It seems simple enough in retrospect, but it was one of those light-bulb moments this past week, which has made something rather obvious to me now.
I had the opportunity to share a pleasant and productive conversation with an older colleague for a couple hours, which dealt generally with worship matters and managed to meander here and there. Personal conversations that actually take place in person have a way of doing that, and it's great. It means that one has the chance to discover things he wasn't even looking for. That was sure enough the case for me on this recent occasion.
I've insisted for years now that the so-called "worship wars" are missing the mark in the way they usually focus on differences in style or form. That misses the mark, not because style and form are unimportant or inconsequential, but because those outward practices express and embody something deeper and more fundamental. The differences in worship practice, including notable differences in style and form, derive from a different impetus and spirit; they are driven by a different engine, running on a different sort of fuel. So I'm always attempting to begin the conversation at that underlying point, in the hopes of running from the heart of the matter to the life of the body.
So, then, in trying to distinguish what I understand by the adjective, "liturgical," I had in mind two primary examples: Liturgical "worship" is founded and formed, structured and styled, guided and governed by (a) the preaching of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, to and from Holy Baptism, to and from the Holy Communion; and (b) the centrality of the Holy Communion as the beating heart of the Church's life. These two key poles are not simply checkpoints to be included in the course of what otherwise goes on, but they are actually the definitive givens of Christ, upon which everything else depends and hinges. Preaching may be biblically conservative, but if it isn't preaching repentance for the forgiveness of sins, to and from the font, to and from the altar, then it isn't "liturgical." And that, I warrant, is unfortunate. Likewise, talking about the "Word and Sacrament," and referencing "Word and Sacrament ministry and missions," without the regular celebration of the Lord's Supper as the norm, is a slogan and a cliché, but it is not yet liturgical.
Anyway, those are the two points that I was aiming at in the course of conversation, when a slightly different (though related) second point emerged; which then proved quite enlightening.
My colleague mentioned such practices as the elevation of the Sacrament, and genuflecting, and in particular the use of a tabernacle, as examples of question and concern. I'm not a big fan of tabernacles, with due respect for my friend and colleague, Father Eckardt, but I do genuflect and elevate the Sacrament. I've had discussions of these several ceremonies often enough, and I would not have expected to plow any new ground on these points. But I wonder if those frequent conversations haven't been missing the real point at hand; a point which Father Eckardt has noted in the past.
Here is what made the discussion so significant: My colleague noted that these practices imply or suggest that the Body and Blood of Christ are actually present prior to and apart from the eating and drinking of the Sacrament. Yes, I know, the Gottesdienst Editors have had this discussion before. But this observation brought things precisely to a head. When I affirmed that, indeed, it is my belief, my teaching, and my confession that the Body and Blood of Christ are present with the speaking of the Verba Domini, there was then a clarity to our conversation that was both refreshing and helpful. I believe that was the case for both of us.
It seems to me that, when it comes right down to it, everything the Gottesdienst Editors contend for, and all of our objections to other sorts of practice, are aimed at reverence and respect for the Body and Blood of Christ. If "the Word comes to the element, and it is a Sacrament," and if the Sacrament "is the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ," then that is going to affect the way we act, the way we conduct ourselves, the way that we handle such sacred elements, before, during and after the distribution of the Holy Communion.
If that true heart of the matter is not realized or comprehended, then it is finally not possible to understand Gottesdienst; and by that I mean, not only the editors and their enterprises, but, more importantly, the Liturgy of the Divine Service. The Sacrament is the beating heart and center that unites us in our common confession and fellowship, and the very thing in which we are agreed even where and when we sometimes disagree amongst ourselves when it comes to the particulars of practice. We are bound together in the Body of Christ, by the Body of Christ; that is what enlivens us, nourishes us, and moves us to contend for whatever serves the worship of Christ in both soul and body.
Christ is not present in the Sacrament to be served by us, but to serve us Christians with His Body and His Blood. Nevertheless, wherever Christ is present, the Christian longs to serve Him in love, to wash His feet and dry them, to worship Him who is the Glory of God enfleshed and in Person. Our Lord would have His disciples eat His Body and drink His Blood, and the Ministry of the Gospel serves that holy purpose. But, again, the conduct of that Service cannot help but be affected by the very fact of the matter, that it is the Body and Blood of Christ that are being handled, given, received and consumed. When we object to irreverence and a lack of decorum, it is not because we are prudes, but because we fear, love and trust in Christ our God. When we contend for ceremonies that may seem extravagant, it is not ostentation, but for the worship of Christ in His Body with our bodies; not out of necessity, but out of fear, love and trust in Him.
It has probably been obvious to my fellow editors all along, but this observation has given me a clarity of understanding that I did not previously have. It gets to the heart of the matter, and, in doing so, it gets to the heart of the so-called "worship wars." There may be skirmishes over style, and battles over form, but the war is about the Body of Christ. Call it consecrationism vs. receptionism, but don't let any labels distract from what is really under discussion. Were we able to reach agreement in our confession of the Body of Christ, at His Word, than I believe that many of our differences in practice would be readily resolved in one way or another. But apart from that conversation and confession, no amount of uniformity in outward practice will yet amount to the inner unity of genuine fellowship.
Dr. Eckardt seems to have been on to it for a while. I am not sure of the others. But I agree with you and for my part, this has been a growing understanding sparked in no small part by my work with Gottesdienst (work which includes long conversations with the Gottesdienst Crowd). The more I celebrate and recieve the Holy Communion, the more I love it, need it, and see how central it is. In some sense the Sacrament makes me weaker. I used to hate to go for more than few days without it, now I hunger for it daily, and so do many of those I serve. I am creeping up to the point where I am almost ready to say, "For us the Sacrament of the Altar is everything."
ReplyDeleteMy first encounter with receptionism was a real crisis in my ministry and occurred early on. I was shocked - I really was - to find out that this was the historic teaching of the Missouri Synod.
ReplyDeleteThat cured me of any vainglorious pretentions about Missouri: she's never been a monolith of orthodoxy for from the beginning something has been deeply wrong here at the center.
But that also raises another question: why was Missouri so firm on sticking to the liturgy in the decades where receptionism was the absolute norm? I think here she was saved from herself by the liturgy - that is, there is such thing as a good habit. But habits and constitutional dicta about "pure agenda" fall apart without the theological backing.
+HRC
May I ask a question? "Receptionism" not only was, but still is, the "dogmatic" teaching of both the WELS and the ELS (such that in the past the WELS has broken fellowship with groups, e.g., the Swedish group headed by the late Tom Hardt, that have embraced "consecrationism." And yet, are the WELS and the ELS any less liturgical than the Missouri Synod?
ReplyDeleteWell, the adjective "liturgical" can be used in a wide variety of ways, and of course there are always exceptions on both sides of the question, but, such caveats notwithstanding, the answer is:
ReplyDeleteYes
The WELS and ELS do tend to be less liturgical than the LCMS.
Pastor Petersen, thanks for your comments. I concur with almost everything you have said, but I don't believe that we should take the position that "the Sacrament of the Altar is everything." I suspect that I would agree with your premise in making this statement, but it strikes me as an overstatement; or, at least, as a misleading way of putting things.
ReplyDeleteI would still prefer to speak of the Sacrament of the Altar as the heart and center of the Church and her life in Christ; perhaps as the source and summit of her life and health and every blessing. The preaching of the Word is primary and ongoing, even as He continues to become flesh and dwell among us. And the Sacrament of Holy Baptism is pivotal and foundational to the Christian faith and life, even as it clothes the faithful with the wedding garments in which they eat and drink the Feast. Also, the Christian who is always living toward the Altar, is likewise living from the Altar into his proper vocations and stations in the world.
So, again, I would suggest that everything pertains and relates to the Sacrament of the Altar, which stands as the central height among us; but I am reluctant to say that the Sacrament of the Altar is everything.
Of course, the Sacrament of the Altar is Christ among us in His very flesh and blood; and there is no doubt that Christ our Lord is everything, and all in all. But the same Lord Jesus Christ is also among us in the preaching of His Word, in the forgiving of sins in His Name, as in the waters of Holy Baptism, and in the lives of His faithful. For He is exceedingly rich in His grace and mercy toward us. And while He is all in all, it is also the case that one can speak of Christ as the Head of His Body, the Church; in which there is both the most intimate relationship and yet the distinction between the Bridegroom and His beloved Bride. Perhaps a similar connection and distinction can be maintained in speaking of the Sacrament of the Altar and the Church?
"But the same Lord Jesus Christ is also among us in the preaching of His Word, in the forgiving of sins in His Name, as in the waters of Holy Baptism, and in the lives of His faithful. For He is exceedingly rich in His grace and mercy toward us."
ReplyDeleteI like to think of all these different elements of the life of the Church as superimposed layers or concentric spheres like layers of an onion. There is an interrelationship, a directedness out from the Lordship of Christ, and even a causal relationship between these things, but to make a strict chronological time-sequence out of these things doesn't seem right to me. To say "The preaching of the Word has stopped, and now we are going to stop considering the word and start thinking about the Sacrament" is to miss the point; a naive and rigid application of the Liturgy of the Word / Liturgy of the Sacrament distinction can tend in this direction to the point that the two rites aren't understood as a unity, and the Word and the Sacrament end up divorced from one another. All of these things are unified in Christ.
Here on the outer rim of Lutheranism, the "personal conversations" of which Fr. Stuckwisch writes more often take literary form. So having read it this morning I commend Stephenson's review essay, if you haven't already seen it, in the LOGIA Holy Trinity issue, regarding Usus and Actio.
ReplyDelete"...to make a strict chronological time-sequence out of these things doesn't seem right to me. To say 'The preaching of the Word has stopped, and now we are going to stop considering the word and start thinking about the Sacrament' is to miss the point..."
ReplyDeleteFor the sake of clarification, I should certainly say that I didn't intend any such things as this. I don't think you were offering your comments as a matter of disagreement, but I did want to clarify the point. I absolutely affirm that each of these things, of which I have written above, do have an organic connection and interrelatedness to each other. I'm not inclined to speak of concentric circles, necessarily, because each of these means of grace has its own propria and purpose in the life of the Church. They center in the Sacrament of the Altar, as has been said; but I still wish to suggest that the heart and center is not "everything," even if it does give us everything in Christ.
Faithful preaching will always lead to the Altar; and, by the same token, the Holy Communion should never be administered apart from the preaching of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. To and from the Font, to and from the Altar, to and from vocational life in the world, always back to the Lamb upon His throne in the center of His Church.
Thanks for the tip, Pastor Rinas.
Pastor Stuckwisch -
ReplyDeleteThe paragraph describing what "liturgical" means is really helpful. I used to use the phrase "Word and Sacrament ministry" in some District meetings, as shorthand for what we're (hopefully) striving for - as opposed to using Protestant praise services as our model. I quit using that phrase because it didn't seem to mean the same thing to all of us. Or at least some folks used the same phrase and seemed to have a different picture in their mind. The best way I can describe it is that "Word and Sacrament ministry" seemed to mean "we believe in Holy Communion". Which made me feel stuck - it's like the difference between agreeing with a definition and living a life.
"Faithful preaching will always lead to the Altar; and, by the same token, the Holy Communion should never be administered apart from the preaching of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. To and from the Font, to and from the Altar, to and from vocational life in the world, always back to the Lamb upon His throne in the center of His Church."
ReplyDeleteRev Stuckwisch, that sounds a lot like Dr Luther's preaching to me.
"My first encounter with receptionism was a real crisis in my ministry and occurred early on. I was shocked - I really was - to find out that this was the historic teaching of the Missouri Synod."
ReplyDeleteHuh- I never knew that was the official teaching of the LCMS. But beyond that (and forgive me if I'm going off board here)- the more and more I study Church History, the more and more I find receptionism to be a faulty teaching at the very least.
Again, if I'm going off the conversation here, MOD me out.
Tim, your comments are entirely apropos and welcome. It ought to cause us to pause and reflect and humility, wherever we may discover that our teaching and practice diverge from that of the church catholic. Not as though history were normative or never to be faulted; but because it was not from us that the Word of God originated, nor to us alone that it has come by His grace.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate all of the comments that have been made, but I remain sincerely interested whether those who disagree with us would concur that we are at the heart of the matter when it comes to the "real presence" or "absence" of Christ before, during and after the distribution of the Holy Communion.
I perceive that what drives a lot of "church growth" "contemporary (sic) worship" practices is a zeal and desire for the salvation of the lost. I admire the zeal and desire, to a point, though I fear that it is running with a false theology. But setting that argument aside for the time being, what I am wondering here is whether those who engage in "church growth" "contemporary (sic) worship" practices would be doing what they are doing, in the way they are doing it, if they were cognizant and convinced of the bodily presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar.
I'm not presenting this to be insulting, and I'm not trying to suggest that any or all of these folks would deny the body and blood of Christ in the actual eating and drinking. I hope that no one will fine-tooth-comb by words to interpret any such insult or accusation in them. I am sincere in my question, whether receptionism may be the error that lies at the heart of those practices to which we object.
And by the same token, perhaps those who roll their eyes and raise their eyebrows at the Gottesdienst editors will at least be able to comprehend our principles and practice, if they discern that we are conducting our bodies in reverence for the very body of Christ.
Pr. Stuckwisch, in reply to your previous remark, from which I here "proof-text" your words, so to speak...
ReplyDelete>>>what I am wondering here is whether those who engage in "church growth" "contemporary (sic) worship" practices would be doing what they are doing, in the way they are doing it, if they were cognizant and convinced of the bodily presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar<<<
...to which I will add the perhaps inappropriate degree of skepticism: honestly, I'm not sure how much they care about the *bodily presence of Christ,* since "they" operate on the emotional level of "effectiveness" or "being sated in the spirit." For them, an emotional high *in their own bodies* is met, either by performing creative worship or by getting caught up in the music of the performers. This overshadows the "real presence" business. Or at least, real presence and CW can coexist side by side. People, inconsistent as they can be, have no trouble simultaneously holding two contradictory viewpoints or practices.
Contemporary worship turns out to be more effective and successful for them than the corporeal presence of Jesus. To put it another way, the music is a more reliable means of grace when trying to "Open the Eyes of My Heart, Lord."
They may indeed be "cognizant and convinced" of the so-called real presence; but I have to ask if, really, this for them is anything more than wordplay. Music, for them, meets a need that Jesus cannot. In any case, they can compartmentalize the presence of Christ, Who comes out perhaps only at the distribution. At other points in the service, they can pull from other compartments as they need or desire.
I am oversimplifying. Not all proponents think like this, of course. As I said, my assessment is an inappropriate level of skepticism. But for them, in many cases, I believe the heart of the matter really is the music.