Most, if not all, pious members of the LC-MS desire a greater degree of liturgical uniformity. This, however, is very difficult to achieve with the advent of CPH’s Lutheran Service Book and Service Builder software. The hymnal itself has five orders for the Holy Communion with completely different texts, different musical settings, and even different orders for the ordinaries. It also allows gives the users plenty of choices that enable, in fact, a service that at least feels very contemporary and isn’t in the least bit liturgical. The rubrics, it seems, and I think wisely, are incredibly sparse. The hymnal also contains another dozen or so liturgies without the Holy Communion. And, of course, the historic worship materials of the LCMS are still with us: TLH, Worship Supplement 1969, LW, various publications of the COW, and Hymnal Supplement '98.
But that is still not enough for the congregations and pastors of the LCMS. CPH has been forced to create and promote the Service Builder software which encourages and enables congregations to modify the liturgy at will and even write their own liturgies or edit existing liturgies. The good news for CPH is that this builder is ongoing source of income since it can’t be purchased outright but requires a yearly license renewal.
Still, even that is not enough, CPH also produces and sells Creative Worship. This ever new quarterly resource provides completely novel ordinaries every Sunday and every Feast, every year.
It might be tempting to blame CPH or to ask its employees to denounce all these products, but the simple reality is that CPH is not underwritten by the LCMS. It must make a profit to keep paying all those employees and to occasionally put out something Lutheran. CPH is driven by the market. The sale of LSB enabled them to stockpile $30 million dollars, but how long will that last?
If you include all the varieties and possibilities that CPH provides for Sunday morning worship, every bit of which has been through doctrinal review and carries the imprimatur of Synod, there are thousands and thousands of liturgies.
In part, then, this is the agenda of Gottesdienst. We seek to provide some guidance, discussion, and consideration of what is the best practice from within our tradition. The editors are not in agreement as to all the details. Most of the time we are discussing relative strength of one practice or rite compared to another, not doctrine. The debate is not whether or not it is allowable to use the songs suggested by and written for the CPH VBS in congregational worship but whether or not those songs, here today and forgotten tomorrow, are really the strongest practice.
What we are interested in, for the most part, is not what is allowable, but what best serves. We are thankful for the work of CPH and we place a certain confidence in the work of doctrinal review. But much of what CPH puts out in Creative Worship, in the bulletin covers, in its VBS materials, and what it enables and recommends with the Service Builder is very weak. It might well have a place and a time when it is appropriate and is the best that some small group or congregation without accompaniment can do. But for the most part it isn’t. For the most part it is free of false doctrine but it is sickeningly weak, a poor choice for most congregations.
CPH, of course, as any marketing-driven institution, can’t provide this discussion or guidance. It places all of its products on equal footing, and, to some degree, wants us to buy as much of it as possible. Gottesdienst, then, is here to help. As far as I know, no one has ever walked out of the seminary and said, “I know everything there is to know about worship and the conduct of the Service.” No, we don’t have rules and regulations. We won’t issue ultimatums or ask you to denounce some CPH product or friend. But we are needed and we are useful for this purpose: thus we will continue to provide a place to discuss the importance in using these resources to best and most clearly confess the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ in an ever-changing, confusing, capitalistic world. And even though we won’t make some absurd rule to bind the consciences of men, you can rest assured that we will continue to advocate mainly for the superior strength and clarity, in our tradition, of the Western Rite as it has come down to us in the form of the Common Service (LSB p. 184), and, though there is some diversity among us on this also, for the Historic Lectionary (LSB 1 Year).
As always here at Gottesdienst, I speak for myself and my views don't necessarily reflect the other editors completely. That being said, I trust that they are in face in the spirit of my fellow editors and that what I have written will resound with them, mostly, if not completely.
Well said, Dave. Great post. I'm right there with you at the heart of what you've written, even though you rag on LSB too much.
ReplyDeleteMakes complete sense really. The variety of official published options being what it is, cross-examination would become useful, if not necessary.
ReplyDeleteI've always found the book title "Lutheran Worship: History & Practice" to be an oxymoron, as much of what is in L(b)W had NO real "history" behind it - much less any "practice" - in the Western Church Catholic.
ReplyDeleteIn like manner, much of LSB's plethora of liturgies are just as "contemporary" in both source & content as ANY home-made "hum 'n strum" material; and "Service Builder" is merely a cut & paste program ... bleah. For example, "Service of Preaching & Prayer" is akin to what I've seen in any number of Babtist or Methodist congregations on any Sunday; just because it's been given synodical imprimatur - or CPH copyright - doesn't give it validity, IMhO.
It's a nifty thing Rev. Weedon's coming on board at the IC. This "liturgical uniformity" is about to become his life work!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat I've always admired so much about Pastor Weedon is that while he most certainly has his personal preferences, tastes and opinions in matters of worship and ceremony, he is very careful subsume those under the will of the Synod in such matters and strives to use Lutheran Service Book as fully, well, and faithfully as he possibly can, therefore setting a very, very fine example for his fellow pastors, and future pastors.
ReplyDeleteWhat Synodically approved service book and hymnal and agenda does Redeemer use?
Hi Paul. Thanks for the offer, but we're not in the market for anything right now.
Delete- Dave
Pr. Weedon is a rare gift to our fellowship, no doubt about it. I, too, admire him very much. But, even his ceremonial conduct is not so neatly subsumed within the confines of the LSB rubrics as you indicate here, Paul. I mean, he genuflects and elevates, and he's even been known to kiss a Crucifix on Good Friday, not to mention the sanctus bells that are heard at the Consecration where he serves and (egads!) his donning of a rose chasuble on occasion, among other things, I'm sure.
DeleteThe question, then, is why does he get a pass, while others, whose ceremonial conduct may go beyond the rubrics of LSB, don't?
Maybe it's just because he's an all-around nicer gent than the rest of us, to which I have no argument. But, that hardly seems like justification for the double standard you so readily employ with your judgmental pontifications oft-issued 'round the interwebs. Surely, there must be more to it than that.
Now, you will no doubt retort that I am missing your point - and Weedon's, too; that the things I've mentioned above in the way of ceremonial conduct can be justified by taking into consideration additional resources (e.g. The Altar Guild Manual - LSB edition to justify the use of rose) linked to LSB. But, I don't think you'll be able to find such justification for every aspect of ceremonial conduct employed even by Pr. Weedon. I may be wrong. If so, maybe you or Pr. Weedon can point me to the resource linked directly to LSB that provides the rubric for kissing a Crucifix on Good Friday, for instance.
In my reading of Pr. Weedon on this subject, I think his point is that he does strive to stay within the confines of our "official liturgy" and to allow those confines to put a check on his own personal preferences, but that he also recognizes that it is perfectly permissible to employ aspects of ceremonial conduct that are within our liturgical heritage, even if they are not so neatly confined to the limited rubrics offered by LSB. But, again, maybe I'm wrong about his take, and he can certainly correct me if I am.
But, with or without Pr. Weedon's explanation, it behooves you, Paul, to elucidate for us why you've no problem with certain aspects of his ceremonial conduct, while chastising others for the same.
I'm sure I must be missing something here, but I'm confused by the apparent line of argument. Surely Paul would not suggest that ceremonies which are neither specified nor prohibited in LSB and its accompanying books are necessarily outside of acceptable "LCMS" practice. Lutherans do not take that approach in the case of practices neither commanded nor forbidden by God. How or why would LSB silence amount to a law against such-and-such practice?
DeleteIt seems to me that, where LSB is silent on a practice, we should then be looking to the Holy Scriptures, first of all, to our Lutheran Confessions, and to the traditions of the Church to assess and consider the possibilities. There are certainly any number of reasons for deciding for or against a given practice, but it strikes me as neither safe nor sound to suppose that LSB has already answered all those possibilities.
Help me understand the line of thought.
Fr. Stuckwisch,
DeleteIf Paul is not suggesting that ceremonies which are neither specified nor prohibited in LSB and its accompanying books should not be used (actually, I think he'd go beyond that and allow for any synodically approved hymnals and agendas, with their included rubrics), then what is he saying?
He puts forth Fr. Weedon as a very, very fine example for his fellow pastors (I agree that he is, as are you and many other brothers 'round these parts), but even he goes beyond the rubrics of LSB and other synodically approved hymnals and agendas in his ceremonial conduct. How, then, is he held up as an example by Paul, while others (e.g. Fr. Petersen in this current thread), whose ceremonial conduct falls well without the realm of our liturgical heritage, but go beyond what we have in our current rubrics, are thought to be dangers to our synodical unity?
Of course, only Paul can answer this, but I'm not the first one to notice this strange double standard he employs.
I understand what you are saying, Fr. Messer, and I can't help but share your frustration in this regard. However, I honestly cannot believe that Paul would really take such a position. I wish that he would clarify himself on this point, but perhaps he didn't understand my question or concern.
DeleteIt seems to me that Fr. Curtis' points, above, remove any ambiguity there might have been in my comments and questions. So I don't understand why Paul doesn't respond; especially when he pushes us to answer his questions.
It seems like it goes both ways though. The idea of using only synod-approved books depends on the notion that varying is destructive. So if the synod itself approves of variation, what is left but to allow variation?
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Synod, Inc. and its publishing house have set a bad example and supported it, doesn't mean that the Church should follow that example.
DeleteAs Dave has noted above, "pious members of the LC-MS desire a greater degree of liturgical uniformity," and rightly so. I join him in bemoaning the difficulty presented by the plethora of resources.
There is an opposite extreme, however, which is not the correct response or answer to the problem.
It seems to me there needs to be some clear and coherent explanation for those circumstances where variety is chosen, deliberately kept, or simply permitted to remain. Addressing variations with an encouragement toward strong practice, with a desire for greater uniformity of practice within our church fellowship, seems to be one of the most valuable contributions that Gottesdienst can make.
If I'm following...
DeleteBecause there are several hymnals being used in the Synod, and because LSB offers several liturgy options for the Divine Service, then it is just fine for congregations that wish to be liturgical to not use any of these resource but do their "liturgical home brew" but it is not good for congregations to do the same thing if their liturgy and ceremonies do not fall within whatever Gottesdienst editors consider to be good by way of liturgy and ceremonies?
I tell you what, I give up. The goal of trying to all do the same thing as closely as possible with one another is pointless, I see that now.
There is too much of the American spirit in us all.
The thought that every congregation would do as was done in the German consistories, where strict uniformity was simply part for the course is unthinkable, every bit as much to the low church as to the high church crowd, and that's rather ironic.
But there you go.
Meanwhile, as I said on my own blog, I won't try anymore to venture into critique of the rather dramatic inconsistencies in the claims of the Gottesdienst crowd as long as our Synod can't even put an end to the non-liturgical nonsense at Lakepoint, etc.
So, do whatever you want. It's all good.
But I will never wear a pink chasable. That's just not me.
:)
Paul,
DeleteI don't think anyone here has advocated liturgical "home brew." They have advocated using ceremonies that are neither prescribed nor anathematized in LSB. As you admitted that you yourself prefer, saying that you elevate and genuflect, though these are not in the rubrics of LSB.
You see, one must distinguish between the Order and the Ceremonies. Gottesdienst has long advocated the uniform use of the Common Service (either in its TLH or LSB forms) in North American Lutheranism. But we also advocate a traditional ceremony that goes beyond the rubrics in those books. As you yourself have said is also your preference.
Does that help make sense of what Rick said?
+HRC
Paul, odd reply. I simply asked for a clarification. Now, I'm even less sure of what to think. Judging from your reaction -- which hardly seems fair, if it was intended as a reply to my question -- is it actually true that you would frown upon the use of any ceremonies concerning which the LSB and its book are silent? If that is the case, I would want to see some kind of theological argument for that.
DeleteI'd also appreciate knowing where I have been inconsistent in my approach to these discussions. If I have been unfair to anyone, or inconsistent in my comments, I would like the chance to correct my errors.
Peace be with you, Paul.
I was thinking abstractly earlier, but that scarcely helps. Sorry. Perhaps it is simply a problem of making uniformity in worship a higher priority than uniformity in doctrine.
DeleteI talked to someone who used to be Anglican, and that is a big problem he had with them. If we see ceremonies as servants of doctrine, not masters, then it is easy to see how their stimulative power should not be treasured to such a degree that we seek to break official uniformity, because our main priority is confessing the same truth together.
Really, if I know that the people I am worshiping with agree to the Small Catechism, I can put up with a great deal of variety to have that. But if I have a perfect ceremony with no Small Catechism, then that is misery. So it is probably a matter of priority.
I believe you are correct, jfp, that there is a measure of priority and emphasis. Which also means, it isn't an "either-or," but rather calls for a proper balance. By that, I don't mean equal footing for divine doctrine and ceremonies instituted by men; but using that which is free, fully and well, in faith and love, in the service of the Gospel.
DeleteThank you for your comments.
I am totally confused by Rev. McCain's remarks. Isn't he the producer and purveyor of Creative Worship and the Service Builder?
DeletePaul - do you not promote and encourage congregations of the LCMS to use CPH products?
Dave, odd reply. I'm simply asking what doctrinally pure agenda and hymnbook your parish is using. Do you use Lutheran Service Book or The Lutheran Hymnal or Lutheran Worship, and if not, why not?
ReplyDeleteAs I said Paul, we aren't in need of anything now. But even if we were, our secretary handles sales calls so you'd need to talk to her. You can call the church at the number listed on the LCMS website. But, again, really, it is a waste of time right now. Thanks, anyway.
DeleteDave
Dave, passive aggressive behavior is unbecoming, I think.
DeleteWhy are you so reticent to answer a straightforward question?
Paul, listen, I am being as clear as I can. I am not reticent at all. I know you have lots of resources and great deals at CPH. But I am completely happy with our current agenda. I don't want an upgrade. I am not interested in the cut and past Service Builder option or Creative worship or an I-Pad app. I don't want a 30 day free trial or a demonstration. I am sure there lots of exciting things happening at CPH and I know you're always producing new products. Good for you. But we are not in the market for more or better or upgraded Agendas no matter how cheap they are or how quickly the sale will end. Send me a catalog. I'll take a look at it. But we just aren't buying right now. Thanks, anyway.
DeleteDave
"As far as I know, no one has ever walked out of the seminary and said, “I know everything there is to know about worship and the conduct of the Service.” I am not so sure that this statement is true. A gazillion years ago when I came through that was exactly the sentiment if not the statement. Because of this, all sorts of anomalies once were common (like the Verba attached to the end of Matins to make it a "Communion Service"). Though the copier and desk top publishing helped, the impetus for adaptation was there in the 41 hymnal as well.
ReplyDeleteI will admit to writing for Creative Worship -- writing to make Creative Worship more liturgical and using the real provisions within the rites of LSB for change and choice without borrowing from non-liturgical sources or writing as if there were no two millenia of liturgical history. Not everything I offer gets used and much gets changed but it is my little contribution to steer the Creative toward the liturgical. I do sot because several folks (way back when it began) told me that they needed people who would do just that or the resource would go much further afield than it has (though some of those reading here do not think that possible, believe me, Creative Worship is pretty tame compared to what Pastors are doing on their own).
I have brought two parishes back from the brink of evangelicalism and into a healthy Lutheran liturgical as well as confessional (secure for now) identity so I don't think I have to prove or apologize. I did not inherit any liturgical tradition in both places where I have served as Pastor.
To my point. The success of Creative Worship is due less to the creative aspects of the resource but more to the laziness of the parish Pastor in doing his own homework. A number of years ago I took the non-festival portion of the church year and presented at a District Pastoral Conference an outline of hymn choices, options for themes from the lessons (3 year), liturgical changes appropriate to the Sundays and the season, and a host of other material I thought fairly ordinary to any Lutheran Pastor preparing for the Sunday liturgy. What I found is that guys who were there still use my resource because they had not done their homework in the past and had no idea where to go. It is not that they wanted creativity but they wanted help, resources, and a direction.
The rest of my rant is below:
ReplyDeleteCreative Worship sells not because it is creative; it is not very creative. But it does the work that the Pastor does not have to and it offers him the perspective of a prepared in depth look at the pericopes that many Pastors are not prepared to do for themselves. None of the congregations on our liturgical fringe are using it; mostly mainstream, middle of the road, ordinary Lutheran congregations (often smaller) and those busy Pastors who have been taught in seminary to put a hundred thousand hours into parish calling, preparing for Bible study, teaching catechism, and sermon prep and then left with 30 minutes to open the hymnal and figure out what we are going to do with the Divine Service this week.
I came to Redeemer when Lindemann was leaving and I was there when Charles Evanson was installed and I was set apart as a deacon there in 1976 and served as organist, janitor, catechism teacher, and occasional preacher there until I left for my first parish in 1980. I was married at Redeemer. I have never had the privilege of serving a place like Redeemer or a host of other bright and shining liturgical lights in our Synod. I came to a place using a Gospel song book and to a people sure that Lutheran was a most unhelpful word to describe who they were and what they believed. That is where most Lutheran Pastors go -- even those, like me, who love the liturgy. Not all of them know how or even know where to start to begin the great exodus from the wilderness of liturgical confusion and evangelicalism on Sunday morning to the promised land of the Divine Service (does as simply or as elaborately as desired). So they look for resources to fill the bill. That is why CPH offers these and they sell and they make money so that CPH can produce wonderful but limited appeal books.
Not the first parish I served or this one I am now serving is where I think it ought to be. I have been here going on 20 years and, if the Lord deems me to stay until I retire, we may just make it back to where we should have been. There are so many LCMS congregations like these who are in the wilderness and it sometimes takes a full forty years to get close enough to see the promised land. You won't get them there by staying 3, 5, or even 7 years.
Just a few thoughts... now you can take aim...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWading in where angels fear to tread...but why not? The Lutheran liturgical heritage is extraordinary rich and diverse and broader than any modern use - and that's true for every liturgical tradition, not just our own. Think of it like a house. Over the years, some valuable items may be stowed away in the attic or the basement. Some years later, someone may come across them and think: you know, it's a pity that we don't actually get to use that anymore. Let's bring it down and dust it off. The remarkable recovery of the elevation (nowhere indicated in our current rubrics) is an example of this. It has found it's proper use again: a confession of the real presence. Just the reason it was preserved and used in Brandenburg in the 17th century, even though it was put up in the liturgical attic in nearby Saxony.
ReplyDeleteThe value of Paul's points, I think, is that they invite us to remember that humility is also a catholic virtue; submission to one another is a gift that is well worth cultivating. Yes, I may think that I know that this practice or that practice is better, but when I choose to live within the rubrical structure of our hymnal, I set aside my own preferences and knowledge for the sake of a common walking together. The value of Gottesdienst's points, I think, is that they remind us (in the words of Piepkorn) that the responsible use of freedom is also a catholic virtue - and there are ceremonies and usages that confess and confess well, that we have relegated to the liturgical attic or basement over the years, and some of these are utterly worth recovering. Though they are not IN the rubrics of LSB, they are quite in HARMONY WITH the rubrics of LSB.
Just a thought on the common service. It is fundamentally a 19th century romantic recreation of what its founders thought were the "best" of the old Lutheran liturgies - and it is heavily spiced with the Book of Common Prayer. The actual Lutheran liturgies of the 16th and 17th centuries displayed a rather wide amount of diversity from order to order, but all were unmistakably Lutheran in their confession and liturgical approach. You can spot a Lutheran liturgy at 20 paces even with eyesight as poor as mine. And in the minds of the framers of those rites, the Creed (for example) if it is said in the vernacular IS Luther's "Wir Glauben" and if it is in the Latin "Patrem" etc.
I would argue that ALL the Eucharistic ordos in LSB fall well within the tradition of the 16th and 17th century foundational orders. LSB is sometimes criticized for being a bit sparse on rubrics, but then so were those orders. You have to read other works (Sexton notebooks as in Stiller, or Gerber's History) to find out the ceremonies that continued that are not mentioned in the actual works. The Saxons regularly rang the sanctus bells during the consecration, but this is not mentioned at all in the official orders!
Might that not provide a way to think out the liturgical freedom and responsibility we have toward each other as we deal with these "extra" LSB ceremonies today?
Pardon the length of the reply, but just some off-hand comments.
Brother Weedon, this is, I think, exactly the sort of answer that is needed. You've articulated what I was looking for and getting at (above) very helpfully and well. Thank you for doing so.
DeleteMight that not provide a way to think out the liturgical freedom and responsibility we have toward each other as we deal with these "extra" LSB ceremonies today?
DeleteI think this is an excellent way to think out the liturgical freedom and responsibility we have toward each other, Fr. Weedon. An excellent way, indeed!
Now, where is this not happening among those who have been targeted as dangerous "high churchers"? Who among that nefarious group would not respond with a hearty "Amen" to what you have written here? I honestly cannot think of a single one.
Thanks, Will, for your helpful remarks.
DeleteHaving been enriched in the Sacrament, worship, preaching at Redeemer, Ft W, to any who read these posts unknowingly, Rev. Petersen uses a historical western rite that long proceeds the LCMS and LSB and is very catholic, reverent, and Lutheran. Thanks be to God for His work at Redeemer.
ReplyDeleteMore than that, it's just a different musical setting: it's TLH p. 15 or LSB 184 with different music, a setting commissioned by the LCMS at that.
Delete+HRC
And the last time I was there for service (January 2012) they Redeemer had LSB in the pews.
DeleteThanks to those who have answered the question that Pr. Petersen would not answer. I've heard from several people about what is used and done at Redeemer, Fort Wayne, since posting the question.
DeletePTM