I'm very excited to hear that our own Dr. Stuckwisch is set to discuss this issue among others at the ACELC free conference in Austin. He asked us fellow Gottesdienst editors to chime in as he prepares his paper. Here's my stab at it.
Indeed - it's a bit like the judge's famous quip about pornography: hard to define, but I know it when I see it.
Anyone who uses the hymnal for the service, the lectionary for the readings, and vests in alb and stole is traditional. A chasuble can also be traditional. A little bit of chanting - like DS Setting I's Kyrie, can still be traditional. Bowing at the consecration can still be traditional. But if you have the chasuble, a little bit of chanting, and the bowing...that's starting to add up to High Church.
Anyone who uses the hymnal for the service, the lectionary for the readings, and vests in alb, stole, and chasuble, and chants all the parts where the says it "may" be chanted or spoken is High Church. Genuflecting during the Creed and/or the Consecration is High Church. Incense is High Church. Having an assisting pastor vested in dalmatic is High Church.
Traditionalists are conservatives and can thus suffer from the conservative's bane: what am I conserving? Like the GOP who is always trying to conserve the status quo of 20 years ago, which was the progressive vision of 40 years ago, it can be hard to know what they stand for. 50 years ago the alb was High Church in the Midwest. Today it is traditional. Thirty years ago a chasuble was unheard of. Today the utterly traditional, "low church," say-sing parish where I vicared has chasubles.
Folks who are High Church can suffer from the repristinator's bane: setting a given point in history as the high water mark for good practice and seeking to regain all those ceremonies.
Intelligent and well meaning folks in each camp focus on an honest to goodness agenda: I want my practice to reflect my doctrine and to teach the people all while honoring the heritage of my church's history and making realistic accommodations to the sensibilities of my flock and my neighbors. A good many men in Missouri have exactly this praiseworthy agenda and thus we see the creep of ceremonies that were once the exclusive property of the "High Church" (chanting, albs, chasubles, Tenebrae Vespers) into the realm of the "traditional." All this really means is that Missouri has slowly reclaiming portions of historical Lutheran ceremony in a responsible way that teaches the people and confesses our faith clearly. I view Gottesdienst as a resource for anybody with this agenda, whether they are "traditional" or "high church."
Reading the Braunsweig-Wolfenbuettel Church Order was the real eye opener for me. It turns out this High Church/traditional, or more ceremonious/less ceremonious distinction has always been with Lutheranism. In that Church Order the divide is spelled out with amazing clarity: the rich city churches had Latin and high ceremony, the poor country parishes had low ceremony and Luther's (in my humble opinion: grossly truncated) German Mass.
We are a society of the middle class. It is only natural that our church's have therefore mixed up the city mouse/country mouse divide.
+HRC
I am not a big fan of the "High/Low" designations when used in Lutheranism. I believe they came out of Anglicanism as a way to mock the Anglo-catholic and Calvinist clergy at the same time:
ReplyDelete"High Church - hazy,
Low Church - lazy,
Broad Church - crazy!"
We are not a 'Broad Church.' We are a confessional Church. I understand what people mean by these words, I think. But in a Lutheran context, it doesn't make as much sense. I am not sure I know what to replace them with, through. We are Sacramental and our ceremonies should reflect that basic reality. Traditional Missouri Synod (minimal ceremony) can do that. Fuller ceremony does it better. Purposeful irreverence denies it.
That's why I found that old Church Order so interesting: we really did have a legislated divide along the lines of ceremony in the days of the Reformation! Whatever the terminology - the distinction is real.
ReplyDelete+HRC
High, Broad, and Low Church are forms of churchmanship and have no reason to be used among Lutherans.
ReplyDeleteWould you unpack this for us a bit? I'm not sure I'm following your point. Thanks.
Delete"Forms of churchmanship" have "no reason to be used among Lutherans." I would say "descriptive" (very!) but not "prescriptive." ;-)
Delete50 years ago the cassock and surplice were high church in the midwest. Black gown was the norm. No one had an alb.
ReplyDeleteAs you point out, I've found that the distinctions between "traditional" and "high church" tend to be relative ones. In my home congregation of Our Savior (Raleigh, NC), our pastor is vested in cassock, surplice, and stole for every service, we chant the majority of the Divine Service, and our sanctuary is replete with two crucifixes and kneelers. By the standards of our circuit (and our district at large, it seems), we are remarkably "high."
ReplyDeleteHow about this: reverent, more reverent, most reverent.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a fan of these terms, either, but, simply refusing to address the differences isn't very helpful. The differences exist, and they mean something. For the sake of discussion, I'm willing to work with the terms as they've been set forth, and to answer the questions as best I can.
ReplyDeleteFor a long time, the contention has been between "contemporary" and "traditional," and, even though these terms are rather ambiguous, everyone recognizes that there are at least these two distinct sets of practices that are operating with different presuppositions and priorities. Now, for the conference at hand, there has been identified a third category, under the term, "high church," and my assignment is to speak concerning that set of practices. The goal, I believe, is to offer some understanding of what is at stake, and by what criteria this or that may (or should) be evaluated. That is to get at the heart of the matter, which is what I am always desiring to do, in any case, and I finally don't mind about the nomenclature that is used for it, so long as it is used with clarity and consistency, and so long as the content itself is sound.
I appreciate the comments that Pr. Curtis and a few others have already offered, with respect to the relative differences between "traditional" and "high church" practices. I concur with those observations; yet, I also think they are missing something more substantive or significant. I'm not convinced that the difference is merely an external one. I suspect that the difference is at work in the preaching and hymnody, as much as it is in the vestments and chanting, bending and lifting that may or may not be going on. The differences in ceremonial practice are not the heart of the matter, although I do think that such ceremonial differences are often where the lines fall.
I was taught that "high church" goes with a lack of concern for content and that "traditional" values content more than church usages (ritual or ceremonial). I guess I feel somewhat out of place. I great up in a parish extremely traditional (and rabidly anti-Catholic) yet the bell was tolled at the consecration and during the Our Father and the Pastor chanted. Now I find that the bell and chanting represent sort of the extreme of what most Lutherans will tolerate. In the midst of all of this, the ceremonial that once attracted me led me to the doctrine and now it is the doctrine that moves me to greater ceremonial. In either case, we use incense, genuflect, chant, use full eucharistic vestments, and have a tabernacle. Everyone on God's green earth knows what that means. Traditional high church.
ReplyDeleteAs, Fr. Stuckwisch said, like it or not—the latter in my opinion—these terms have migrated into our circles and have become common parlance. However, I think it is important that we make some historical distinctions, especially with (1) respect to the church orders and (2) the emergence of these terms "high church and low church." Regarding the church orders the city/Latin & German Mass and the rural/German Mass isn't a distinction that maps onto or parallels the 17th century "High Church Movement" in England. The former was regarding resources: city parishes had Latin schools and, therefore, retained Latin within the Mass for the boys choirs; rural parishes lacked these schools and, subsequently, the choirs. The latter was an English phenomenon that originally had to do with English episcopal leadership, positions about the monarchy, and identity with its pre-reformation past over and against Puritan and Roman Catholic thought. In neither case do these completely correspond to usage within the LCMS. Further, as Sasse notes in a few essays, the emergence of a Lutheran/German Hochkirchliche movement in the 20th century is still not congruent with our connotation. If these terms are going to be used be us, we need to distinguish our understanding over and against 17th & 19th century English usage and 20th century German.
ReplyDeleteLutheranism is a lot like academia. We don't like to use words unless *we* started using them first. Our workaround is to translate them into German - which "Lutheranizes" them. Academia also loves German and academics pepper their essays with Weltschauung and Zeitgeist, Sitz im Leben, and of course, Schadenfreude. So with "high church" we just say "hochkirche" (and I would recommend slipping in some extra umlauts (i.e. "rock dots" - see Stuckwisch passim)).
DeleteI don't see the problem with describing the amount of ceremonial as "high" and "low." It is somewhat arbitrary, like "high" German and "low" German, or the way we locate north at the top of the map, or describe musical notes as "high" or "low" in pitch.
The reality is that there is a spectrum, whether we call it up, down, left, or right, there is a sliding scale of the amount of ceremonial used in Lutheran Masses. In fact, getting hung up on how everybody else uses terminology is one reason why people don't like us to say the word "Mass." Before long, the only word we Lutherans will be allowed to use in any context will be "justification" - and we won't be allowed to say it in English! ;-)
Point taken. But I think the problems we face stem more from ill-formed definitions and the absence of distinctions, than linguistic pedantry.
DeleteI just don't see the definitional problem with describing worship with bells and incense as "high" and lacking ceremony to be "low." The terms are simply a metaphor to convey a sense of spacial relation. Is there really anyone who is confused by this? Does anyone say, "Gee, I thought the use of incense would be described as "low" and the use of a Geneva gown as "high."
DeleteI honestly don't know why Lutherans become such scolds when it comes to these terms. Yes, they originated in Anglicanism. But our language itself has similar origins. Besides, what is uniquely Anglican about different levels of ceremony? By way of example, "Pietism" is a term that originated among Lutherans. Does this mean the term is not useful to describe schools of thought within other Christian traditions?
Again, the terms are just a metaphor. You just can't do the same thing by referring to a service with a lot of ceremony as "Trevor" and one lacking in the same as "Billy Bob." You lose that whole "space relation" and "sliding scale" thing. Maybe Lutherans would be more comfortable with "stout" vs. "lager" worship or some such.
The only other thing that sets Lutherans off as much is to cite the quote attributed to St. Francis about words and preaching. You'll need the 55-gallon drum of popcorn for that catfight!
Very gratifying to see this discussion. I do hope that some of you are planning to attend our conference and will participate in that discussion too.
DeleteAnother observation, if I might interject one. I am old enough to remember when those in Missouri who practiced a "high standard" for liturgical practice were also the most liberal among us. Some of that may still be going on, but true to liberalism's core, when something else seems to "work" better (i.e., produces numerical growth), then many of these same men jumped on the so-called contemporary worship fad and abandoned not only the formalism of our Synod's former "traditional" worship, but also liturgy altogether to one extent or another. So I don't think that there is an iron-clad link between being Confessional and being liturgical. Perhaps the most extreme example of this today is found in the Episcopal Church - USA. Many of them still hold to the traditional liturgics of that church body, but have virtually abandoned Christian theology altogether.
I recall in my time in Pagosa Springs, Colorado, that the local "Priestess" at the Episcopal church in town would regularly bring in the local Native American shaman to participate with her on Sunday mornings with feathers and smoke and all, yet she insisted on the traditional liturgical practice of the Anglican tradition when the local Indians weren't participating. It was all pretty weird!
What can we do about "low church arminians" in our midst?
ReplyDeleteWith the conference titled "Christ For Us: the Divine Service" it would seem most helpful to define what IS Lutheran worship practice, in terms of what we should hold to as orthodox, Book of Concord standards rather than high, low, traditional. "Traditional" is like "contemporary" worship, it's ambiguous. But the value of the conference may be to specifically define our practice: what is out-of-bounds; what is less salutary; and what is "Orthodox Lutheran Worship."
I believe that such is the goal, Rev. Weinkauf, and it is my hope that I will be able to contribute to that end. The several terms describe obvious differences in the way that worship is practiced in our midst. Behind those differences stand divergent attitudes and opinions as to what Lutheran standards are and ought to be. It is possible to evaluate those various opinions, according to the Word of God and the Book of Concord, and to say, Here are the boundaries of orthodox practice, and here are the criteria by which practice may be measured. Within those boundaries, in harmony with those criteria, it is surely possible to have more or fewer ceremonies, as our Confessions affirm. But it's not the case that "anything goes." Ceremonies serve and support, or compete and distract from, the catechesis and confession of Christ; not within a vacuum, but within the context of time and place. But everyone has ceremonies of one sort or another. It isn't possible to gather and celebrate the Divine Service, at all, without ceremonies. The question, therefore, is not, whether or not to have ceremonies, but rather, which ceremonies shall best serve the Gospel, faith and love, and the unity of the Church catholic in this time and place.
DeleteLutherans are Arminians in the sense that they believe that works are necessary to maintain salvation. This is backwards Baptist.They say its our responsibility to respond to God's
Deletegrace, then he will take care of the rest. You say God does
the converting and gives saving faith, but it is your responsibility to cooperate with the Spirit, by not neglecting the means of grace etc. if you don't want to fall away. The Bible says, however, "It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on god's mercy," and
"whoever comes to me I will never drive away."
Sorry about the cryptic handle. I didn't realize that I would be signed in with the old handle. This is Rev. Richard A. Bolland (Dick)
ReplyDeleteComplaint or not, most folks know what high church means and most do not know what confessional, liturgical, church usages, etc. mean. So the use of contemporary vs traditional and high vs low will continue whether we like it or not. It remains an easy and fairly clear way to define what happens on Sunday morning from the perspective of those in the pew.
ReplyDeleteWhat about liturgical dancing? I'm feeling like branching out.
ReplyDeleteIf you're going to engage in Liturgical Dancing you most definitely have do decide in advance who's going to lead!
ReplyDeleteRev. Drew Newman
The words "liturgical" and "dancing" go together about as well as "gay" and "marriage." Sort of a cross between blasphemy and legal fiction. "Contemporary worship" is a term that I think we all understand because of its ubiquity, but in the strictest sense of the word, the traditional Mass is truly (and eternally) "contemporary."
ReplyDeleteWhat we call "contemporary worship" is really "entertainment worship" - as in worship of the god "Entertainment." It's a kind of "blended worship" that blends one form or another of Protestant Christianity (or at very least, "Jesus talk") with the fleshly desire (which is part and parcel of our culture) to be constantly entertained, to be given a "show."
Words, words, words!
"Genuflecting during the Creed and/or the Consecration is High Church."
ReplyDeleteThis specific attempt at definition is most ill-advised. We'll all be doing "High Church" thing upon the return of the Lord (Phil 2:10; cf. Is 45:23, Rom 14:11). So then, we may as well learn to adore with our bodies as well as our lips, for as the old bromide has it, "actions speak louder than words."
As I see it, the flesh's genuflecting at the mention of our Lord's taking on flesh, or or body's kneeling at the bodily Presence of our Lord, is less something "High Churchly," than highly confessional. Isn't that what we're about? In every instance, the behavior is an acknowledgment of God with us, truly, and not locked up in some remote celestial container.
In sum, the Reformation of our churches is no excuse whatsoever for a Refrigeration of our joints.
Your (unworthy) servant,
Herr Doktor
1. I agree with those that have written that we are stuck with the terms. I think we should just accept it. There is a reality they are trying to describe. While the terminology may not be ideal and even problematic, or the best way to go about talking about these things, clearly, to deny the reality for the sake of vocabulary is be idealistically foolish.
ReplyDelete2. I think Fr. Curtis well states the dangers/temptations of the two camps.
3. I think Dr. Stuckwisch is on the right track with the necessity of ceremonies talk.
4. From the high church perspective, I would put the emphasis here: traditionalism is prone to an arrogance that thinks what we've "always" done is always best. It refuses to be self-critical or corrected. It refuses to grow. The asserting that ceremonies can distract from content rather than carry content is legitimate. The color of the carpet matters. Bright orange carpet with clowns playing trumpets and elephants is a distraction in the chancel. Stop pretending that adiaphora doesn't matter! The color of the carpet matters. Ceremonies can distract. But the argument that fewer ceremonies are superior is fallacious. Music can also distract. The answer is not to only read the Psalms. They were meant to be sung. But they need the right music and they need the right preparation and training and catechesis. With that, the music serves and enhances the Psalms by seating them in our memory and by giving them a dignity approaching that of which they are worthy. We should stop freeze our ceremonial practice only when we close down hymn writing and preaching. So long as the Church is living, it will be creative.
I recall a few years ago a few conversations about the appropriateness of trying to introduce a Lutheran version of the Corpus Christi festival, and if a Lutheran congregation can, and should, use a Tabernacle on the altar and if the full blown "Adortation of the Cross" complete with prostrations in the chancel was a good idea. And then, on the other hand, how appropriate it is for a Lutheran congregation to ditch the ordo of the Mass in favor of a non-denom style of service? Or how about introducing a "Lutheran" version of the altar call? Or a "Lutheran" version of ... you name it.
ReplyDeleteDo we have the freedom and liberty to do such things?
I raised the issue of how none us of, no matter our intention, is really free to haul off and go our own way liturgically, be it to the "high" or "low" side of the equation, but that it would be so much better for us all, to the greatest extent possible, to agree to use our church’s approved agendas, hymnals and catechisms. A person commenting on the subject indicated while he regarded existing resources as containing much good he also believed them to be "deficient" in several respects. I wondered just who it is that determines what is "deficient"? Him? Some self-appointed group or society of like-minded individuals? American Lutherans, be they high-church or low-church, all share one thing in common: a love of independence.
So, when are we not free to use our liberty? Here are some additional thoughts on these issues.
continued...
ReplyDeleteName the person who wrote the following statement about liturgical uniformity. Who was it that dared to restrict the use of Christian liberty in matters pertaining to worship?
Now even though external rites and orders … add nothing to salvation, it is un-Christian to quarrel over such things and confuse the common people. We should consider the edification of the laity more important than our own ideas and opinions … Let each one surrender his own opinions and get together in a friendly way and come to a common decision about these external matters, so that there will be one uniform practice throughout your district instead of disorder … For even though from the viewpoint of faith, the external orders are free and can without scruples be changed by anyone at anytime, yet from the viewpoint of love you are not free to use this liberty…
Or how about this one?
It is the cause of much incorrectness… when the external church ordinances, divine service and ceremonies are not held with reverence, or in orderly fashion, or in like manner. Also certain pastors purpose to act in these matters without uniformity. They shall carefully see to it that the ceremonies which have to do with hymns, clothing of the priests, administration of the sacrament … as well as the festivals, be maintained in an orderly and uniform fashion, at one place as at another, uniform and in accord with such as occur at Wittenberg and Torgau, in accord with the Holy Scriptures…*
continued...
ReplyDeleteOne more quote:
Ceremonies [should be instituted] which give the external indication that in the congregation great, high, serious dealings are present, so that the ceremonies lead, stimulate, admonish and move the people to join together their thoughts, lift up their hearts in all humility. That there be in the congregation heartfelt devotion to the word, the Sacrament and prayer … Christian freedom has its place in this matter, as the ancients said, “Disagreement in rites does not take away agreement in faith.” It still brings all sorts of benefit that in ceremonies, so much as it is possible, a uniformity be maintained, and that such uniformity serve to maintain unity in doctrine, and that common, simple, weak consciences be all the less troubled, rather strengthened. It is therefore viewed as good that, as much as possible, a uniformity in ceremonies with neighboring reformed churches be affected and maintained. And for this reason, henceforth all pastors in the churches of our realm, shall emphatically follow this written church order, and not depart from the same without specific, grave cause. *
To suggest that the better way for the church to order herself is for there to be the greatest amount of liturgical uniformity as possible strikes some ears as a call for a slavish formalism, some even go so far as to use the word "legalistic" whenver this comes up. That never has made sense to me. I’ve never heard anyone in favor of traditional Lutheran worship say that its use is required for salvation. It seems that some in the Lutheran Church have dismissed discussion of the dangers of liturgical diversity and the blessings of the great possible liturgical uniformity. Why? Sadly, in an era that has witnessed a trend toward doing whatever is right in the eyes of an individual pastor, or congregation, the blessings of liturgical uniformity are being woefully neglected. We have lost our understanding of the blessing and advantage of striving to have as common a liturgical practice as possible.Preaching
The thought that a pastor would, from Sunday to Sunday, reinvent the church’s worship service was an alien thought to the Lutheran Confessors, and hence the Lutheran Confessions. Rev. Matthew Harrison, some years ago, did a study on the practice of the Lutheran Church in the sixteenth century. In it he uses the "church orders" of the time to demonstrate how one should, and likewise should not, interpret the comments on adiaphora in the Lutheran Confessions. It is quite fascinating and very revealing.
continued...
ReplyDeleteWorship Some might assume that my remarks are directed only toward those who have chosen to embrace "contemporary worship" or "blended worship" with its Sunday-to-Sunday "newness." But that would be a mistake. I would also direct these remarks to those who choose to "do their own thing" in a more traditionally liturgical direction: that is, those whoDance choose to embellish and otherwise change the church’s received liturgies in a direction that they regard as "better" or "more faithful" or "more liturgical."
I have been concerned for years that some of those most stridently speaking against the liturgical diversity in our Synod turn right around and in their parish create their own little variation on the Lutheran liturgy, claiming that they are doing it better, or more historically, or more traditionally. I’ve seen horrendous mixta composita of liturgical services slapped together from multiple sources, all of course perceived as being "historically Lutheran" and these undertakings have always struck me as problematic in the same way the cut and paste "services" in contemporary worship contexts are.
I do not see any difference between this and those who chose to go another direction in terms of a sensitivity for the good order of the church. It may be that a liturgy is more similar to a particular 16th century German Divine Service than others, perhaps even more similar than anything in any present hymnal, but I find no justification for deciding, as an individual pastor or parish, to "go it alone" in this direction, any more than I find justification or benefit in creating new liturgies from Sunday to Sunday. The goal of liturgical uniformity is not repristination of what happened in the Sixteenth Century, any more than it is should be the goal to toss our the liturgy.
continued...
ReplyDeleteMy opinion is that it would be a tremendous blessing to our church body if we would all set aside our pet theories, our cherished preferences, and even our favorite hymnals, and embrace the use of one hymnal: Lutheran Service Book.
I believe it is essential for all of us to set aside a fixation on"contemporary worship" [as if there is any worship that is not contemporary"] and stop dividing up our Sunday mornings between "traditional" and "classical grace" or "contemporary" or "blended" and just start having "church," period. It means that we need to stop turning the church into a popular opinion poll from Sunday to Sunday. It means that we use the church’s hymnal. Use the church’s liturgies as they are printed in the church’s new hymnal and use the many opportunities for variety within that structure. I see as little wisdom in trying to mimic some specific territorial German church order, as I do in trying to take our cues from the non-denominational "Evangelical" worship forms prevalent in our nation among many Protestants.
There are some who would like to use the Tenth Article in the Formula of Concord to justify a practice by which each individual congregation in our Church can just go ahead and "do its own thing" when it comes to worship practices. But this is truly a misuse of this article, and was not, by any stretch of the imagination, what the Lutheran Confessors had in mind when they prepared the Formula of Concord. Here is a very helpful insight into the attitude toward liturgical uniformity that was in the minds of those who prepared, and subscribed, to the Formula of Concord from 1577-1580. As Rev. Harrison notes in his paper: "The final Church Order here referred to is one of the most significantSpell001002 for interpreting FC SD 10, 9. Duke August I of Electoral Saxony was the driving force behind the Electoral Saxon Church Order of 1580, and Andreae its author. The order came out after the adoption of the Book of Concord. In fact, it calls for ministers to subscribe to the Book of Concord. What FC SD 10 means when it states, ‘no church shall condemn another’, is crystal clear in ‘IX. Regarding Ceremonies in the Churches’."
Pastors and ministers, on the basis of God’s Word, and at the instigation of the declaration published this year (1580), and incorporated in this book [The Book of Concord], shall diligently instruct their flock and hearers in their sermons,2002savbaptism as often as the opportunity avails itself, that such external ordinances and ceremonies are in and of themselves no divine service, nor a part of the same. They are rather only ordained for this reason, that the divine service, which is not within the power of human beings to change, may be held at various times and places, and without offense or terrible disorder. Accordingly, they should not at all be troubled when they see dissimilar ceremonies and usages in external things among the churches. They should much rather be reminded herein of their Christian freedom, and in order to maintain this freedom, make profitable use of this dissimilarity of ceremonies… Nevertheless, so unity may be maintained in the churches of our land…the following ceremonies shall be conducted according to our order or incorporated church agenda, until there is a general uniformity of all churches of the Augsburg Confession … And it will be granted to no minister to act contrary to the same [agenda] to introduce some revision, no matter under what pretext. *
Liturgical uniformity and the good it brings to the church’s life is more important than any personal interest in doing it "better" or "different," and that cuts both ways.
and finally...
ReplyDeleteIf I may use a crass analogy, imagine if you would that McDonalds decided tomorrow that they no longer cared what any of its restaurants looked like. No more standardization of the logo, or clothing, or ways of doing things. Every McDonalds would be told, "Do whatever you feel is best and whatever feels right to you." That would make little sense, would it? How much more than does it make sense for every Lutheran congregation to be running off in its own direction, doing what feels right to it? Now, granted, every McDonalds has some minor differences, but there never is any doubt that you are at a McDonalds. See the point?
That’s my .02 cents worth. As always, your mileage may vary.
By the way, the person who said the first quote, that we are not free to use our liberty in matters pertaining to liturgical uniformity was…Martin Luther. And the second quote? It is from the Wittenberg Church Order of 1542, prepared by Jonas, Cruciger, Bugenhagen, Melachthon, Luther, and others; Sehling, I:202. The third quote? It is from the 1569 Church Order of Brauncshweig-Wolfenbuettel and was prepared by none other than Martin Chemnitz and Jacob Andreae, the chief authors and architects of the Formula of Concord. [Sehling VI.1, 139, 40]. The final quote is from: AL Richter ed, Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des sechszehn ten Jahrhunderts. Urkunden und Regesten zur Geschichte des Rechts and der Verfassung der evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland, Leipzig, 1871, vol II:, p. 440.
I think it is not that we have high church vs. low church. We have rather churches with choirs capable of Latin and churches without such resources. The village churches are closer to Luther's German Mass because the Mass is simply an accommodation to the lack of Latin of resource (hence a German hymn or psalm will replace the Introit). It's hard for us to grasp the living nature of the Latin service and how long it lasted into Lutheranism with the traditional music often to boot. So many times the Anglican terms fail to work for Lutheranism because they have overtones of doctrine, whereas the Lutherans were unified in doctrine but quite tolerant in ceremonies - i.e., where the Latin resources didn't exist, they didn't exist and so you made do with Deutsch.
ReplyDeleteWhere I criticize Luther in the German Mass is in that it is precisely much more than an accommodation for those who don't know Latin. We call such accommodations "translations" and have quite a nice one in the Common Service. Luther's German Mass is a truncation (see the Hymn that replaces the Sanctus, a hymn replacing verses of Scripture in the Introit, etc.). You can sing the Bible in German (or English) - you don't need to replace the Biblical portions of the service with a paraphrase or hymn if you can't speak Latin.
Delete+HRC
To Paul I would say one thing. It is a far different thing to add to the ordo/Divine Service things that have standing and solid precedence within Lutheranism and even within Missouri's own history but are not currently options available or printed in LSB AND those who remove elements of the ordo/Divine Service until it becomes unrecognizable.
ReplyDeleteYou may not like what Fr. Runge or Fenton added to p. 15 TLH at Zion, Detroit, but they added and did not subtract. All around me the churches have subtracted from the orders or omit them entirely until there is nothing recognizable there at all. Go to Zion and you could certainly recognize and see p. 15 amid additions but go to these places and you wonder "Is this a Lutheran church?"
Adding in what has been dropped from current and popular Lutheran practice is NOT the same as subtracting from current and popular Lutheran practice (at whim and generally for no better reason than taste or time reduction).
Example, when I found there were functional receptionists in my parish and when there were people who did not identify the Word with what the Word says (in the Verba) we re-instituted the sanctus or consecration bell. Not for taste but for teaching. Properly, addition of ceremony or church usages is for this purpose and not simply a choice of taste or preference.
Indeed, both of those distinctions are key, especially the latter one about the teaching ability of ceremonies. I have found again and again that many of those who criticize kneeling at the consecration, for example, do so for theological reasons: they are Receptionists! Our ceremonies teach and people notice it.
Delete+HRC
"You may not like what Fr. Runge or Fenton added to p. 15 TLH at Zion, Detroit, but they added and did not subtract."
ReplyDeleteThey added false doctrine, in the case of Zion, Detroit. I understand the current pastor has dismantled most of that in practice, though it is still posted on their web site.
I am not sure what you are speaking toward, Paul, and I do not wish to derail the thread, so to speak. But what I was referencing was the order of worship itself -- the service folder which was pg. 15 with additions. I looked over an old copy from that era that I had in my files and did not find in that order anything objectionable.
ReplyDeleteLarry, I'm referring to the ordos which are posted on Zion's web site, but thankfully with this welcome disclaimer:
Delete"The Ordos available here were used historically at Zion, but are not reflective of the best Lutheran practice. Indeed in some cases they are quite contrary to what we teach and confess. They are retained here because they are a part of Zion's history, and the language and rubrics are of interest to those who study the Holy Liturgy."
Fenton was the one more immediately responsible for the detritus of false doctrine that he slapped on to the Mass forms at Zion.
"They added false doctrine, in the case of Zion, Detroit. I understand the current pastor has dismantled most of that in practice, though it is still posted on their web site."
ReplyDeleteRev. McCain,
Would you please clarify further, for the good and intelligent reader, what you intended by your phrase "dismantled most of that in practice?"
The italics, immediately above, are mine. There is a real danger, I think, of your phrase's being misconstrued by those who are as wise as doves and/or as innocent as serpents. I must say I am especially disappointed by the slipperiness of the adjective "most."
As you yourself note through citation, examples of the ordos of Zion Evangelical-Lutheran Church's past have been retained at their website, for public inspection, so as to facilitate a scholarly study of Zion's history and its liturgical developments. However, it is to be emphasized that portions of the posted ordos are not endorsed by the "current pastor" as being orthodox ... indeed, the statement is clearly made that "in some cases the [language and rubrics] of are quite contrary to what we teach and confess."
In practice, today, the current ordos used at Zion are God-pleasing, liturgically rich, and solidly ... repeat, solidly ... orthodox. The "current pastor," Fr. Braden, is a faithful, altogether outstanding servant of our crucified and risen Lord in every respect. It is a joy and exceedingly edifying to worship at Zion of Detroit.
But as to your source of irritation, now ... you may as well lodge the complaint, to the Gottesdienst crowd, that some of Dr. Luther's "95 Theses" are sprinkled with rather dubious concepts, here and there; and that consequently, the publishing arm of the LCMS swears to spurn any reference to it, or to reproduce any portion of such.
Your (unworthy) servant,
Herr Doktor
I owe it to Rev. McCain, and perhaps others as well, to clarify my own unease further.
ReplyDeleteIf what was described as "dismantled" at Zion of Detroit refers to false Scriptural understandings ... expressed through means of the Holy Liturgy employed at this congregation ... then the expression "most" is a very unhappy qualifier. In fact, Rev. McCain's "most of that," in his posting of "February 2, 2013 at 4:39 AM," is immediately preceded by the terse "They added false doctrine, in the case of Zion, Detroit."
One can infer from this collision of thoughts, that not all of the offending error from the past has been eliminated from the worship of Zion Evangelical-Lutheran Church with angels and archangels and all the company of heaven.
This inference would be mistaken.
Simply put:
ReplyDeleteThere was bad stuff in the liturgy at Zion.
Added mostly/mainly by Fenton.
It is no longer used.
That is a good thing.
:)
Mother always told me to say "thank you."
ReplyDeleteAlthough I confess to you, and all the company of heaven, that the taste of soap made it a bit of a struggle.
The clarification is useful.
Your (unworthy) servant,
Herr Doktor