Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Vacationing in Missouri

The Synod, that is, not the State. Then again, they are a lot alike. Lots of neat stuff in Missouri - but then some real disappointments as well. The Arch is nice to look at, but the museum is that modern, History-Channelized, Big Government thingy. And don't even bother with Meramac Cavern: $17 a head just to get in! We kept driving - and then visited the free Illinois Caverns later on.

So also with vacationing in the Missouri Synod. It's a like a box of chocolates: you never know what creative worship resources you're going to get.

It's a sad thing, indeed, that something like the Evangelical-Lutheran Lutheran Congregation directory has to exist, but it sure does. The days are long gone when LCMS on the sign promised that you would be ushered into a reverent sanctuary where the Word of God would be proclaimed even if the pastor was a Bozo, thanks to the liturgy of the Church. (That sign never guaranteed that you would actually be able to receive the Lord's Supper on a given week - though that is one thing that has actually gotten better over the years, thanks be to God.)

But reverence goes beyond using the services of the Church. If the liturgy is not simply a matter of indifferent things, as the masthead of Gottesdienst would have it, neither is it simply a matter of "using what's in the book."

There's a whole subspecies of Lutheran pastor, we'll call him Pastor EZ Gohing, who doesn't like the new-fangled Evangelical worship stuff: the praise band, the coffee shop church, the soul patch, etc. Just not his style. Couldn't do it if he did like it and smart enough to know it. He'll stick to the stuff in the hymnal, thank you very much -- with maybe a couple of services a year (Thanksgiving, Easter) thrown in from Creative Communications or some such, to make it special.

But in general, Sunday in and Sunday out, he's a user of the services of the Church, from Matins to the Order of Holy Communion, to Divine Service Setting 5, etc. In fact, he likes to explore the hymnal. You're apt to run into the Service of Prayer and Preaching on a non-communion Sunday in the "after Pentecost" season of the Church year (as I did on my last vacation Sunday out West).

For while Pastor EZ Gohing doesn't really like Pastor Prehsband's style, they share some deeper assumptions: personal creativity in "worship planning" is a must, there must be variety in the order of worship from week to week, and (most centrally) church should be "comfortable" and "welcoming."

What they mean by comfortable and welcoming is that the worship should not be reverent. They don't think what they are doing is irreverent - they would never put it that way. For them, irreverent means a positive, overt act - like blasphemy. They have no concept that irreverence could be unintentional: if there is no mens rea then there can be no irreverence, they think. And they certainly don't intend irreverence.

They intend comfortable and welcoming and friendly. And they think the way to encourage this is with chatty commentary on the liturgy as the service progresses, or by inviting the children up front (sitting in the chancel facing the congregation, of course) to share an object lesson ending with a sucker, or by starting the sermon with a wisecrack, etc., etc.


Pr. Gohing thrills the kids with the story of how God told Moses to "Take a load off: you're on holy ground."

I spent my first Sunday off this year with Pr. EZ Gohing. Nice guy. Sermon was a little rambling - but amidst all the jokes and personal stories, he did preach about Jesus. I am thankful for that. But I have to say: one misses the reverence (and one certainly misses the Mass. When asked why they didn't have the Lord's Supper, my 4 year old, remembering a previous trip to this parish, surmised that they gave it up because "they don't have a chalice.").

We fight not against flesh and blood - but against The Flesh: our own and our neighbor's. Reverence is a great help with this. A buddy of mine once suggested that we start to speak of The Reverent Worship Movement. It's a good idea. If we were taking submissions for a Mission Statment for Gottesdienst, I would vote for: "To encourage reverence."

+HRC

45 comments:

  1. There is a very fine and subtle line between rigid formality and loose informality, neither of which serve the goal of reverence and awe. "Relaxed dignity" - a term I've borrowed from a liturgical acquaintance - describes it nicely for me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pr. Cwirla,

    The first field worker I had walked like a robot after our first talk about reverence. Needed correcting.

    The problem is that our society is so reverence-free that people suppose that reverence means walking like a soldier.

    +HRC

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think our society has completely confused two essentially different contrasts:

    formal / casual
    uptight / natural

    Hence the company that employs me encourages casual attire and working on a first-name basis. The problem is that it never fails to make me feel awkward when I meet my VP and am expected to say something like, "Hi, Ed! I'm Phil." Regardless of what I call him, he's still the one in control of everything that happens in the building. (Casual attire is deceptive, too--there's a subtler but noticeable difference between $50 worth of polo shirt and khakis vs. $250 worth.)

    In my limited experience assisting with the liturgy, I generally find that highly formal conduct actually helps me be more natural and relaxed and less uptight. I think these things, though, are better seen than discussed, since sooner or later someone throws out the L-word.

    ReplyDelete
  4. A further thought: Both the rigid rubricist and the loose libertine demonstrate a discomfort with the liturgy, each in their own way. Both are uncomfortable with ritual action. To use an illustration from dance (I know that dance if frowned upon in liturgy, but CS Lewis also used this metaphor), one who dances stiffly while counting the beat is no more dancing than one who simply decides to move in some free and arbitrary direction.

    A presider needs to be comfortable with ritual actions and ceremony in order to achieve "relaxed dignity." He also need to be attentive to the ritual needs of the congregation, in much the same way that a good host at a dinner party is attentive to the needs of the guest. Some require a bit more formality, some a bit less.

    It also occurs to me that our hypothetical pastor EZ Gohing is precisely the sort of pastor Gottesdienst should be reaching out to rather than alienating or lumping together in the same category as praise bands. There is a great difference between one who is relaxed with the liturgy and one who has cast the liturgy away.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The line of argument about the need to avoid both praise bands and liturgical rigidity, ie., the need for "relaxed dignity," has truth in it, yet is deceiving. For it implies that there is a real problem out there today with guys being too liturgically & rubrically rigid. They surely exist, such as the seminarist cited by HRC, and it is not difficult for such situations to be addressed and corrected when they are encountered by the right pastor, bishop, professor, etc.

    These two extremes may seem to have similarities (a discomfort with the liturgy, etc), yet I would argue that they are hardly equal and opposite problems.

    For a man to learn this ideal of "relaxed dignity" as Cwirla puts it, or as I might put it, a competent comfort with the liturgy, he must first actually learn the liturgy. It is completely wrongheaded, I suggest, to first encourage pastors to be relaxed, and comfortable, and never actually get around to emphasizing the need for them to learn the rudiments, the rubrics, to teach them a "style" of liturgy, but never actually teach the "what" of the ritual itself.

    It is unfortunate, and I am truly concerned, that when the actual rubrics of the liturgy are brought up, reputed Confessional churchmen of influence react by hurling accusations of pharisaism and legalism. Pr. Cwirla, as a brother in Christ, I remind you that you are to this day guilty of making such accusations against me. I don't say it for my sake, but because the public nature of your behavior is an offense to the liturgy, and to those people who might have been helped by constructive discussion, rather than hostility. When the rubrics of the lavabo and the consecration were brought up by me, you, along with Paul McCain, both 1. ridiculed those rubrics, and 2. called me a pharisee and a legalist. Perhaps here and now brothers in Christ can reconcile the matter.

    Finally, I see Gottesdienst, and the ongoing work of its writers, to be reaching out precisely to the easy-going old Missourian, and everyone. It reaches out to your flesh and mine.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Pr. Cwirla,

    What is a "rigid rubricist"? What's the difference between a rigid rubricist and a rubricist who isn't rigid?

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mr. Gaba, since you chose to invoke my name in your slanderous attack on Pastor Cwirla, I first come to his defense and state, categorically, you are distorting his remarks and misrepresenting him, but this is nothing new on your part.

    Latif, I for one, told you that you were behaving in a boorishly obnoxious manner, that you were causing laypeople to doubt that they were receiving Christ's body and blood and that you were making liturgical mountains out of liturgical molehills.

    I stand by those remarks.

    Making laity, as you did on the Wittenberg Trail, feel guilty about receiving the Lord's body in their hand instead of directly into the mouth, as you most certain did, is wrong. I heard from a dozen or so people after that altercation thanking me for correcting your remarks.

    This was/is an example of absurdly liturgical rigidity, as is also getting wrapped around the axle over a whole host of little rituals and gestures with hands and fingers that have NOTHING to do with the Lord's institution of His Sacrament but remain nothing more than institutions, rites and ceremonies instituted by men.

    Or as Blessed Kurt Marquart put it once, this is all an example of "liturgical pietism."

    There is a fundamental error on the part of the Gottesdienst crowd in their efforts to push Piepkornian style liturgical speculations and Medieval Mass rubrics, Tabernacles and a whole host of other ritualization of the worship service, which are not a part of the approved hymnals and agenda of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.

    I regard this behavior to be as problematic, in its own way, as the guy who dumps the liturgy all together. In both cases, we have people "doing their own thing" and trying to justify it by appeal to some higher motive. It is Pietism, of a liturgical kind.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "It is completely wrongheaded, I suggest, to first encourage pastors to be relaxed, and comfortable, and never actually get around to emphasizing the need for them to learn the rudiments, the rubrics, to teach them a "style" of liturgy, but never actually teach the "what" of the ritual itself."

    Who said that?

    "What is a "rigid rubricist"? What's the difference between a rigid rubricist and a rubricist who isn't rigid?"

    Someone who draws attention to himself by the way robotic and unnatural manner in which he conducts ritual. He is self-conscious.

    "Pr. Cwirla, as a brother in Christ, I remind you that you are to this day guilty of making such accusations against me."

    I don't even know who you are. Show me the fault, and we'll see what we can do about it. You know where to find the phone number, by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Someone who draws attention to himself by the way robotic and unnatural manner in which he conducts ritual. He is self-conscious."

    Thanks, Pr. Cwirla. I thought this was what you were saying, but I wasn't sure. Certainly some people, including myself, are sensitive to the suggestion that some or all rubrics are rigid and should be done away with, since it's the general attitude of the culture.

    So the problem is not the rubrics but the self-conscious use of them. I've found, too, that the way to get around self-consciousness isn't to ditch the rubric but to do it over and over again until you're no longer self-conscious.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Rev. McCain,

    Are the current LCMS rubrics (I'm thinking they'd be the ones in LSB, and maybe part or all of the original General Rubrics) both a minimum and a maximum, such that if something isn't in those then one shall not observe it?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I cannot believe that Pastor McCain would abandon our Lutheran confession of adiaphora by insisting that the official LCMS rubrics are both a maximum and minimum of practice. If Pastor McCain is insistent upon anything, it is upon the freedom of the Gospel. It would be particularly ironic given the deliberately broad and minimalistic approach to rubrics that was taken in the LSB. Almost everything is a "may" rubric (as they used to be described), and many of the rubrics are qualified by the considerations of local customs and circumstances.

    But perhaps I should simply allow Pastor McCain to speak for himself and clarify his comment regarding what is and isn't in our official service books and hymnals.

    The point I do wish to take up with you, myself, Brother McCain, is this opening remark from the same paragraph in question:

    "There is a fundamental error on the part of the Gottesdienst crowd. . . ."

    Honestly, I am simply tired of such sweeping generalizations and characterizations. I love my brothers in the "Gottesdienst crowd," as you refer to us, but we don't all think alike; we don't always agree on things; we don't all employ the same ceremonial practices; nor do we presume that ceremonies should be identical among us or in every place. In particular, frequently caricaturizing and castigating "the Gottesdienst crowd" for supposedly insisting upon "a whole host of little rituals and gestures with hands and fingers" is just plain goofy. It has also long since become tiresome.

    Why is it that charity and freedom are never to be extended to "the Gottesdienst crowd"? Not that we need anything from men, but, seriously, it certainly comes across as though there were a patent double-standard at work. Every excuse and accommodation are to be made for those who do their own thing in a free-and-easy casual manner. But if an individual comments positively on our blog, suddenly the whole "Gottesdienst crowd" is pummeled with accusations and denunciations. How nice.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "So the problem is not the rubrics but the self-conscious use of them. I've found, too, that the way to get around self-consciousness isn't to ditch the rubric but to do it over and over again until you're no longer self-conscious."

    Precisely. Rubrics are simply a means to a relaxed and dignified end.

    By the way, the rubrics in LSB were not intended to be broad or minimalist. Due to strict page limitations and a desire not to turn the hymnal into a manual on the conduct of the liturgy, the Liturgy Committee decided to include only the most needful rubrics in the pew edition and place the instructive rubrics in the altar book and the minister's desk edition (which may or may not see the light of day).

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Rubrics are simply a means to a relaxed and dignified end."

    I'm not convinced that's right. I think rubrics are bearers of meaning, though in a different way than words are. If that weren't the case, then the rubric of the Elevation could never be a confessional ceremony, only a means to a relaxed dignity that might be achieved otherwise (and those Crypto-Calvinists could stay comofortably in the closet).

    Like before, I wonder whether you're being too functionalist and pragmatic. I look forward to being proven wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Whatever the Liturgy Committee may have intended does not determine what the Commission on Worship intended and actually did. Unless the Liturgy Committee was given a whole lot more final authority than the Lectionary Committee ever had.

    I've just been reading through the minutes of the Commission from 1996 through the end of the LSB Project, and have been reminded of all sorts of things that were going on behind the scenes. In any event, the rubrics as they now stand, not only in the pew edition of the LSB but also in the Altar Book, are broad and minimalistic. That's not offered as a criticism; by and large, I think things were handled rather well. It's an observation. And I know there was a deliberate effort to avoid prescriptive language in almost every case.

    At any rate, as the LSB and its Altar Book now stand, it is basically impossible to conduct the Service without doing all sorts of things that are nowhere specificed in the rubrics. Which is fine. Again, this isn't a criticism. It only points to the absurdity of anyone actually suggesting that the LSB rubrics are both a maximum and minimum of practice. I don't believe that is what Pastor McCain has intended. That was my point.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "I'm not convinced that's right. I think rubrics are bearers of meaning, though in a different way than words are. If that weren't the case, then the rubric of the Elevation could never be a confessional ceremony, only a means to a relaxed dignity that might be achieved otherwise (and those Crypto-Calvinists could stay comofortably in the closet)."

    I agree with that. My last statement was not accurate. Rubrics serve many purposes, among them achieving the dignity and reverence befitting worship as well. They can also be a confessional statement. And they always have meaning or they are simply empty gestures.

    BTW, being "relaxed" in the conduct of the liturgy is not the same as being "comfortable."

    So failure to elevate is a mark of Crypto-Calvinism?

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Like before, I wonder whether you're being too functionalist and pragmatic."

    That's entirely possible, though that wouldn't prove anything per se. Ceremony is both practical and functional in maintaining good order, showing one's confession, visually reinforcing and commenting on the rite, enhancing beauty, dignity, reverence etc. One would have to demonstrate that "functionalism" and "pragmatism" were inherently bad rather than a mere ad hominem.

    To argue, for example, that drums are inappropriate for worship because "science" has shown that a strong beat influences emotions in a Dionysian way would be a pragmatic and functional argument.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "To argue, for example, that drums are inappropriate for worship because 'science' has shown that a strong beat influences emotions in a Dionysian way would be a pragmatic and functional argument."

    I'm not sure, Pastor Cwirla, why you appear to be so insistent on denying the scientific aspects of music; or perhaps it is only the Dionysian theories that you resist.

    Anyway, I'm enjoying a book on the science of music, Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy: How Music Captures Our Imagination (Harper, 1997), by Robert Jourdain. I'm about halfway through it, and have been interested by the intersection of that book with some of our recent conversations. One of the upcoming chapters promises to be all the more apropos, but already the discussions of harmony and rhythm have been quite fascinating to me.

    I'll not provide extended quotes here in the comments of this post, but I have gathered thus far that harmony (based upon tonal centers and guided along culturally-defined scales) is processed in the same portion of the brain as language; and that basically all forms of music are established upon harmony. The one exception to that norm is the "purely percussive." That would be a difference, for example, between the percussiveness of a drum vis-a-vis the percussive characteristics of a piano or a bass guitar. If I have understood the author correctly, the processing of meter (or "beat") occurs in a different part of the brain than language and harmony. Whether this pertains to Dionysian categorizations or not, I don't know, but it clearly does offer something to think about in connection with the observations and comments of a previous thread. Predominantly percussive music may draw the listener away from text and language, toward a different manner of hearing and "feeling" than more harmonious music.

    The book also discusses two different kinds of rhythm, distinguished in a way that is also germane to these recent conversations. There is the rhythm of meter, which "gives order to time" by providing "a sort of grid upon which music is drawn." Then there is the rhythm of "phrasing," which follows the contours of language and "imparts a kind of narrative to music," the "mechanism by which a composition can play out a grand drama." "Phrasing" allows music to tell a story, because it is closely related to language. It allows the organization of music on a large scale, in contrast to meter, which organizes music on a small scale.

    "Without meter," says Jourdain, "music takes on the static quality of Gregorian chant. Without phrasing, music becomes repetitious and banal." He also goes on to say that, "when one kind of rhythm is emphasized, it tends to obscure the other," because "the two kinds of rhythm are not entirely at peace with each other" (pages 123-124).

    Thus, as Pastor Eckardt implied in his post on drums, and as I have tried to suggest in my comments on that thread, music that is dominated by drums with their percussive emphasis on meter, competes with the phrasing of language with its emphasis on the text. I think that is pertinent to the sort of music that is put into the service of the liturgy and hymnody, and, apparently, not only for "aesthetic" reasons. In making that observation, I should also clarify that I don't find aesthetic discussions to be inappropriate or out of place. By the same token, I do not believe the discussion of music can be removed entirely to the aesthetic realm. There is also a science to the way that music is conceived, performed, conveyed, received and "interpreted" at the fundamental level. I find these things interesting, and I am inclined to think they may be significant.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I'm trying to understand how the Gottesdienst crowd thinks it is helping anything by featuring posts that deride, and hold in contempt, pastors in our Synod, and how featuring slanderous attacks on pastors like Rev. Cwirla, by unordained laymen is a helpful way to improve the practice of the liturgy in our Synod.

    Can any of you shed some light here?

    ReplyDelete
  21. My dear editor McCain,

    These displays of yours are pitiable. I would not be surprised if many actually believe your lies, but even many of them are surely embarrassed for you when you behave in this manner. I pray for you. I know that the Lord will turn your heart, for it depends not on you and I becoming the best of friends, but on simple Christian and brotherly decency and love. I find it almost humorous that Pr. Cwirla seems to have completely forgotten his words of several months ago, which tells me that perhaps they were not spoken out of the same sort of ideology or malice that yours were and are. You stand behind your public behavior, which makes the issue ever new and relevant. So I continue to consciously risk these attacks. I no longer fear men like you. At stake here is much, much more than me and my name.

    For the record, in case any reader can be helped by me stating this, everything you claim about me here and elsewhere is objectively false, as can be proven by the public record of the world wide web, and my hard drive.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "I find it almost humorous that Pr. Cwirla seems to have completely forgotten his words of several months ago..."

    I also don't remember what I ate for breakfast ten days ago, nor do I recall what I preached on two Sundays ago. Beside wisdom and experience, there are other benefits of age.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dear "William":

    I infer, I hope correctly, that you are Pastor Cwirla, though I am thrown by the fact that your name links to no profile at all.

    By the way, I do like your (or Pr. Cwirla's) stated occupation: pain in the butt. That probably fits me just as well.

    When I brought up your ridicule and accusations against me, you said,

    "I don't even know who you are. Show me the fault, and we'll see what we can do about it. You know where to find the phone number, by the way."

    It is more than understandable that you might not recall the exchange in question. I do find it a bit strange that a Christian, and a pastor no less, would dismiss all of this by implying that it is the responsibility of the offended to call you on the telephone, and that the telephone is the right way to rectify a public matter. Having said that, I let all this go, at least to a different time and place. I'm too tired. Holy Mass after third shift is good for the soul, but I need to get some rest.

    ReplyDelete
  24. " I do find it a bit strange that a Christian, and a pastor no less, would dismiss all of this by implying that it is the responsibility of the offended to call you on the telephone, and that the telephone is the right way to rectify a public matter."

    “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother."

    You can also find the address, though it's a long way from Milwaukee.

    The "William" thing is a weird artifact of Google. Out of my control.

    Latif - I have no clue as to why you are raising whatever issue you are raising here in a comment stream for a post on Gottesdienst, unless this is where the alleged offense took place. Shoot me a link in the appropriate forum and I'll take a look at it. Otherwise, you're just rumor mongering and grandstanding for your buddies. Knock it off.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Pr. Cwirla,

    You write:

    "Latif - I have no clue as to why you are raising whatever issue you are raising here in a comment stream for a post on Gottesdienst, unless this is where the alleged offense took place. Shoot me a link in the appropriate forum and I'll take a look at it. Otherwise, you're just rumor mongering and grandstanding for your buddies. Knock it off."

    My comment made it obvious why I raised the issue, viz., because it is a troubling, specific, and public example of the more general concern relevant to your comment in this very discussion.

    I could very well "shoot you a link" in a different forum. After all, 1. that suggestion is an improvement over your "you know my number" reply, and 2. as I already stated, a different time and place seems just as well to me at this point. Except that you then add an oddly unfriendly and snarky comment about "rumor mongering," and an accusation that I am "grandstanding for my buddies," along with the condescending "knock it off."

    1. With the blessing and treasure of our tradition of Luther's Large Catechism, you and I both know what a rumor is.
    2. "grandstanding for my buddies"? Can we be reasonable, please?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Rev. McCain,

    You wrote,

    "I'm trying to understand how the Gottesdienst crowd thinks it is helping anything by featuring posts that deride, and hold in contempt, pastors in our Synod,"

    Well, I thought my post was pretty even handed. That was my intent, at any rate. I mentioned good and bad things about the experience I had on vacation and tried to express the motives of pastors who are free and easy with worship in the kindest way - noting that I do not believe that irreverence is their intent. I think criticism and evaluation are useful. I don't think we are well served by pretending that everything is hunky dory in our midst. That being said, I happily apologize for any offense my words have caused you or others. If my words were not even handed enough, if my criticisms uncharitable, that was not my intent and I rue the poor execution.

    Your comment continued,

    ". . . and how featuring slanderous attacks on pastors like Rev. Cwirla, by unordained laymen is a helpful way to improve the practice of the liturgy in our Synod."

    We do not "feature" attacks, slanderous or otherwise. We simply leave our comments open to all who would like to post. We believe in a free forum of discussion and allow all comments, even those with which we disagree to see the light of day.

    Furthermore, we strive to judge the comments people make based on their merit, whether they are "unordained laymen" or not. Indeed, we believe that it is especially laymen who should be criticizing pastors with faults - see CFW Walther's sermon on Matthew 7 for sheep judging their shepherds. . .

    +HRC

    ReplyDelete
  27. Pr. Cwirla,

    "So failure to elevate is a mark of Crypto-Calvinism?"

    Only if the Confessions tell you that in your circumstance you have to elevate. If flushing out crypto-Calvinists is what the age calls for, then that's what we've got to do.

    "...slanderous attacks on pastors like Rev. Cwirla, by unordained laymen..."

    I hope you don't consider the questions of this unordained layman to be slander. I'm just looking for a better understanding of the liturgy, and I'm trying to do what I can to help clarify the discussion, something I tend to think I can contribute. These subjects are too important to degenerate into interpersonal arguments--in two hundred years when we're all dead, they'll still be talking about liturgy and rubrics and what pastors should do in their churches.

    Frankly, I'm just glad that some people take this unordained layman seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "We simply leave our comments open to all who would like to post. "

    For the record: I appreciate Gottesdienst's open comment stream policy; it is conducive to vigorous discussion. I likewise pay no regard to the distinction of clergy and laity when it comes to blog commentary, nor do I expect any. It's just a mosh pit of discourse as far as I'm concerned.

    Also for the record: I do not consider myself attacked or slandered in any way. If someone doesn't know the difference between an argumentum ad rem and ad hominem, I give them the benefit of the doubt and attribute it to intellectual not moral weakness. If I feel slandered or attacked, I would take it up with the person offline.

    Finally for the record: I do think that the best comments speak to the weaknesses and strengths of the original post not the other comments in the stream. It makes for better reading.

    wmc

    ReplyDelete
  29. To the original post,

    How does irreverence that's specifically unintentional come about?

    Is reverence always in some sense intentional?

    For the record, Pr. Curtis, I'm still laughing at your photo caption.

    ReplyDelete
  30. If anyone has a personal grievance with the original post, it would be the pastor in the co-opted picture, along with the parents of the four children, who I'm sure did not consent to have that picture posted so that their kids could be objects lessons for "easy-going liturgy."

    ReplyDelete
  31. To the original post, with apologies for my deviation (I'll attempt to post my comments on music to the drum-beat thread):

    Pastor Curtis, you are touching on something that I have been mulling over quite a lot recently, and wrestling with. I tried to broach the subject at the CCA in connection with the panel discussions, but pretty much everyone was repeatedly drawn back to music. That says something about the power of music, but it presents a frustration in trying to grapple with the broader, more elusive discussion of reverence.

    The book can be followed in two different congregations, according to the same "setting" of the Divine Service in each place, and with all the same rubrical options employed, yet with quite a different sense of reverence or dignity. Sometimes that can be pinpointed: chatty commentary intruding upon the actual rites of the Service; or a casual posture and demeanor. But it may also be something more elusive, I suspect. It isn't attached to particular ceremonial; though I do believe that ceremony contributes a great deal, when it proceeds from a reverent disposition. The "Right Stuff," in this case, appears to be an underlying attitude of the heart, a frame of mind, a certain spirit. I don't like resorting to such categories, but I believe it is the fountain of faith in the heart out of which genuine reverence proceeds. I suspect this also belongs to what Pastor Cwirla has described as "relaxed dignity," because the proper fear of God goes hand in hand with loving and trusting in Him.

    A pastor who fears God more than he loves the praise of man, and who loves his neighbor more than himself, and who believes what he confesses concerning the body and blood of Christ, will be reverent in his conduct of the Divine Service, with or without ceremonies or vestments or any other acoutrements. There are surely certain things that he will not do, but his reverence will flow from his faith in the Holy Trinity, and it will genuinely characterize whatever he does: in simplicity or in elaborate detail.

    A pastor who is no longer sure what he believes or what he should be doing, who fears the condemnation and loves the praise of man, will not be reverent in his conduct of the Divine Service, but uncertain and afraid. More or less ceremony won't fix what ails him. True reverence cannot be manufactured, nor can it be faked.

    The genuine reverence of faith can, however, be fostered and disciplined by the structures of the liturgy, by the use of rubrics, rites and ceremonies. Faith receives such things gladly and uses them in love; or chooses not to use them in love, as the case may be. But there is no stiffness about it, no legalism or lack of love, no mandatory insistence, but a free and willing compliance for the sake of dignity and decorum. Because faith is not trying to prove anything to God, but lives by His grace and mercy and delights in His gifts of the Gospel; and faith is more concerned with serving the neighbor than impressing him.

    The discipline of rubrics, rites and ceremonies can be helpful to the pastor in his conduct of the Divine Service, because his personal piety and practice are not simply a personal matter, but belong to his public profession of the Gospel. The structures not only guide and support his administration of the things of God, but also help to protect the Church from his personal idiosyncracies, whether they be of strength or of weakness. The structures should not become everything, but neither should they be despised. The pastor should not attempt to be someone or something he is not, but neither should he be selfish or self-centered in serving the Office of Christ to which he has been called.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Pastor Stuckwisch, would you have a list of those rubrics, rites and ceremonies to which you would say there should be "free and willing compliance for the sake of dignity and decorum."

    What, precisely, do you consider those "things" that one chooses to use in love, in compliance with such things?

    I'd sincerely like to know exactly what you are referring to.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Pr. Cwirla,

    In re: the picture.

    I debated including one. Here's my reasoning.

    First, I chose a picture from a congregation not of our fellowship, being rather certain that none of our readers would know the individuals in question or be able to identify the parish.

    Second, the picture is originally posted on a public website introducing the pastor. The pastor is proud of this picture. He chose it as the public face of his ministry on the world wide web. I'm not showing anything someone doesn't want shown. I'm commenting on it negatively, but that is certainly in the realm of fair use.

    Third, it really drove home the point I was making. I could not have staged it better: the yawning kid, the wandering kid, etc. How could I resist?

    +HRC

    ReplyDelete
  34. Phil,

    You wrote:
    "How does irreverence that's specifically unintentional come about?"

    The picture that you liked so much answers your question. The pastor doesn't want to be irreverent. . . but here he has introduced the public display of yawning at the Word of God, which the congregation no doubt had a chuckle over. That's not reverent - but it was unintentional.

    You wrote:
    "Is reverence always in some sense intentional?"

    In some sense - ideally it would be come habitual and customary, which is the highest form of intentional: a habit and way of acting that simply comes naturally because it has been chosen willingly so many times in the past.

    +HRC

    ReplyDelete
  35. Just for the record, Rev. McCain is NOT part of the "Gottesdienst crowd." I don't, of course, know exactly who is, but I fairly sure I am. I expect that everyone, except Rev. McCain, who is reading this is. But he is not. As a nearly certain member of this group, I would also like to invite the rest of you to join - except, of course, for Rev. McCain, who by definition cannot be part of the group, since its main criteria is that members of the "crowd" are those who are being served by God, that is, recipients of Dienst von Gott, and who are also despised by Rev. McCain because they lack his particular blick of Lutheranism and dare to express themselves in ways that he finds " unhelpful". It is quite clear that Rev. McCain does not despise himself and has the clearest blick of his own particular, and unpublished outside of blog comment streams, blick. So also, since Rev. McCain raised the silly idea that we of the "crowd" endorse the comments in the comment stream, and even though I know no one else could possibly ever think this, I wanted to somehow let him know that we do not endorse his remarks in the comment stream. So let me reiterate: he is not part of the "crowd." We, the actual "crowd," do not endores his comments, in content or tone. But being the crowd we are, we do let him post anyway, it is part of what separates us from him.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Pastor McCain, I can't give you a list of the particular rubrics, rites and ceremonies I have in mind, precisely because, as I endeavored at some length to indicate, there is no such specific list that must necessarily be exercised.

    The freedom of faith before God will exercise itself in love toward the neighbor, even at one's own expense, in ways that respond to the needs of the neighbor. That means that faith and love will be manifested differently from place to place, depending on a whole host of circumstances. Ceremonies can often assist in manifesting the reverence of faith and the courtesy of love; but ceremonies cannot create such things, nor do such things depend upon outward ceremonies (other than the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments in the name of Christ Jesus).

    In general, love will normally suggest the use of those rubrics, rites and ceremonies that have been received and agreed-upon together within the fellowship of the Church on earth. But neither faith nor love will insist that such things are mandatory, neither as a minimum nor as a maximum of practice.

    So, I don't know how to answer your question. Attempting to do so would contradict one of the main points of my previous comments. Hence my reference to that which is done with "free and willing compliance," rather than presuming to spell out a checklist.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Pr. Curtis,

    Do you think the ritual of the liturgy (or the rubrics of the liturgy) can be thought of as an external discipline, in a way? Not exclusively, but as one of many things, kind of like the way in which fasting is a discipline?

    When I recite the Preparatory Rite, the probability that I would have said the same things spontaneously starts to approach zero. The Collect always focuses my thoughts (and, presumably, everyone else's) onto something that I hadn't been thinking about half an hour before. In the East, the deacon yells out, "Attend!" Kneeling reminds me that I ought to humble my entire being.

    I may be calling the L-word down upon myself by suggesting this, but isn't there some sense in which the Law works and should work in the Liturgy? After all, if the content of the liturgy is the entire Word and not just the Gospel as defined over against the Law, doesn't the Law have a rightful role to play in the entire liturgy?

    Maybe the reverse way of asking this is:

    Do we really understand what is and is not legalism as opposed to the correct use of the Law?

    or, again:

    What is the role of sanctification/third use in the liturgy?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Rubrics and rites are indeed a discipline, and a sanctified use of law in the service of the Word and faith. An agreed-upon order and form are all but necessary to corporate prayer, at least if love is to be served. What is more, because we depend upon the Lord's service -- His speaking and giving to us and His doing for us, by and with and according to His Word -- it is all the more appropriate and helpful that structures be agreed upon by which to receive His service and respond to it with one voice.

    The danger of legalism is not found in the use of law (or the Law), but in a reliance upon the Law (and works of the Law) as the means by which we are brought into fellowship and life with God. The Law of God and other laws are rightly used when they direct us to the Gospel (as the first three commandments do), and when they guide us in love for our neighbor (as the remaining commandments do). Thus, with respect to the rubrics, rites and ceremonies of the Divine Service, the questions will be: What sort of practice will serve and support the preaching and administration of the Gospel? And again, what sort of practice will assist the people of God to receive His gifts in faith and with thanksgiving, within the fellowship of His Church on earth? One aspect of the answer, in either case, will usually be a consistency and continuity of practice.

    Because these questions and their appropriate answers proceed in the freedom of faith and in the self-sacrificing service of love, the answers will differ to some degree or another from one place to another, from time to time. There is no one book that provides all the specific details for every place and time; nor is there a checklist of particular practices that must be adhered to in every situation. Rather, there is what Christ has given and said, and what He still gives and says; and there is the love of God in Christ that binds pastor and people to each other, and pastors to one another, and congregations to one another, and all the saints in warfare to all the saints at rest, especially in the common confession of the one Lord, one faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all.

    So there is that which is held in common for the sake of love; and there is that which differs for the sake of love. And such love is never legalistic, because it proceeds in the freedom of faith before God in Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Rick, I'm not asking for a list of "musts" but for what you have said are those things that we should, through love, be doing.

    Can you identify those rubrics, rites and ceremonies, beyond those find in our hymnals?

    I think it would be helpful to know, specifically, what you are referring to.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Paul, I honestly do not know how to be more clear than I have endeavored to be. I'm not trying to avoid your question. I don't have a list of "those things that we should, through love, be doing," because those things are going to differ from place to place and from time to time. That was a major part of my point.

    Genuine reverence does not derive from a checklist of rules, but proceeds from a heart of faith and love, and then manifests itself outwardly in what is said and done. What is said and done, at that point, will be guided by faith toward God and love for the neighbor, whether in simplicity or with elaborate adornment. Faith is already free before God, and therefore under no compulsion; and love does not impose itself upon the neighbor, but rather seeks to serve the neighbor according to his circumstance and need.

    So the rubrics, rites and ceremonies that love may call for in one case, may properly be set aside for the sake of love in another place. I can't predict ahead of time, far less hypothetically, what should be done in each case. What is required, in order that love be well informed in its care of the neighbor, is pastoral discernment and discretion in serving the particular people in the particular place to which the pastor has actually been called.

    As a general rule, I will say again, love will normally prefer those liturgical structures, orders and forms that have been received and agreed-upon together within the fellowship of the Church on earth. That pertains to the official service books and hymnals of the Church, for one example, and to the traditional and customary practices of the Church, but with respect to the continuity and familiarity of local practice. But these generalities are tempered by such things as the size of the congregation, the architecture of the church, the availability of resources, the pastor's own abilities and training, the past history of the people, and the cultural context in which the congregation is located.

    The only thing that love will necessarily be doing, in every case and circumstance, is confessing the Word of Christ. Everything else flows from and with that confession. It will include the preaching of the Law and the Gospel unto repentance for the forgiveness of sins in the name of Jesus, and it will include the administration of Holy Baptism and the Holy Communion according to His Word. Whatever else is done must accord with those means of grace; but, again, what that entails is likely to differ to some extent from one place to another, and from time to time.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Pr. Stuckwisch,

    Can you give an example?

    I tend to think of the Elevation as a good test case. I don't know for sure, but I'd doubt it's included in the current LCMS rubrics. It serves the purpose of the Word and has at least an adequate pedigree before the Reformation and the commendation of several reformers within the Lutheran Reformation. On the other hand, it elicits some uneasiness because it's not widespread in today's synod.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Rick, all I'm asking is for you to unpack what you have in mind when you state:

    "That pertains to the official service books and hymnals of the Church, for one example, and to the traditional and customary practices of the Church."

    What are those "traditional and customary practices of the Church"?

    ReplyDelete
  43. As soon as you have taken my words out of context, as you have done, Paul, you leave open the possibility of misinterpreation. Because, again, I have no specific list in mind, and I have deliberately written in broad and general terms as a matter of principle. I would hope, then, that you and anyone else who actually cares what I might think, would go back to look at the full sentence and paragraph from which you have cited my words: to see that I have written of what love will "normally" do as a "general rule," but that I have also qualified this comment by pointing to a variety of circumstances that temper the generalities.

    With those caveats in mind, here are some examples that come to mind:

    I think the use of an Altar, Pulpit and Lectern would fall into the category of "traditional and customary practices." So also the use of pastoral vestments, including cassock and surplice, alb, stole and chasuble. The use of vessels made of precious metals for the Holy Communion. The adornment of the Altar and other furnishing with paraments. The celebration of the Lord's Supper every Lord's Day. The use of a choir or cantor to assist in leading the congregation's song. The sign of the cross at various points in the Service. The elevation of the Body and Blood of Christ following the consecration. The bowing of the body and/or the bending of the knee for the confession of sins, for the confession of the Incarnation in the Creed, at the consecration of the Sacrament, and in receiving the Benediction. The use of a Gospel book. The observance of festivals and commemorations on the days so appointed in the sanctoral cycle. The praying of Matins and Vespers throughout the days of the week. The setting of regular times for confession and absolution. The use of a processional cross. The use of a crucifix. The use of sacred art to depict the stories of the Bible in the church. The use of organs to accompany the singing of the congregation.

    I don't know, the list of examples of "traditional and customary practices" could go on. But of course, providing such a list already begins to miss and distract from my point: That genuine reverence, such as Pastor Curtis discussed in his post, cannot be manufactured by the performance of this or that ceremony; nor does it necessarily require this or that ceremony. Genuine reverence proceeds from the heart of faith in words and actions that seek to serve the neighbor by the confession of the Gospel. With such love, some of the above practices will be used, and others will be set aside. As I indicated, the continuity of familiar local practices will be a factor (one of many) in determining what will and won't be done in a given place.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Thanks for sharing more details of what you have in mind, Rick.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Just for the record, Rev. McCain is NOT part of the "Gottesdienst crowd." I don't, of course, know exactly who is, but I fairly sure I am. I expect that everyone, except Rev. McCain, who is reading this is.

    ========

    I do not understand why you guys think that you have no lurkers here. No one who writes their own liturgy, uses drums in services, and would be a poster child for "What Not to Do" on your website. (You are more than welcome to use pictures from my own children sermons, praise services, and all other funky things).

    I'm sure you have plenty of lurkers here who lurk for the very same reason that I do.

    1. To see what the crazies are talking about. (no offense)

    2. To have your own view faced and challenged. I do contemporary worship because I believe it is in service to my Lord. I believe that when Jesus returns, He will say to me "Well done good and faithful servant. I'm glad you did not listen to those on Gottesdienst."

    But you know what? I might be wrong. So I'm going to read your arguments, and go over what you guys say and think about things.

    Can a person have relaxed dignity while doing contempo worship? That's what I'm thinking right now. That is the challenge that I face. Because I read the site.

    Now...if you only read websites that agree with you, you don't get challenged in the same way.

    3. Because cat fights are fun to watch.

    Mark QL Louderback

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated. Neither spam, vulgarity, comments that are insulting, slanderous or otherwise unbefitting of Christian dignity nor anonymous posts will be published.