What’s This? Genuflecting in Worship?

If you open up your Bible and pray the Psalms you might come across this line, “Oh come let us worship and bow down; let us kneel before the LORD our maker”  (Psalm 95:6).  Missouri Synod Lutherans are Bible believers and what the Bible says, they desire to put into practice.  Our Lord and God does not mandate that we bow down or kneel at any particular time or place in the service but as the Scriptures themselves commend bowing and kneeling as a salutary practice, Lutherans do it.  Many of our church buildings have kneelers in the pews and most have an altar rail so that communicants can kneel to receive the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ under the bread and wine for the forgiveness of sins.  Kneeling is part and parcel of Lutheran worship and while this is confirmed in furniture, one might take a look at our current hymnal and agenda to see where there is instruction to kneel.  Lutherans may kneel to confess their sins (LSB 151,167,184, 203, 213, 291, 292), pray (LSB 227, 233, 241,249, 253) get confirmed (LSB 273) and get married (LSB 276).   If the Lutheran is to be a pastor, he kneels to be ordained (LSB Agenda p. 166),  installed (LSB Agenda, p. 181) and he may kneel if he is leaving for another field of service (LSB Agenda, 195), or retiring (LSB Agenda, p. 198).  If a son or daughter of a congregation is beginning study for service in the church they may kneel (LSB Agenda, p. 207).  If a Lutheran is a candidate for commissioning in service to the church, they are instructed to kneel (LSB Agenda, p. 212).  Dig through Lutheran Hymnals and Agendas past and present and you will find kneeling all over the place.  Genuflecting is kneeling, just with one knee.  It is this one-knee kneeling that has the Rev. Chris Wicher, President of the Eastern District of the LCMS, well, upset.  His full report of the recent Synod Convention is found here, but his comments on the worship practices of the Convention are of particular interest to us.  President Wicher writes,

“WHAT’S THIS? GENUFLECTING IN WORSHIP? Finally, a word about my worship experience at the convention. Worship was definitely of high church style, complete with liturgies “out of the book” and chanting throughout on top of full liturgical garb, chasubles and the like. This is my second convention which was run and organized by our current administration. The same style at this convention held true at our last convention, which is also true when I attend chapel at the International Center in St. Louis. The message to me is plain. High church is the preferred worship style given to the churches of the LC--MS. I get it, I can even do high church liturgy if I wish but which I don’t. But what is completely foreign to me and a bit unsettling, being a life-long LC—MS Lutheran, is what appears to be genuflecting going on in the chancel. This is something I hope will not continue (if genuflecting is what indeed is taking place) which in some strange way is reverencing the host as if the pastor, because he is a pastor, has some magical power and has instantly before our eyes magically changed the substance of the bread into the body of Christ. Really?”

Yes, President Wicher, genuflecting was really taking place! Pastors were kneeling! Many of the editors were present at the convention and saw it with our own eyes!  But what is the problem?  Kneeling is a true adiaphoron, but like all ceremonies or liturgical actions, it may teach something.  The pastors in the chancel did not kneel in some strange way reverencing the host as if the pastor has some magical power and magically changed the substance of the bread into the body of Christ, but because those pastors actually believe that under the bread is the true Body of Jesus Christ and under the wine is the very Blood of Christ according to Christ’s own clear Word.  It is this LORD, our maker, the one through whom all things were made who was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate and raised on the third day who is really present, under the bread and wine for us Christians to eat and to drink.  Don’t you believe that?   We pray you do.  Have you ever knelt to receive the Sacrament of the Altar?  Did you at that time believe in some magic that the pastor did, or were you receiving the Body and Blood of your Lord and God in humility for the forgiveness of your sins and worshiping him in true faith?   Genuflecting is a true adiaphoron, believing that Christ is present in the Sacrament according to His Word is not. The fact that He is present might cause fellow Christians to kneel in reverence.  They are free to do so.  So are you.  Really.

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. -  Philippians 2:9-11

Holy Father, Holy Son, Holy Spirit, three we name Thee;

Though in essence only one, Undivided God we claim Thee

And, adoring bend the knee, While we own the mystery.  LSB 940:5

- The Editors


Two side notes.  We commend to our readers the following; the first regarding the Adoration of Christ in the Sacrament, the second, Blessed Martin Luther on the genuflection during the recitation of Nicene Creed in the Divine Service as a confession of the Incarnation of the Son of God  -

1. "Now, here we are not saying that one should not worship our dear Lord Jesus Christ in this Sacrament, being present, of that one should not hold this Sacrament with all honor and reverence. On the contrary, since these divine, almighty, true words are believed, all of this follows of itself, and not only in external gestures but also both externally and, first and foremost, in the heart, spirit, and truth. On account of this, such adoration of Christ is not thereby cancelled, but much rather, confirmed. For where the Word is rightly seen, considered and believed, the adoration of the Sacrament will happen of itself. For whoever believes that Christ's body and blood are there (as there is plenty of evidence so to believe, and it is necessary so to believe), he cannot, to be sure, deny his reverence to the body and blood of Christ without sin. For I must confess that Christ is there when His body and blood are there. His words do not lie to me, and He is not separate from His body and blood." - George von Anhalt, The Treasury of Daily Prayer, February 3, pp. 1179-80

2. Although the Antichrist in Rome and the devil frightfully mutilated and perverted all that is divine in the church, God nevertheless miraculously preserved Holy Scripture – even though it was darkened and dimmed under the pope’s accursed rule – and passed it down to our day.  Thus God also preserved these words of the Gospel, which were read from the pulpit every Sunday, although without the proper understanding.  Also the words of the Decalog, the Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer, as well as Baptism and one kind in the Sacrament have survived under the devilish regime.  Although the Gospel was obscured and the proper understanding of it hidden, God still kept it for the salvation of His own.  These words too, “And the Word became flesh,” were held in reverence.  They were sung daily in every Mass in a slow tempo and were set to a special melody, different from that for the other words.  And when the congregation came to the words, “from the Virgin Mary and was made man,” every one genuflected and removed his hat.   It would still be proper and appropriate to kneel at the words “and was made man,” to sing them with long notes as formerly, to listen with happy hearts to the message the Divine Majesty abased Himself and became like us poor bags of worms, and to thank God for the ineffable mercy and compassion reflected in the incarnation of the Deity. But who can ever do justice to that theme?...The following tale is told about a course and brutal lout.  While the words, “And was made man” were being sung in church, he remained standing, neither genuflecting nor removing his hat. He showed no reverence, but just stood there like a clod.  All the others dropped to their knees when the Nicene Creed was prayed and chanted devoutly.  Then the devil stepped up to him and hit him so hard it made his head spin.  He cursed him gruesomely and said:  “May hell consume you, you boorish ass!  If God had become an angel like me and the congregation sang: ‘God was made an angel,’ I would bend not only my knees but my whole body to the ground!  Yes, I would crawl ten ells down into the ground.  And you vile human creature, you stand there like a stick or a stone.  You hear that God did not become an angel but a man like you, and you just stand there like a stick of wood!”  Whether this story is true or not, it is nevertheless in accordance with the faith (Rom. 12:6).  With this illustrative story the holy fathers wished to admonish the youth to revere the indescribably great miracle of the incarnation; they wanted us to open our eyes wide and ponder these words as well.
 - Luther’s Works Vol. 22, pp.102-103, 105-106.

Several or More Different Questions re: Adiaphora

Someone recently observed that I am significantly interested in adiaphora.  It's true.  Thinking about adiaphora has occupied much of my time and attention for the past decade or more, and that continues to be so; not only from a theoretical perspective, but with very practical consideration.  Whatever isn't adiaphora should simply be acknowledged and honored as the will of God: What He has commanded should be done, and what He has forbidden should not be done.  His Word, and His good gifts, especially of the Gospel, are definitive and of central importance.  So, it's not as though I am not chiefly concerned with those things that are divinely given.  But that which the Lord has left free requires thoughtful consideration, discernment and discretion, in order to guard the freedom for which He has set us free, and so also to use that precious freedom wisely and well.

The fact that God has given us the Gospel by His Word and Sacraments, that is, by external means, requires that adiaphora will be involved in the administration of the Gospel.  The same particular adiaphora will not be necessary in every time and place, else they would not be adiaphora.  However, some or other adiaphora will necessarily be employed in every case, because it is impossible to do what the Lord has commanded without doing many other things that He has left free and unspecified.  There will always be choices and decisions to be made in this respect, whether deliberately or haphazardly.

In considering those choices and decisions having to do with adiaphora, I have recently begun to realize that several or more different questions are involved.  That doesn't seem all that striking or significant, except that, where those different questions are not distinguished, the conversation easily becomes muddled.  The answer to one question may seem to be addressing a different question altogether, when it really does not.  If I'm simply discussing the merits or demerits of a particular practice, but someone perceives that I am presuming to impose my own opinion on the Church, that presents a false impression that is helpful to no one.  If someone else is proposing a way for the Church collectively to make decisions and order her life accordingly, but that is heard as though righteousness were thereby to be gained, that would be a grossly unfortunate misunderstanding.

So, I have been thinking about the several or more different questions that need to be asked and answered with respect to adiaphora:

First, there is the question of actually defining and identifying what are and are not adiaphora.  It seems like that ought to be simple enough, and in many cases it surely is.  But not always.  Reverence is required, whereas frivolity and irreverence are forbidden, but defining and identifying "reverence" vs. "irreverence" is a difficult task.  Likewise, the Holy Scriptures frequently commend "beauty," but how is that to be discerned?

Second, there is the question of the criteria by which adiaphora will be measured and evaluated.  All things are lawful, but not all things are edifying or profitable.  With respect to the clarity of catechesis and confession, a spectrum of adiaphora may be considered and compared, in order to identify better and stronger practices, on the one hand, and to rule out those practices that are ambiguous and unhelpful.

Third, there is the question of where and how the practical decisions of adiaphora will actually be made: By the individual Christian, by the local pastor and/or the local congregation, by a fellowship of congregations in a particular territory, or by as large a representation of the Church as possible?  There are variously matters of personal piety, of local custom, of confessional identity, and of ecumenical tradition to be considered.  Not all of the decisions regarding adiaphora will be made at the same level, nor in the same way, nor with the same significance.  The Nicene Creed, for example, is neither commanded nor forbidden by God, but it is not free in the same way or to the same extent that ecclesiastical art and architecture are.

Fourth, there is the question of the benefit, importance, and value of uniformity in adiaphora within the fellowship of the Church.  This question is closely related to the previous one, but it goes beyond asking where and how decisions will be made.  It addresses the implementation of common practices across a community of congregations.  If that is not to be done arbitrarily or legalistically, but in active love for Christ and His Church, it needs to be understood what uniformity in adiaphora is, what it includes, what it does, and what it means.  Then uniformity will not be a denial of freedom, but a godly exercise of freedom.

There are further ways of parsing these different questions, and they could be subdivided considerably.  As particulars are explored, numerous questions of detail emerge, along with questions of polity, structure and governance, pastoral authority and care, and dealing with exceptional circumstances as they emerge.  Yet, it seems to me that identifying these several or more different questions provides some clarity for conversation.

Insisting on Adiaphora (or Not)

We do not insist on adiaphora.  That is to say, we do not insist upon what God has not required; nor do we forbid what God has not prohibited.  We are, after all, called "Gottesdienst Online," not "Adiaphora Online."  We are concerned with God's Service, not with any human pretense or presumption.  And, besides all that, as editors of a blog, we are not anyone's bishop; leastwise not here.  That's not who we are, nor what we do.

To be sure, we do advocate and urge some adiaphora over other alternatives, because, among the many things that God has left free, some practices are better and stronger than others.  We have our preferences, no doubt, and we also have our reasons for preferring some practices over others.  It is also the case that we editors of Gottesdienst do not agree among ourselves on every point; in part because different contexts and different circumstances suggest different approaches, and in part because we are different people with different gifts.  Sometimes, too, it happens that one or the other of us will change his mind.  For all of these reasons and more, we cherish the freedom for which Christ has set us free, because it is the freedom to repent, the freedom to learn and grow, and the freedom to serve and care for the Church on earth.

What God has left free, that is, what He has neither commanded nor forbidden, remains free and clear before Him.  We do not presume otherwise.  Such freedom belongs to the righteousness of faith in Christ, and it is a most precious gift and treasure of His Gospel.  To insist upon any work or sacrifice of the Law, as though by it to obtain the forgiveness of sins, justification and salvation, is flat-out false doctrine.  All the more so, then, to insist upon some adiaphorous practice as though it were necessary for salvation is surely twisted and wicked.  So, too, the requirement that something God has left free must either be done or not done, as though the power and efficacy of the Gospel itself depended upon it, is pernicious and quite wrong.  We dassn't do that.  And we don't.

Now, then, the righteousness of love for the neighbor, and of good order, peace, and harmony within family, church, and state, is another matter.  There the Law must do its duty to serve and protect in the midst of sin and death.  Not only because we live, for now, in a fallen world, but also because we live, by God's grace, in His well-ordered creation.  Although the Lord holds all things in His hand, and He governs all things by His Word, He has given man dominion over the works of His hands, as demonstrated, for example, by Adam's naming of all the animals.  And whereas God has left so many of the details and specifics of life on earth free and unscripted, He has given fathers of various kinds to exercise wisdom and judgment, and so also to establish rules, for the benefit of those under their paternal care.  Fathers are not free to contradict or disobey the Word of the Lord, but under His authority they are free to establish and enforce rules of conduct according to the particular context and circumstances of their own "family," whether that be a single household, a village or city, a state or the entire country.

St. Paul relates the paternal management of household and family to the work of pastors and bishops, who are called and ordained to be spiritual fathers of the household and family of God (1 Timothy 3:4-5).  That apostolic word informs and supports our Lutheran confession that "it is lawful for bishops, or pastors, to make ordinances so that things will be done orderly in the Church" (AC XXVIII.53).

As spiritual fathers, pastors and bishops not only can, but should make decisions and even insist upon particular practices that God has not universally commanded or forbidden; certainly not as though to "merit grace or make satisfaction for sins" (AC XXVIII.54), but for the benefit of the Church on earth in her life together.  Some of those decisions will be unique to each congregation, and that is the nature of pastoral care.  But many others will also connect and relate to the larger fellowship of the Church.  Which means that pastors ought to act in consultation and harmony with one another in caring for, leading and guiding their respective parishes.  Bishops with fraternal oversight of the pastors in their own proximity, "diligently joined in unity of doctrine, faith, sacraments, prayer, works of love, and such" (SA II.IV.9), may also serve to promote the harmony of the Church's life together.

The truth is, because God has left so many of the specific details "free," there must be some insistence upon adiaphora if there is to be any sort of "community."  Rules of conduct held in common within each particular household and family, as well as broader rules of mutual engagement within the larger fellowship of the Church, enable brothers and sisters in Christ, and brother pastors and sister congregations, to live and work together in faith, hope, and charity, each person and each parish according to his, her, or its particular place. The freedom of faith in the Gospel does not prohibit but permits and makes possible such rules or "rubrics" of familial life.  The Church on earth necessarily makes these decisions, as she always has and always will, in one way or another.  Some forms of ecclesiastical polity and governance work better than others, and that may vary according to time and place, but there must be some such polity and governance in place.  Ideally, at ground level, the pastors will care for their own respective congregations in the way that responsible, God-fearing and law-abiding fathers care for their own families, within the context of the communities in which they live.

The Gottesdienst editors, as pastors, do engage in such paternal care of their respective congregations.  But, collectively, as "Gottesdienst Online," we do not insist on adiaphora.  What we do is to advocate and urge the use of godly ceremonies, because such practices contribute to the catechesis and confession of the Word of Christ; they honor the means of grace and the ministry of the Gospel; and they adorn the Church with beauty and glory.  Along with that, we also defend the freedom to do that which is truly free in faith and love.

What we insist upon is the doing of what God has commanded, and the not doing of what God has forbidden.  Thus, along with our Lutheran Confessions, we deplore and decry frivolity, irreverence, anarchy and chaos, spectacles of worldly entertainment, and whatever else contradicts or undermines the Word of Christ (FC SD X.1, 7, 9).  Such things are not adiaphora, but are contrary to the Word of God, and are thus forbidden by God.  Permitting such practices to continue without comment within the fellowship of the Church would be irresponsible and wrong.  So we speak in opposition to frivolity and irreverence, even as we defend and recommend the practice of godly ceremonies that promote dignity and reverence.

Chanting, Ceremonies, and Consciences

At a recent gathering where I was privy to some of the discussions and decisions regarding the conduct of the services, a quite different approach was taken to chanting (and to the music in general) than was taken with respect to other ceremonies.

One ceremony, in particular, was a matter of concern: Some of the pastors preferred to bend the knee (to genuflect), and others were not so inclined. No one disputed the freedom of this ceremony. No one suggested that it was commanded by God; nor did anyone argue that it was forbidden. But some were concerned that, by engaging in this admittedly free ceremony, the pastors who did so were confusing the people and burdening consciences. So, in order to avoid this danger, the ceremony was ruled "out of order."

Ceremonies in general were viewed with similar caution and suspicion, though I'm not aware that any other practices were given the ax. There were differences of opinion, naturally, but the basic perspective of those in charge seemed to be, that pastors should not risk doing anything that isn't necessary, pedagogical, or practical. It was implied that nothing should be done simply for the sake of reverence, elegance, and beauty . . .

Except for the ceremony of chanting (and music in general). In this case, the standard was set very high. The liturgy was not only to be chanted, but to be chanted well. It was expected to be beautiful. It was deliberately intended to impress the Christians who were gathered together for worship. It was to show the lay people an example of how nicely things could be done, even if those things weren't being done (or done so well) in their home congregations.

I do not recall any conversations as to whether chanting might burden anyone's conscience. Nor did I consider such concerns at the time. Why would I? I don't believe that the simple practice of a free ceremony burdens consciences. I do understand that what pastors do is not just a matter of their own personal piety, but a public profession of the faith, as well as a powerful means of catechesis. But where the Word of God is being taught in its truth and purity, and the Law and the Gospel are being properly distinguished, and the Gospel is predominating, there is little danger that chanting, as opposed to speaking, is going to shipwreck anyone's faith. There's precious little danger that bending the knee, as opposed to standing, will do so, either.

In retrospect, though, I am thinking about the insistence on a certain proficiency and quality of chanting. I'm wondering, too, about those pastors who were not permitted to participate in the services because their chanting wasn't up to snuff. What about the burden on their consciences? What about the message sent to other pastors, and to would-be future pastors?

I do believe that having standards is not only fine, but good and right. We should put our best foot forward. We should offer our best abilities and talents, the first fruits of God's good gifts to us. Not everyone has the same gifts, but each of us should serve where he is qualified to do so, as well as he can. So, it seems to me that, in certain circumstances, it is appropriate for a pastor who is not able to chant so well to step aside, in order that another pastor may serve that role with God-given skill. In other cases, and certainly within his own congregation, a pastor should simply chant as well as he is able, or else speak the Liturgy with simple dignity and reverence.

With that, I'm also thinking about the very different way that bending the knee was considered and dealt with at that gathering, in contrast to chanting. If it is appropriate to have high standards for the latter, should there not also be similar or analogous standards for the posture and movement of those pastors who serve at the Lord's Altar? As chanting is a form of elevated speech, so is bending the knee a more profound expression of humility. One's heart can be equally faithful with or without chanting, whether standing or kneeling; or equally hypocritical, either way. But we are dealing here with standards of conduct, that is to say, with outward ceremonies; which, while free, are not incidental. Clearly, these things have an impact and make an impression.

So, what is my point? On the one hand, I'm looking for greater clarity and consistency in the way that ceremonies are considered. I'm curious whether Lutherans may be particularly prone to a double-standard in this respect, in dealing with music on a quite different level than other ceremonies. Surely our concern for the neighbor's conscience should prevail in all circumstances, along with our strong defense and right exercise of freedom. And by the same token, we should be as concerned about the posture and movement of our bodies as we are about the quality and character of our voices. We should neither be cocky about our chanting, nor careless and cavalier in the conduct of any other ceremonies. The same Lord is the object of devout faith and reverent worship in each case, and the same neighbors are set alongside of us, that we might serve them with Christian courtesy, respect and love.