjoy the blog and find it stimulating. Thanks. -- pr. k. hagen

Thank you for reading the blog. I write a lot abo...

2010-10-08T19:05:05.083-05:00

Thank you for reading the blog.

I write a lot about liturgical theology and practices. The first part is a simple observation regarding the traditional Western Calendar.

The second part is a portion of the prayer for the day which shows how Jesus purchased eternal life.

Mary's connection in respect to the origin of the rosary for devotional practice, which is celebrated on this day, is certainly questionable. However the rosary per se as a help for devotional practice is neither commanded nor forbidden.

The use of the rosary may be looked at and discussed in a number of ways, liturgically, historically, theologically. Just because Lutherans do not use it does not make its use wrong per se. There are many ways to encourage prayer.

Hopefully, what is quoted here from the Collect is not somewhat at variance with the Lutheran Confessions. Hopefully, He "has purchased for us (and all believers) the rewards of eternal life."

I find this post a little bit hard to understand. ...

2010-10-08T17:37:48.739-05:00

I find this post a little bit hard to understand. I mean, maybe I misunderstood the post (and this of course very possible), but it seems like you're encouraging Marian devotion in such a manner that is some what at variance with the Lutheran Confessions.

The whole question on whether or not Lutheranism h...

2010-09-24T11:58:23.951-05:00

The whole question on whether or not Lutheranism has the Apostolic Succession is quite complex. My answer will be general as I am not a scholar on this question. There are Lutheran Churches overseas that claim it. American Lutheranism, if it ever had Apostolic Succession, generally moves in the direction of de-emphasizing and de-constructing the ministry in favor of auxiliary offices. This makes the whole question of "ministry" murky.

I have no doubt that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, with their respective differences, have Apostolic Succession for this is part and parcel how they view the Church. Lutheranism has a high view of the "apostolic doctrine," but their seems to be difficulty in connecting this doctrine with the ministry in a way that they are not pitted one against the other. Since the radical schism that took place in the 16th c. the question of ministry has become more one of branches rather than roots, as long as the roots are not also cut.

There are some bright spots in Lutheranism with a growing appreciation of the sacramental nature of ordination (ie, "holy orders") However, since, in today's milieu, Apostolic Succession is not a burning issue among many Lutherans (except maybe at the stake) it is really difficult to assess.

Obviously, these are reflections and observations of a non-dogmatic nature. Hopefully, someone else in cyberspace can help you, especially with your second question.

Do you think the modern Lutheran church has a vali...

2010-09-24T09:45:57.107-05:00

Do you think the modern Lutheran church has a valid Apostolic succession? If not, where do you think should Lutherans go to obtain it?

Julie, thank you for these comments. Indeed, as y...

2010-09-18T13:21:50.560-05:00

Julie, thank you for these comments. Indeed, as you describe, most of the pastors of those days and the practices they followed were/are "conservative" Lutheran for our day.

Still, the standard practice of not offering the Sacrament every Sunday, I suggest, is not truly "conservative" if you include Lutheran history between the time of the Reformation and the time of Pietism and Rationalism. What I mean is that Lutherans following the Reformation and prior to Pietism and Rationalism received the Sacrament every Sunday and on other days (some, even daily). This is in line with the witness given to every Sunday Communion in the Symbols or Confessions.

So the generation before us was "conservative" but in the sense that they were/are holding on to Lutheran practices more heavily influenced and shaped by Pietism and Rationalism.

My post is really a struggle with the word "conservative." Apart from secular politics, conservative suggests holding on and preserving something of value from the past. Reformation and American religious history have complicated the meaning of this word because the word today is connected with evangelical protestantism. Theologically, many are heirs of this wing of the Reformation which rejected the Sacrament altogether, similar to anything else that smelled "Catholic." So the irony is that, popularly speaking, the word "conservative" is attached to those who did not conserve or preserve the Sacrament but rather those who rejected it.

This leads to our dilemma today. Again, apart from secular political understanding of the word, I suggest that true theological conservatism would not separate the Sacrament from the words of Christ, nor the Church from the Sacrament. In other words, Christ instituted the Sacrament for His Bride, the holy Church. The liturgy is the setting for the Sacrament and was designed to lead the faithful to the altar, the foretaste of the heavenly banquet.

My post also draws attention to my amazement at today's "conservative" Lutheran understanding of the Sacrament in its relation to the liturgy. I think there are at least a few factors connected to this:
1) a Lutheran ignorance of history prior to the 19th c. that perpetuates some of these practices
2) the great infuence of evangelicalism on both laity and pastors
3) the tendency to replace conserving or preserving the Sacrament in its rightful place and direct efforts and energies instead to conserving, preserving conservative social, moral and political issues (which in themselves are not bad)

Neither am I saying here that I am a "liberal." Ironically, liberals in the past tended to be more liturgical than their counterparts. We cannot say that today anymore. Nowadays, liberals may be walking around in suits and ties and be vocally opposed to liturgical worship.

In short, the post is meant to underline the vital connection between the Sacrament and the liturgy, that they go together, and that you cannot have one without the other. I would hope that "conservatives," if anyone, would see that connection, in Scripture, Confessions, Church history and tradition and primarily in the flow of the liturgy itself. The invitation to the Sacrament is the true altar call. At this altar is Christ given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.

Tim, as a lay person, and no theologian, your post...

2010-09-13T08:47:31.705-05:00

Tim, as a lay person, and no theologian, your post certainly reminded me of most of my childhood and young adult years. I am old enough that most of the pastors of those days would be considered "conservative" by today's standards, although there were "liberals" around. Certainly my pastor was conservative. Anyway, it was standard practice not to have the Sacrament at every service, and you chose your service to attend based on the week. The liturgy was the same except for the omission of the Sacrament. I believe this was common practice. So, perhaps some of what you are seeing is from people who were raised when I was, and took in some of the thought of that time. It wasn't until I was older that I began to attend churches where the Sacrament was offered in each service.

Thank you for these comments. The bumper sticker ...

2010-09-08T07:24:01.995-05:00

Thank you for these comments. The bumper sticker is clear in its support of peace. However, I did not realize that it may be a sticker that may be of Christian origin or usage. While it may be understood that Jesus would be in support of peace it may also be understood negatively by association that Jesus might have a choice in who is bombed. This is the downfall of bumper stickers. They do not provide footnotes to further clarify the message or its intent. So, I appreciate your view on this. In context of my post which includes the message of the other bumper sticker my thoughts wandered over to why the use of Jesus' name on this bumper sticker is even necessary, considering its possible negative connotations. My first thought on seeing the bumper sticker was that it was sending a social or political message and, considering Jesus' kingdom not being of this world, it does not seem fitting that He would be reduced to a social or political message and someone's bumper when He promises to be with those who receive His Word and the Blessed Sacrament, around the pulpit and the altar.

You unnecessarily misconstrue and condemn the &quo...

2010-09-08T06:08:10.664-05:00

You unnecessarily misconstrue and condemn the "Who Would Jesus Bomb?" message as being anti-Christian. In fact, as an Anabaptist Christian who has worn this message on buttons, I can tell you that for many who display this message, it is an affirmation of the Lordship of Jesus that frames a condemnation of warmaking. It is meant to confront the human sin of war with the unqualified grace, welcome and love of Jesus for all people, whatever their nationality. It affirms Jesus would not justify the deaths of innocent victims as human sacrifices to national military goals, and that Jesus would desire testimony to and conversion of the violent and malicious (like pre-conversion Paul) rather than their destruction. Jesus would not bomb anyone, and so Jesus' followers should not.

Of course, not all who display that message do so with this intent, but to project the worst intention on others betrays the dictum of Ignatius to assume the most charitable understanding of others.

I and others who display this message do so as expression of reverence and discipleship to the Jesus who calls us to love our enemies and to overcome evil with good. Aerial bombing of civilian populations was universally condemned, within and without the church, until World War II. That it became acceptable as a tactic, and even a core strategy of every government that possesses air military or missiles (including the U.S., e.g. mutual assured destruction), is a grievous moral and historical victory for Hitler over Christian values, by governments following his example.

Please reconsider the motive and intent you impute on the message "Who Would Jesus Bomb?". Consider that its provocation comes not from derision of Christians, but devotion to Jesus.

Blessings and Peace,
Spencer Bradford

Indeed, she is "blessed" as Scripture sa...

2010-08-06T12:57:36.959-05:00

Indeed, she is "blessed" as Scripture says. This means she is blessed of God. Who and what God blesses we cannot ignore or downplay. If so, then we would have to ignore and downplay those who are Baptized of God.

One way to look at this is what Scripture permits and then focus on what one does or does not do within those parameters. Scripture though is not just telling us what to do and what not to do about the Blessed Virgin. The Blessed Virgin sees God as the source of her blessedness. She bears the Son of God by the power of the Holy Spirit as announced to her by the Angel. Her blessedness tells us about God's work and mercy and about who He is.

Briefly, the miracle of the incarnation is more than a "what does this mean to me" moment in Scripture. Here is a revelation about God and His work and a revelation of what it means for God to choose someone other than me to be "blessed" through all generations.

The vast majority of Christianity, West and East, Luther and many of the reformers, have honored her because God honored her (more than their heirs today). That today we tend to look at how we can minimalize God's revelation of Christ and His work among us tells us more about ourselves. This, and any modern discomfort, however, does not lessen the work of God nor His blessing of the Blessed Virgin. When we lessen the significance of her blessedness we, consciously or not, lessen the significance of God's work in Christ and that Mary served God's loving plan in becoming the Mother of God.

I honor the Blessed Virgin as far as Scripture all...

2010-08-06T10:30:51.481-05:00

I honor the Blessed Virgin as far as Scripture allows me to honor her. I will not attribute honor to her that Scripture does not *clearly* attribute to her.

I agree that there is somewhat of a "lull&quo...

2010-07-15T16:36:33.344-05:00

I agree that there is somewhat of a "lull" in the church year during the Trinity season. I just don't think it is purely an American academic year phenomenon. One just needs to look at Europe and how the countries practically shut down for the month of August while everyone is on holiday. Even the pope heads to the hills (Castel Gandolfo) for a summer vacation. I think the church calendar is more to blame for the long "green" season, than any academic calendar. The agrarian calendar might have played more of a role in this development, especially since the academic calendar in America was based upon the agrarian calendar and lifestyle.

If America switched to a year-round academic calendar, one might see more of an increase in church attendance. The reason being it would be more difficult to have those long weekends, or even weeks, at one's cabin "up North", as the locals would say.

Short of overhauling the liturgical calendar and trying to make the Trinity season more "exciting", there is not much a pastor can do in this present age. A pastor can only encourage the flock to continue church attendance either at home, or elsewhere. What would also be helpful is if the church didn't help to encourage this behavior by not having Bible study on Sunday mornings during the summer; closing down Sunday school; having that worthless activity of free babysitting, aka "Vacation" Bible School; having a summer hiatus of confirmation; and, in some cases, having a more "relaxed" style of worship in the summer months. By what I have just listed, the church has done more to encourage members in taking the summer off from worship than encouraging it by its actions (or inactions?).

PS Since this is a public forum it is assumed tha...

2010-07-15T14:16:43.845-05:00

PS Since this is a public forum it is assumed that anyone may be reading this "thought," so it is not addressed to anyone in particular. Lutherans might quibble if this is Law or Gospel and that is fair (for Lutherans). Nevertheless, this is more of a general observation on the influences of the school calendar on our lives (since childhood) and whether or not that has any influence on church attendance in the Summer which appears to be different than at other times of the year. Likewise, this is more of a general observation on the influence of the church calendar on our lives and how different calendars might relate to that which is outside of time (the church calendar is meant to point our eyes elsewhere). Obviously, my general comments here reflect an observation that might be apparent to any Christian or church body. Hence, it is only a "thought" or observation and not a doctrinal treatise or a singling out of anyone in particular. This may also be called a "Summer Thought."

Another thought related to the post. The post doe...

2010-06-01T19:02:43.107-05:00

Another thought related to the post. The post does question both Lutheran and protestant attempts at polity so the question about bishops is a fair one.

Although justification is considered the center of the Church in Lutheran theology and polity is more or less "adiaphora" it has been interesting to stumble upon the fact in online conversation among us over the years how much import has been placed on one's views of polity (even in casual conversation such as that which is often held online).

Therefore, I am not too averse to the outside critique that the ecclesiastical question that faces us is not just a matter of justification but also that of ecclesiology.

So, it should not be too big a jump to say that we're not just talking about justification but also of Christ (the One who justifies). This is not just salvation of the soul, but also of the body. Salvation of that which is invisible is also salvation of that which is visible (ie, God is the "maker of . . . all things visible and invisible.")

In brief, Christ's relationship with His Bride, the Church, may be a mystery (or sacramentum), but it is still a relationship. This is not just a matter of justification but of ecclesiology.

The risen Lord breathed His Spirit on the Apostles.

Dear Matt, I echo Fr. Hollywood's response an...

2010-05-30T21:20:12.499-05:00

Dear Matt,

I echo Fr. Hollywood's response and his example of the current situation arising from the 1989 act confirming lay practice of the pastoral office in the LCMS.

My post, without referring to 1989, was a broadening of the question using an historical angle going to the reformation (a can of worms) and before (AC XIV's reference to practice at the time of Chrysostom).

As to the question of error, the LCMS still permits ordained pastors to preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments. This means that faithfulness is still possible in the congregations. To the extent that error on the question of ministry, among other questions, is permitted to effect and/or dominate will affect the reaction of pastors, laity, congregations, etc.

Dear Matt: From my perspective (not to speak for ...

2010-05-30T18:35:57.539-05:00

Dear Matt:

From my perspective (not to speak for Tim), I wouldn't call our polity an "error" - though I think our polity is not necessarily the best we could do. In historical retrospect, we opened a can of worms that led to other problems (such as the 1989 error I will mention shortly).

But all of us in the LCMS who stick around are choosing to remain in an erring body. We have been so since 1989 when the convention amended AC14. The convention has no such authority, and the consequence has been the abomination of "lay consecration" and vicars being compelled to perform ministerial and even sacramental acts without being "rite vocatus" ("rightly called").

But, to put it in the analogy of marriage, we don't encourage people to divorce one another right away, but to fix the problems between them. In the church, errors sometimes persist for centuries. Obviously, if things reach a point-of-no-return (for instance, if the LCMS were to "ordain" women or allow baptisms in some other name than the Trinity, or some such), I think there would be a mass exodus.

But in the interest of not uprooting the wheat with the tares, I think a lot of confessional Lutherans hang in there with the LCMS and try (perhaps Quixotically) to reverse the errors.

As for me, I am called to serve my parish. If they stay in, so will I. If they vote to leave, so will I. The fullness of the Church resides in our parish with or without the LCMS. I would like to see the LCMS ship be righted. That would be the least violent and disruptive for the sake of the Gospel.

So was this rejection of the role of bishop an err...

2010-05-30T18:09:42.081-05:00

So was this rejection of the role of bishop an error? And if it is, how can you remain affiliated with an erring church body?

Rev. Sutton, Thank you for your comment. I belie...

2010-05-27T22:41:08.120-05:00

Rev. Sutton,

Thank you for your comment. I believe the Stephan case, in particular, did mark a major change in ministry at least in the understanding of the Missouri Synod. This may also explain why, later on, the Missouri Synod had difficulty in reaching agreement on questions of ministry with other Lutheran synods where the role of "bishop" was still accepted, even in America.

Undoubtedly, the "American" factor was large. The Saxon immigrants were not English-speaking nor, as Lutherans, did their practice fit the American protestant mold. Then too, if I remember correctly from the textbook of seminary days, the German socialists of St. Louis knew they were coming and whipped up sentiment against them in the press even before they arrived. So there were a number of factors/pressures that may have helped set the stage for this change in ministry (These are general observations, I have not studied the Stephan case in depth.)

Reformed (and other protestant) influence is also a factor, whether it was the Prussian Union of yesteryears or the "small groups" of today. It could probably be demonstrated how Pietism, Rationalism, Enlightenment, and any other number of factors played a role. However this all worked itself out we have an order spoken of in the Confessions which is practically unknown or frowned on in Lutheranism today. As I suggested earlier there are probably Lutherans who have never even heard of AC XIV.

In my limited knowledge of Reformation history I dare suggest that while this order of ministry was indeed practiced by the early Lutherans as attested to in the Augustana that the Reformation itself, in one way or another (intended or unintended), opened the door to changes in Western civilization that worked (and work) against a "churchly" understanding of ministry that is still apparent in the Augustana. This rupture in the Western Church, exacerbated by developments in the last 500 years, both inside and outside Christianity, raise questions for me how Lutherans might be more comfortable today accepting secular understandings of what ministry is and ought to be over what has been the traditional practice, not only among Lutherans, but also the practice of ministry prior to the Reformation going back through the Middle Ages to the early church and the Apostles.

I am going way beyond the point you are addressing (Stephan) but I think I am doing that so that the order of ministry might be understood in its fuller context. For example, the Augustana goes way before the time of the Reformation and cites Chrysostom's observation of the practice of Holy Communion and the order of ministry extant at that time, involved in the distribution of the Holy Eucharist.

I do believe the Stephan case was a turning point, specifically for Missouri. Also, there is undoubtedly Reformed influence in many different aspects of Lutheran practice including that of the ministry. My response would be to underline the "catholic" practice of the ministry, meaning not only the wholeness of doctrine but also the practice throughout time (church history). Thus if we have confusion on the question of ministry it is only because we have forgotten and/or disregarded the "catholic" practice of ministry. Insofar as the protestant practice of ministry is a-historical and insofar as such practice has influenced Lutheran understanding and practice then we have every reason to be confused on this question.

Thank you again for raising the Stephan can and for your patience with my response.

"The Confessions suggest an order (Bishops, p...

2010-05-25T13:00:57.142-05:00

"The Confessions suggest an order (Bishops, presbyters, deacons) that is consistent with both divine choice and development. How this was lost in Lutheran practice is a big question."

Fr. May,
Thank you for this excellent article. I wonder about your quote above from one of your responses - we see the use of the term "bishop" lost to the (future) LCMS in the Martin Stephan saga, do we not? Did not the Saxons come over with Stephan as "Bishop" properly selected/elected? I understand there are even drawings in the CHI of the liturgical vestments to go along with the office that the Saxons had brought along from the fatherland. I wonder if the loss of the confession's understanding which you quoted occurs with the move to America, or is it the move to Reformed theology (noting that the Union churches of Germany have "president" as well, I believe).

Many thanks,
Rev. Jacob Sutton

Regarding the idea of "development" I se...

2010-05-21T07:45:27.075-05:00

Regarding the idea of "development" I see no difficulty, if aligned with divine revelation. For example, polity may have developed although there is no Eucharist without the Holy Ministry and vice versa. This can be traced to the Last Supper (divine choice of ministers is equally apparent in the Old Testament). The Confessions suggest an order (Bishops, presbyters, deacons) that is consistent with both divine choice and development. How this was lost in Lutheran practice is a big question.

Baptism is indeed the foundational sacrament and can be seen as related to the question of polity in the life of the early Church. For example, catechumens were not permitted to pray the "Our Father" until they were baptized. Also, baptism is a pre-requisite to receiving the Holy Eucharist. As foundational as Baptism is to the Church it is not opposed to the Holy Eucharist which is at the center of the Church's life together. We may say that more emphasis is needed on the latter, which is the more "neglected" of the two among Lutherans. Both are sacraments. Both are Christ.

without trying to make a real point, if you read i...

2010-05-21T07:07:58.956-05:00

without trying to make a real point, if you read ignatius (see, for example Smyr 8, Phil 4, Eph 20) that perhaps Rev. Brown was right.

I also sense though that baptism was a central issue in church polity as well, as illustrated by the much later baptismal controversy between Cyprian and Stephen.