In recent days Fr. Beane has masterfully recast the issue of the weaker brother, and demonstrated that the "weaker brother" is often a bully in disguise (see here, here and here. His essays follow an argument which arose when Fr. Petersen offered advice to new pastors on how to introduce catholic ceremonies(here).
The controversy has reminded me of the origin of the "weaker brother" concept. It comes from St. Paul: "To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some" (I Corinthians 9:22). We Gottesdienst editors agree that St. Paul did not say, "to the strong I became as strong," and hence Fr. Beane's rejoinder is very helpful.
Not only so, but I am reminded of St. Paul's own example in a matter which in itself would have to be considered an adiaphoron, namely the question of circumcision. The Apostle circumcised Timothy "because of the Jews" who were in the place to which they were about to go, "for they knew all that his father was a Greek" (Acts 16). On the other hand Titus, who was himself a Greek, he did not compel to be circumcised (Galatians 2).
What accounts for this difference? Context: In the case of Titus, they were headed for Jerusalem, land of the Jews, and in the case of Timothy, for Derbe and Lystra, the land of the Gentiles. Thus we find that in both cases, Paul did the 'offensive' things. The uncircumcised Titus was an offense to the Jews who insisted upon circumcision, while the circumcised Timothy was an offense to the Greeks who were inclined to reject Moses altogether.
The evidence here provides a compelling case: St. Paul's counsel against offending the weak should not be interpreted as a willingness to lay off, when Christian customs came into conflict with prevailing paganism, or judaism. On the contrary, he seems to have been eager to confess the Gospel by means of laying an offense in the path of unbelief.
His attack on "circumcision" in Galatians shows a willingness to confront the unbelief of the Jews, and yet his circumcising of Timothy shows a willingness to confront the paganism of the Gentiles.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
The Liturgical Double Standard and the Weaker Brethren
by Larry Beane
Dcn. Muehlenbruch left a comment on the post "Ceremonies Revisited" that is so astute, that I think it bears a closer look and perhaps further discussion.
Here is his comment:
I wish respond to your remark that "a newly ordained seminary graduate could sign himself with the cross from day one" by relating what happened to me even before I became a seminary graduate.
This happened during my first year at a synodical junior college. I was home for Christmas vacation and was attending my (then) home congregation. I received Holy Communion at the altar rail when, at the dismissal, I signed myself with the cross. There was no voice from above, nor did the roof fall in; but....
The next day the vicar, when he came to visit my grandmother, cornered me and derided me "in loco pastores". I was informed that I, as a pre-ministerial student, should not cultivate habits such as crossing myself, etc. The reason being, if I should receive a call to a parish where this was not the custom, I would scandalize that congregation beyond repair. I had "no business" adopting such customs at this point in time.
I will confess that my reply was less than evangelical. I informed the vicar that if I did not adopt these customs now I would, most likely, never adopt them at all. Then, what if I were called to a congregation that practiced these same customs; would I be scandalized if I were expected to practice them? Obviously, no reply was forthcoming.
I also suggested to the vicar that, if the pastor had a problem with my making the sign of the cross when I had received Communion; it should be up to him to counsel me, and not send the vicar to do it for him.
This was the last that I heard about this. And I continued to make the sign of the cross at the rail, after receiving Communion.
Obviously, this incident did nothing to suppress my interest in, and study of, liturgical ceremony. Ceremony is nothing more than good manners.
If you never learned "please" and "thank you" as a child, you will never use them as an adult. And if you, then, end up in the midst of a "please" and "thank you" crowd; you will have not understanding of how you are expected to perform.
Thank you, Reverend Deacon!
For all of the ruckus about ceremonies and scandal, it is worthwhile reminding ourselves of Dcn. Muehlenbruch's observation that "ceremony is nothing more than good manners."
When we ask a man or boy to remove a ballcap while inside our homes or sanctuaries, we are not stomping on his "Christian liberty" - but rather we are simply asking for a display of good manners. The lowering of the level of reverence to the point where that which is holy is being treated as common is a scandal to folks who recognize our sanctuaries as holy (which is what "sanctuary" means by definition!). When we ask for reverence, we are only asking that people be polite. They may think it odd that we have such mores, but a good guest (whether in our home or in God's House) ought to be sensitive to that which causes us scandal.
The local Greek Festival, like most I would imagine, included a tour of the local church. In the case of the local festival, it was a cathedral. Since this is New Orleans, and our summer basically starts in February - folks were not exactly in their Sunday Best for the festival. The parishioners who gave the tour provided small blankets for ladies to cover themselves with, in order to take part in the tour in a state of modesty. They were not obnoxious about it, but they were firm. We were welcome in their church so long as we did not transgress their sense of holiness.
In our circles, the issue of what is appropriate in a holy place and/or a holy time is often framed within the concepts of "Christian liberty" and the "weaker brother." We Lutherans rightfully value, protect, and exercise our Christian liberty as a confession of the Gospel. And we also pay heed to St. Paul's exhortation that the exercise of our liberty not be a cause of offense to the "weaker brother" - as this does not advance the cause of our Lord and His Church. There is certainly a tension here.
But there is a disturbing double standard that seems to emerge among us Lutherans whenever liturgical ceremony comes into focus.
The future deacon's being admonished not to cross himself based on a theoretical future possibility was cast in the mold of scandal-avoidance. His rejoinder that scandals can cut both ways seems to be obvious. In all of these discussions, it is assumed that those who opt to make use of traditional ceremony in their expressions of piety are a potential cause of offense to those who refrain, but it is never considered that those who refrain may be a stumbling-block to those who make use of traditional ceremonies.
The proverbial bull in the china shop is always a smells-and-bells type who storms into rural Iowa wearing a miter. It is never a latte-swilling hipster who struts into rural Iowa installing big screens and bandstands. How many traditional Lutherans (often elderly people) have been made to feel unwelcome by a decrease in traditional ceremony and practice? We seldom hear about them, especially not in any official channels.
Though anecdotal, it seems that often those who are cast as "high church" are warned, scolded, admonished, and guilt-tripped into being casual around the holy things so as not to offend those who prefer casualness. And yet, the feelings and sensibilities of those who appreciate reverence and traditional ceremony, those who believe they are under obligation to submit to certain postures and gestures in the presence of the holy, are never taken into account. This is especially true when it comes to things like coffeehouse "churches," rock music services, dancing girls, gimmicks, wise-cracking pastors strolling around the sanctuary with a stage mike, lack of vestments, lack of reverence, lack of frequent celebration of the supper, and so on. We're expected to shut up for the sake of the "weaker brother" who wants his "church" to look like a Starbucks or a peeler bar.
One of my colleagues informed me that the recent district "pastors' conference" included a Eucharistic service that only included shot-glasses. I find it hard that the organizers and celebrant were unable to find a chalice. I can also imagine the "scandal" if the host pastor had only made a chalice available. Scandal, it seems, is a one-way street.
I'm sad to say that some of my own parishioners have been scandalized at even the "traditional" services of some of our sister LCMS congregations they have visited while on vacation - sometimes to the point of not feeling comfortable even taking communion in such a setting. What a sad state of affairs for churches that are supposed to be in fellowship with one another.
But when it comes to ceremonies, we are the "scandalizers," never the "scandalizees."
The logic behind this is interesting.
Speaking of "newly ordained seminary graduates," when I was one myself, I got a taste of this double standard - even before my installation. As a campus pastor of a high school, I was installed in the same service with several other members of our faculty. A few days before the installation, the principal was taken aback when I asked what the liturgical color for the service would be, so I could make sure my stole was proper. It just never struck me as unreasonable to be vested for my first installation as a pastor.
I wore cassock, surplice, and stole for my installation, and planned on going to lunch with my wife afterwards. As we were headed to the car, we were invited to lunch with all the other newly-installed "church workers." I was still clad in my cassock. I soon found out from a highly-placed district official that I had scandalized someone that afternoon - though the scandalized person lacked the "testicular fortitude" (thank you, Father Neuhaus) to speak to me himself. I don't know who the "scandalizee" was, but he/she did not approve of the cassock. I had become a scandalizer to a "weaker brother" on the day I was installed!
The district official went into "Dutch Uncle" mode, took me under his wing, and counseled me regarding this area of his grand expertise and vast pastoral wisdom.
He made the case that cassocks ought to be avoided by Lutheran pastors in New Orleans, as this is a heavily Roman Catholic area. He compared this situation to his own first call in another area of the Deep South dominated by Baptists. Because of his environment, he avoided wearing the clerical collar - opting for the same garb worn by Baptist pastors: a shirt and tie.
I was confused. Is the principle to blend in, or to stand out?
At that point in my ministry and life, I was too timid to ask for clarification or to point out the king's logical nakedness. Too bad. I should have called "BS" and made him explain. Mea culpa. But as I have heard more "war stories" of pastors and layfolks who appreciate traditional Lutheranism and its catholic ceremonial, it has become apparent that the principle actually works like this: if you are in a Roman Catholic area, it is important to stand out, dress like a Baptist. If you are in a heavily Baptist area, it is important to blend in, dress like a Baptist.
Translation: dress like a Baptist. And the same applies to ceremony.
I suspect this recapitulates how many of those in positions of power in our synod see ceremonial matters. It always struck me as odd when our Council of Presidents would show up to take part in call services dressed like bankers or insurance agents, in business suits and ties, while in the chancel as those who exercise episkope over the pastors and congregations of our church body. Give them plastic cups shaped like hand grenades, and many of them could pass for vacuum cleaner salesmen convention-goers strolling the French Quarter.
The official line seems to be that we should conduct ourselves with as little ceremony as possible, so as not to offend the "weaker brethren" who don't like ceremonies. And if we offend those who see ceremonies as good manners, reverence, and the proper expression of our lived-out faith according to our own Lutheran confessions, oh well. Those people are never the "weaker brethren" and they need to be content with jokes, dancers, people slurping coffee, khaki-clad pastors rushing through the Words of Institution, shallow music, puppets, skits, etc.
It is a double standard, and it is a very dangerous practice to take the Lord's Word and wield it like a club in order to get your way. The "weaker brother" can indeed be a bully. I believe the true "weaker brethren" are the silent majority of Lutheran laity and clergy who are scandalized by the creeping lack of reverence and even attack on ceremonies that is going on all around us. This double standard may well explain at least some of the defections from our communion, both pastors and laymen, who are tired of being treated as "speed bumps" and simply told to shut up by their very strong, powerful, and pushy "weaker brethren."
The way we make the sign of the cross itself began as confession against the Arians who wanted to minimize our Lord Jesus Christ and gainsay His divinity. No doubt many Arians were offended at the audacious tracing of a large cross on oneself that started happening around the time of the Nicene Creed (before that, people signed a small cross on their foreheads). The cross is a scandal. It always has been. Satan is scandalized whenever anyone confesses with his mouth or with his body that Jesus is Lord and that He is present with us and forgiving us sinners. And this is why ceremonies that confess these realities are a scandal.
If a person chooses not to cross himself or take part in other traditional liturgical ceremonies, he may well have good reason to refrain. And no-one should compel or bully compliance in such matters. But neither should the person refraining turn himself into a bully and seek to quash the piety of someone else - especially when those ceremonies are confessions of our Lord and His sacred presence among His people. It is simply ungodly to castigate a pastor for genuflecting at the altar. He does it because his conscience tells him this is the right thing to do at that place. Pastors have the privilege and the burden to be sinners in the closest proximity to holy things and holy places. It is an awe-inspiring and humbling experience to stand before the Living God. Even if people think bowing and genuflecting are silly, they need to cut their pastor some slack, and bear with him as the "weaker brother" standing like Isaiah in the holy of holies.
For in the Presence of our blessed Lord, we are all the "weaker brethren."
Dcn. Muehlenbruch left a comment on the post "Ceremonies Revisited" that is so astute, that I think it bears a closer look and perhaps further discussion.
Here is his comment:
I wish respond to your remark that "a newly ordained seminary graduate could sign himself with the cross from day one" by relating what happened to me even before I became a seminary graduate.
This happened during my first year at a synodical junior college. I was home for Christmas vacation and was attending my (then) home congregation. I received Holy Communion at the altar rail when, at the dismissal, I signed myself with the cross. There was no voice from above, nor did the roof fall in; but....
The next day the vicar, when he came to visit my grandmother, cornered me and derided me "in loco pastores". I was informed that I, as a pre-ministerial student, should not cultivate habits such as crossing myself, etc. The reason being, if I should receive a call to a parish where this was not the custom, I would scandalize that congregation beyond repair. I had "no business" adopting such customs at this point in time.
I will confess that my reply was less than evangelical. I informed the vicar that if I did not adopt these customs now I would, most likely, never adopt them at all. Then, what if I were called to a congregation that practiced these same customs; would I be scandalized if I were expected to practice them? Obviously, no reply was forthcoming.
I also suggested to the vicar that, if the pastor had a problem with my making the sign of the cross when I had received Communion; it should be up to him to counsel me, and not send the vicar to do it for him.
This was the last that I heard about this. And I continued to make the sign of the cross at the rail, after receiving Communion.
Obviously, this incident did nothing to suppress my interest in, and study of, liturgical ceremony. Ceremony is nothing more than good manners.
If you never learned "please" and "thank you" as a child, you will never use them as an adult. And if you, then, end up in the midst of a "please" and "thank you" crowd; you will have not understanding of how you are expected to perform.
Thank you, Reverend Deacon!
For all of the ruckus about ceremonies and scandal, it is worthwhile reminding ourselves of Dcn. Muehlenbruch's observation that "ceremony is nothing more than good manners."
When we ask a man or boy to remove a ballcap while inside our homes or sanctuaries, we are not stomping on his "Christian liberty" - but rather we are simply asking for a display of good manners. The lowering of the level of reverence to the point where that which is holy is being treated as common is a scandal to folks who recognize our sanctuaries as holy (which is what "sanctuary" means by definition!). When we ask for reverence, we are only asking that people be polite. They may think it odd that we have such mores, but a good guest (whether in our home or in God's House) ought to be sensitive to that which causes us scandal.
The local Greek Festival, like most I would imagine, included a tour of the local church. In the case of the local festival, it was a cathedral. Since this is New Orleans, and our summer basically starts in February - folks were not exactly in their Sunday Best for the festival. The parishioners who gave the tour provided small blankets for ladies to cover themselves with, in order to take part in the tour in a state of modesty. They were not obnoxious about it, but they were firm. We were welcome in their church so long as we did not transgress their sense of holiness.
In our circles, the issue of what is appropriate in a holy place and/or a holy time is often framed within the concepts of "Christian liberty" and the "weaker brother." We Lutherans rightfully value, protect, and exercise our Christian liberty as a confession of the Gospel. And we also pay heed to St. Paul's exhortation that the exercise of our liberty not be a cause of offense to the "weaker brother" - as this does not advance the cause of our Lord and His Church. There is certainly a tension here.
But there is a disturbing double standard that seems to emerge among us Lutherans whenever liturgical ceremony comes into focus.
The future deacon's being admonished not to cross himself based on a theoretical future possibility was cast in the mold of scandal-avoidance. His rejoinder that scandals can cut both ways seems to be obvious. In all of these discussions, it is assumed that those who opt to make use of traditional ceremony in their expressions of piety are a potential cause of offense to those who refrain, but it is never considered that those who refrain may be a stumbling-block to those who make use of traditional ceremonies.
The proverbial bull in the china shop is always a smells-and-bells type who storms into rural Iowa wearing a miter. It is never a latte-swilling hipster who struts into rural Iowa installing big screens and bandstands. How many traditional Lutherans (often elderly people) have been made to feel unwelcome by a decrease in traditional ceremony and practice? We seldom hear about them, especially not in any official channels.
Though anecdotal, it seems that often those who are cast as "high church" are warned, scolded, admonished, and guilt-tripped into being casual around the holy things so as not to offend those who prefer casualness. And yet, the feelings and sensibilities of those who appreciate reverence and traditional ceremony, those who believe they are under obligation to submit to certain postures and gestures in the presence of the holy, are never taken into account. This is especially true when it comes to things like coffeehouse "churches," rock music services, dancing girls, gimmicks, wise-cracking pastors strolling around the sanctuary with a stage mike, lack of vestments, lack of reverence, lack of frequent celebration of the supper, and so on. We're expected to shut up for the sake of the "weaker brother" who wants his "church" to look like a Starbucks or a peeler bar.
One of my colleagues informed me that the recent district "pastors' conference" included a Eucharistic service that only included shot-glasses. I find it hard that the organizers and celebrant were unable to find a chalice. I can also imagine the "scandal" if the host pastor had only made a chalice available. Scandal, it seems, is a one-way street.
I'm sad to say that some of my own parishioners have been scandalized at even the "traditional" services of some of our sister LCMS congregations they have visited while on vacation - sometimes to the point of not feeling comfortable even taking communion in such a setting. What a sad state of affairs for churches that are supposed to be in fellowship with one another.
But when it comes to ceremonies, we are the "scandalizers," never the "scandalizees."
The logic behind this is interesting.
Speaking of "newly ordained seminary graduates," when I was one myself, I got a taste of this double standard - even before my installation. As a campus pastor of a high school, I was installed in the same service with several other members of our faculty. A few days before the installation, the principal was taken aback when I asked what the liturgical color for the service would be, so I could make sure my stole was proper. It just never struck me as unreasonable to be vested for my first installation as a pastor.
I wore cassock, surplice, and stole for my installation, and planned on going to lunch with my wife afterwards. As we were headed to the car, we were invited to lunch with all the other newly-installed "church workers." I was still clad in my cassock. I soon found out from a highly-placed district official that I had scandalized someone that afternoon - though the scandalized person lacked the "testicular fortitude" (thank you, Father Neuhaus) to speak to me himself. I don't know who the "scandalizee" was, but he/she did not approve of the cassock. I had become a scandalizer to a "weaker brother" on the day I was installed!
The district official went into "Dutch Uncle" mode, took me under his wing, and counseled me regarding this area of his grand expertise and vast pastoral wisdom.
He made the case that cassocks ought to be avoided by Lutheran pastors in New Orleans, as this is a heavily Roman Catholic area. He compared this situation to his own first call in another area of the Deep South dominated by Baptists. Because of his environment, he avoided wearing the clerical collar - opting for the same garb worn by Baptist pastors: a shirt and tie.
I was confused. Is the principle to blend in, or to stand out?
At that point in my ministry and life, I was too timid to ask for clarification or to point out the king's logical nakedness. Too bad. I should have called "BS" and made him explain. Mea culpa. But as I have heard more "war stories" of pastors and layfolks who appreciate traditional Lutheranism and its catholic ceremonial, it has become apparent that the principle actually works like this: if you are in a Roman Catholic area, it is important to stand out, dress like a Baptist. If you are in a heavily Baptist area, it is important to blend in, dress like a Baptist.
Translation: dress like a Baptist. And the same applies to ceremony.
I suspect this recapitulates how many of those in positions of power in our synod see ceremonial matters. It always struck me as odd when our Council of Presidents would show up to take part in call services dressed like bankers or insurance agents, in business suits and ties, while in the chancel as those who exercise episkope over the pastors and congregations of our church body. Give them plastic cups shaped like hand grenades, and many of them could pass for vacuum cleaner salesmen convention-goers strolling the French Quarter.
The official line seems to be that we should conduct ourselves with as little ceremony as possible, so as not to offend the "weaker brethren" who don't like ceremonies. And if we offend those who see ceremonies as good manners, reverence, and the proper expression of our lived-out faith according to our own Lutheran confessions, oh well. Those people are never the "weaker brethren" and they need to be content with jokes, dancers, people slurping coffee, khaki-clad pastors rushing through the Words of Institution, shallow music, puppets, skits, etc.
It is a double standard, and it is a very dangerous practice to take the Lord's Word and wield it like a club in order to get your way. The "weaker brother" can indeed be a bully. I believe the true "weaker brethren" are the silent majority of Lutheran laity and clergy who are scandalized by the creeping lack of reverence and even attack on ceremonies that is going on all around us. This double standard may well explain at least some of the defections from our communion, both pastors and laymen, who are tired of being treated as "speed bumps" and simply told to shut up by their very strong, powerful, and pushy "weaker brethren."
The way we make the sign of the cross itself began as confession against the Arians who wanted to minimize our Lord Jesus Christ and gainsay His divinity. No doubt many Arians were offended at the audacious tracing of a large cross on oneself that started happening around the time of the Nicene Creed (before that, people signed a small cross on their foreheads). The cross is a scandal. It always has been. Satan is scandalized whenever anyone confesses with his mouth or with his body that Jesus is Lord and that He is present with us and forgiving us sinners. And this is why ceremonies that confess these realities are a scandal.
If a person chooses not to cross himself or take part in other traditional liturgical ceremonies, he may well have good reason to refrain. And no-one should compel or bully compliance in such matters. But neither should the person refraining turn himself into a bully and seek to quash the piety of someone else - especially when those ceremonies are confessions of our Lord and His sacred presence among His people. It is simply ungodly to castigate a pastor for genuflecting at the altar. He does it because his conscience tells him this is the right thing to do at that place. Pastors have the privilege and the burden to be sinners in the closest proximity to holy things and holy places. It is an awe-inspiring and humbling experience to stand before the Living God. Even if people think bowing and genuflecting are silly, they need to cut their pastor some slack, and bear with him as the "weaker brother" standing like Isaiah in the holy of holies.
For in the Presence of our blessed Lord, we are all the "weaker brethren."
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Too Bad
There was a time and a place wherein a Christian minister who realized that he was being oppressed by the Bishop of Rome would naturally think of the churches of the Augsburg Confession as his rightful home. After all, nothing in doctrine or ceremonies contrary to the catholic faith has been instituted among us.
I think it speaks poorly both of modern Lutheranism (which has introduced "lay ministry" and the anti-catholic ceremonies of the Tent Revival ) and of Vatican II Romanism (which has emphasized a certain narrow view of espiscopal succession as triumphant over every other doctrinal issue) that nowadays a priest who wants out of his coerced celibacy vow thinks of the Anglicans first.
O tempora, o mores!
+HRC
PS: My reactionary heart is strangely warmed to see that at least some things never change: "'Father Cutie is still bound by his promise to live a celibate life, which he freely embraced at ordination," Favalora said. "Only the Holy Father can release him from that obligation.' " The autocratic panache of that statement fairly transports the mind to the 15th century. . .
I think it speaks poorly both of modern Lutheranism (which has introduced "lay ministry" and the anti-catholic ceremonies of the Tent Revival ) and of Vatican II Romanism (which has emphasized a certain narrow view of espiscopal succession as triumphant over every other doctrinal issue) that nowadays a priest who wants out of his coerced celibacy vow thinks of the Anglicans first.
O tempora, o mores!
+HRC
PS: My reactionary heart is strangely warmed to see that at least some things never change: "'Father Cutie is still bound by his promise to live a celibate life, which he freely embraced at ordination," Favalora said. "Only the Holy Father can release him from that obligation.' " The autocratic panache of that statement fairly transports the mind to the 15th century. . .
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
More Questions About Ceremony
by Larry Beane
Rev. George Borghardt posed several outstanding questions as a comment on the post "How A New Pastor Should Add Ceremonies".
I think they deserve a separate post, as they are an opportunity to dispel some false information and clarify things a bit (of course, I'm speaking only for myself here, and I fully expect to have lively discussion and disagreement - which can indeed be a good and healthy thing).
So, thank you, George, and let me have a shot at your questions...
1. Why did it seem necessary to add without teaching genuflecting, chanting, elevation, and chasubles? I have no problems theologically with these four, so no 4094-character posts about how wonderful genuflecting, chanting, elevation, and chasubles are. We get it. Some of us have never found a ceremony that we didn't like. But, of all the ceremonies, why would we be tempted to add these four right away?
There is a very simple answer that I thought had been made clear: these are among those ceremonies that the pastor does himself at the altar.
Hence, they are the easiest to implement. It is much easier for a pastor to cross himself as part of his personal piety than to convince (or God forbid, try to compel) others to do so. Genuflecting, chanting, and elevation (as well as any other acts of piety, such as crossing himself or kissing the altar) are things he does unilaterally as the celebrant. A chasuble is something he wears as the celebrant.
Wearing a chasuble is far easier to implement than, say, trying to get women in the congregation to dress modestly. That requires much more hard work and tact. But again, a chasuble is part of the pastor's vesture. Everyone expects him to wear a different "uniform" than the men in the pews. It is not necessarily that big a deal - especially when the (first) chasuble is very plain.
This is not to say that restoring these ceremonies will always be easy in every time and place. Not at all. But, on the whole, I believe it is easier to implement something that is strictly within the pastor's domain (such as the celebrant genuflecting during "and was made man" versus trying to get everyone else to do it).
The pastor, as the leader of the celebration, as the shepherd and overseer, is in a position to set the tone of piety in the service. I think it would be a grave mistake, for example, to go hat in hand and ask permission to make the sign of the cross. I would say almost without exception, the Nike's Rule ("Just do it!") applies when it comes to the sign of the cross.
And as far as chanting goes, it's even in the hymnal that way. The people in the pews can see the musical notation (at least in DS3 in LSB).
It also bears repeating that refraining from all of these things is also a form of ceremony. Not chanting, not genuflecting, not elevating, and not wearing a chasuble is equally a form of ceremony - which incidentally is much more in line with the liturgy of the Lord's Supper as celebrated by Baptists, Pentecostals, and non-denominational churches. One could just as easily ask a pastor who refrains from these things why he is implementing Baptist rubrics of ceremony in a Lutheran church. For what do Baptist ceremonies "teach the people"?
2. Are those parishes and pastors who have the big four ceremonies more faithful than pastors and parishes who don't?
I think you already know the answer to this question. It is a red herring. No, no, and no. This has already been emphatically stated, and the question is itself a form of the "have you quit beating your wife" trick of rhetoric. This isn't about comparing whether my dad can beat up your dad, it is about trying to restore a sacramental piety in a church body whose practice often does not match what it confesses on paper. These particular four ceremonies (being the pastor's particular ceremonial) may well be easier to implement than others, as covered in question 1.
3. There seemed to be a bit of a tone of disdain toward the thought of teaching before doing. I know there was a bit of mocking done by Father Larry in one of his posts when it came to adding a chasuble. Did I read this wrongly? Can we be honest with ourselves that we would rather do than teach?
It would help if you were more specific about this "mocking." Since I don't know what you're talking about, I don't know if you read it wrongly. Teaching and doing go hand in hand. The Lord told us to make disciples by baptizing and teaching. And in that case, we typically*do* first (baptize) and *teach* (catechize) later. We have children memorize prayers long before they know what they actually mean. Most children have chanted "ellemenopee" before being taught that these are actually five different pictographical representations of sounds used lingusitically for the purpose of representing vocables graphically. Imagine if we taught that first, and then and only then had the kids actually sing the ABC song.
Sometimes, the teaching and the action are wrapped up together - as our confessions say, ceremonies are "to teach the people." Ceremonies *are* teaching. Our confessions don't argue that we need to separate catechesis from practice, that we need to teach and only then then implement ceremonies. Now sometimes that's the best way - indeed, it may be most often the best way. But I disagree that it is *always* the best way.
4. The plastic individual cups here are described as an "abomination." (like homosexuality?). Understood! I'm not a big fan of individual cups (even the little silver chalices at my parish), but is such inflammatory language helpful? Should we use such inflammatory words in a thread attempting to teach candidates and pastors who might be called to parishes with such things? Would it better to teach first? It is still the blood of Christ when it is in a plastic cup, correct? That's the abomination, right?
Some would argue that we should tone down our teaching on homosexuality for the very same reason (even though the practice is indeed called abominable - at least in the KJV).
I think the shotties are rightly called abonimable. Because of the shot glasses, the blood of Jesus is profaned. The practice in my congregation used to be to pitch the used cups, blood and all, in the garbage. This did not happen when we exclusively used the chalice. Furthermore, the little glasses spill on the communion rail and on the floor. It happens all the time. My wife made a horrifying discovery that there is a gummy residue, covered in crud, under our communion rail from years of our Lord's blood dripping over the communion rail - all thanks to the individualist jiggers. How can one *not* find this an abomination?
Of course it *is* the blood of Christ in the jigger. That's the whole problem! If it were only symbolic wine or a shot of tequila, who cares? You could put it in a dixie cup or a test tube. But this *is* the blood of Christ. That's why it is so horrifying. It is yet another practice we adopted from other church bodies: those who deny the Lord's presence. That's another reason why it is an abomination. Sometimes the apologists for the shooters argue "It's still the blood of Christ!" as though anyone has ever said otherwise. That's not just a red herring, but perhaps even a scarlet mackarel.
The shooters are a poor confession. If you bought your wife a diamond and set it in a plastic ring from a crackerjack box, it would confuse people (remember, ceremonies "teach the people"). Folks would, no doubt, look at it and start to wonder whether it is a real diamond or not. They might even think it is a joke rather than something of great meaning.
Furthermore, Jesus is the one who made the sudden change to the ceremony. He is the one who abolished individual cups and opted instead for the chalice. The Passover was originally celebrated with each person having his own cup of wine. But on Maundy Thursday, our Lord took *one* cup, saing "Take this (singular) all of you (plural) and drink (plural) from it (singular)." He did not leave us an explanation for the sudden change in rubrics. He only said: "Do this in memory of me." We have no evidence to suggest Pastor Jesus ran a year's worth of articles in the congregational newsletter, cleared it with His circuit counselor, or ran it by the voters assembly. He did not get CPH to publish it in the hymnal first, or vet it by the doctrinal review committee or the CTCR. Worst of all, He did not take into account the weaker brethren. He just barged in like a Gottesdienst editor in a china shop.
Nobody claims that our use of many cups nullifies the substance of the sacrament, but it is odd that we took the Lord's change in ceremony and undid it - for the reason that we just like it better our way. Think about how silly it is grammatically to consecrate using our Lord's words meant specifically for a singular chalice, and applying those words to a tray full of knock-em-backs.
So, yes, I hate the cups. I believe they are an abomination. They are a tool of Satan to mock our blessed Lord and to effect desecration of His holy blood. Screwtape cannot get rid of the Lord's blood, but he sure can do things to desecrate it all with the cooperation of the church's pastors. Under the circs, that's quite a coup for the devil.
But you will be pleased to know that my congregaton uses them. I consecrated a tray of them this evening. I do it because of the obvious reason: they have become so entrenched that it would "offend the weaker brother" to change that quickly. There needs to be an exit strategy. Whereas I never had a peep about the above-mentioned ceremonies, I know there would be a riot if I got rid of the cups. But this is not to say there aren't ways to move things in a good direction. I have gotten some individuals weaned off of the individualist cups.
But, for churches that have no chalice at all, a pastor might, say, introduce it by simply using it at the altar and only drinking out of it himself. Every pastor has to use his own judgment, but to say "never intriduce anything without a long period of teaching" is just something I'm not prepared to say. In fact, the long period of acceptance of some practices might even be interpreted as approval, and only serve to calcify a sense of irreverence. Sometimes the right thing to do is to move with haste. It is a judgment call. It worked out well for me regarding the ceremonial of the celebrant. It can be done.
In fact, some things *must* be done right away. As soon as I become sole pastor, the throwing of the Lord's blood in the garbage ceased - immediately. I did not let the altar guild continue to desecrate the Lord's blood until I could arrange a seminar about it. Rather, I implemented the change and explained it later. They were not only fine with it, but appreciated it.
Reverence is important, and pastors can indeed use ceremonies "to teach the people" - especially when those ceremonies are things that don't require the people themselves to do anything different. The pastor sets the tone. If he wants reverence, it starts with how he conducts himself at the altar.
5. Do we realize that we trouble the weaker brethren with stuff like this? Again, I'm pointing to the brother who apologized for not genuflecting. Did he sin by not genuflecting? What would you brothers have said to him? And what of our weaker brothers who are concerned that their parishes don't measure up to well... genuflecting, chanting, elevation, and chasubles?
I would tell him he's not sinning by not genuflecting. Don't we have to tell people such things from time to time: "You did nothing wrong, you are not to blame for this"? I don't think we should all say Mass like Baptists out of fear that some pastor might think he is sinning if we genuflect. And I would also tell him that if he wants to elevate the level of reverence in his celebration, I would encourage him to do that. We need to stop worrying about whether we "measure up." The focus needs to be on our Lord. And when that truly happens, the reverence will follow. Again, nobody has ever, ever, ever said that a pastor sins by not genuflecting. We will soon have enough herring to have a fish fry - and we're still quite a ways to Friday. ;-)
6. Finally, did anyone else have the desire that the people would just follow our lead as pastors rather than test us with the Word? Again, I saw evidence of this in a few of the posts (I’d rather not look over the whole thread) and so I’m going to ask in order that a proper “no” answer can be confessed. Doesn’t our authority flow from the external Word?
This sounds like more fish. It's hard to address "evidence" that isn't even sited. Again, I don't really know what you mean here. But as for our authority as pastors, of course, our authority flows from the Word (who has said otherwise?) - which He extends to us through our ordination and vocation. It flows from our Lord breathing on the disciples and granting them the Holy Spirit, giving them authority to forgive sins, to serve as overseers and elders, to be shepherds. So, we should use that authority - not in an overbearing way, but neither should we be handwringing ninnies so consumed with the fear of offending someone that we drag out bad practice (or even mediocre practice that gives the impression that we're basically Baptists) for years when it could be fixed sooner.
There is a difference between "testing us by the Word" and refusing to "obey your leaders and submit to them" (Heb 13:17). The polity in the LCMS does encourage anticlericalism. I once heard a layman bragging about how he greeted a newly elected president of the LCMS by walking up to him at the convention and saying: "You better stay in line or I will kick your butt." This kind of topsy-turvy negation of Hebrews 13:17 has resulted in faithful pastors being run off by laypeople who have been taught for generations that they hold the keys and the pastor is the guy they "hire" to do the "job" as they tell him to do it. And the pastor, the outsider, better just keep everything the same or we'll yank his health insurance, or worse.
If a pastor is not doing his work, if he is leading a manifestly immoral life, or if he is teaching demonstrably false doctrine, he can, and should be, deposed. But if he is chanting and the chairman of the board of elders doesn't like it, or if the head of the LWML doesn't like his chasuble, or if the youth leader doesn't like the traditional liturgy, or if the principal thinks the sign of the cross is "too catholic" - none of these are reasons to remove him. For crossing onself and refraining from doing so are both ceremonies. The pastor has to decide which ceremony he will do at the altar. The reality is that he may well have to submit to the Baptist rubrics if he is to stay there. But nevertheless, the fact that pastors can be forced to "bend the knee" (as it were) by being compelled to not "bend the knee" at the altar as he is celebrating is to mock the very definition of what the word "pastor" means. We opened Pandora's Box by mixing democracy into our polity. Sometimes, the term "weaker brother" is just a euphemism for "bully."
But that's certainly another discussion for another day.
I hope this clarifies at least where I stand on your questions, George (and thanks for posing these questions - again, I find them very helpful and constructive for the most part). And maybe this will spur further threads of discussion.
Rev. George Borghardt posed several outstanding questions as a comment on the post "How A New Pastor Should Add Ceremonies".
I think they deserve a separate post, as they are an opportunity to dispel some false information and clarify things a bit (of course, I'm speaking only for myself here, and I fully expect to have lively discussion and disagreement - which can indeed be a good and healthy thing).
So, thank you, George, and let me have a shot at your questions...
1. Why did it seem necessary to add without teaching genuflecting, chanting, elevation, and chasubles? I have no problems theologically with these four, so no 4094-character posts about how wonderful genuflecting, chanting, elevation, and chasubles are. We get it. Some of us have never found a ceremony that we didn't like. But, of all the ceremonies, why would we be tempted to add these four right away?
There is a very simple answer that I thought had been made clear: these are among those ceremonies that the pastor does himself at the altar.
Hence, they are the easiest to implement. It is much easier for a pastor to cross himself as part of his personal piety than to convince (or God forbid, try to compel) others to do so. Genuflecting, chanting, and elevation (as well as any other acts of piety, such as crossing himself or kissing the altar) are things he does unilaterally as the celebrant. A chasuble is something he wears as the celebrant.
Wearing a chasuble is far easier to implement than, say, trying to get women in the congregation to dress modestly. That requires much more hard work and tact. But again, a chasuble is part of the pastor's vesture. Everyone expects him to wear a different "uniform" than the men in the pews. It is not necessarily that big a deal - especially when the (first) chasuble is very plain.
This is not to say that restoring these ceremonies will always be easy in every time and place. Not at all. But, on the whole, I believe it is easier to implement something that is strictly within the pastor's domain (such as the celebrant genuflecting during "and was made man" versus trying to get everyone else to do it).
The pastor, as the leader of the celebration, as the shepherd and overseer, is in a position to set the tone of piety in the service. I think it would be a grave mistake, for example, to go hat in hand and ask permission to make the sign of the cross. I would say almost without exception, the Nike's Rule ("Just do it!") applies when it comes to the sign of the cross.
And as far as chanting goes, it's even in the hymnal that way. The people in the pews can see the musical notation (at least in DS3 in LSB).
It also bears repeating that refraining from all of these things is also a form of ceremony. Not chanting, not genuflecting, not elevating, and not wearing a chasuble is equally a form of ceremony - which incidentally is much more in line with the liturgy of the Lord's Supper as celebrated by Baptists, Pentecostals, and non-denominational churches. One could just as easily ask a pastor who refrains from these things why he is implementing Baptist rubrics of ceremony in a Lutheran church. For what do Baptist ceremonies "teach the people"?
2. Are those parishes and pastors who have the big four ceremonies more faithful than pastors and parishes who don't?
I think you already know the answer to this question. It is a red herring. No, no, and no. This has already been emphatically stated, and the question is itself a form of the "have you quit beating your wife" trick of rhetoric. This isn't about comparing whether my dad can beat up your dad, it is about trying to restore a sacramental piety in a church body whose practice often does not match what it confesses on paper. These particular four ceremonies (being the pastor's particular ceremonial) may well be easier to implement than others, as covered in question 1.
3. There seemed to be a bit of a tone of disdain toward the thought of teaching before doing. I know there was a bit of mocking done by Father Larry in one of his posts when it came to adding a chasuble. Did I read this wrongly? Can we be honest with ourselves that we would rather do than teach?
It would help if you were more specific about this "mocking." Since I don't know what you're talking about, I don't know if you read it wrongly. Teaching and doing go hand in hand. The Lord told us to make disciples by baptizing and teaching. And in that case, we typically*do* first (baptize) and *teach* (catechize) later. We have children memorize prayers long before they know what they actually mean. Most children have chanted "ellemenopee" before being taught that these are actually five different pictographical representations of sounds used lingusitically for the purpose of representing vocables graphically. Imagine if we taught that first, and then and only then had the kids actually sing the ABC song.
Sometimes, the teaching and the action are wrapped up together - as our confessions say, ceremonies are "to teach the people." Ceremonies *are* teaching. Our confessions don't argue that we need to separate catechesis from practice, that we need to teach and only then then implement ceremonies. Now sometimes that's the best way - indeed, it may be most often the best way. But I disagree that it is *always* the best way.
4. The plastic individual cups here are described as an "abomination." (like homosexuality?). Understood! I'm not a big fan of individual cups (even the little silver chalices at my parish), but is such inflammatory language helpful? Should we use such inflammatory words in a thread attempting to teach candidates and pastors who might be called to parishes with such things? Would it better to teach first? It is still the blood of Christ when it is in a plastic cup, correct? That's the abomination, right?
Some would argue that we should tone down our teaching on homosexuality for the very same reason (even though the practice is indeed called abominable - at least in the KJV).
I think the shotties are rightly called abonimable. Because of the shot glasses, the blood of Jesus is profaned. The practice in my congregation used to be to pitch the used cups, blood and all, in the garbage. This did not happen when we exclusively used the chalice. Furthermore, the little glasses spill on the communion rail and on the floor. It happens all the time. My wife made a horrifying discovery that there is a gummy residue, covered in crud, under our communion rail from years of our Lord's blood dripping over the communion rail - all thanks to the individualist jiggers. How can one *not* find this an abomination?
Of course it *is* the blood of Christ in the jigger. That's the whole problem! If it were only symbolic wine or a shot of tequila, who cares? You could put it in a dixie cup or a test tube. But this *is* the blood of Christ. That's why it is so horrifying. It is yet another practice we adopted from other church bodies: those who deny the Lord's presence. That's another reason why it is an abomination. Sometimes the apologists for the shooters argue "It's still the blood of Christ!" as though anyone has ever said otherwise. That's not just a red herring, but perhaps even a scarlet mackarel.
The shooters are a poor confession. If you bought your wife a diamond and set it in a plastic ring from a crackerjack box, it would confuse people (remember, ceremonies "teach the people"). Folks would, no doubt, look at it and start to wonder whether it is a real diamond or not. They might even think it is a joke rather than something of great meaning.
Furthermore, Jesus is the one who made the sudden change to the ceremony. He is the one who abolished individual cups and opted instead for the chalice. The Passover was originally celebrated with each person having his own cup of wine. But on Maundy Thursday, our Lord took *one* cup, saing "Take this (singular) all of you (plural) and drink (plural) from it (singular)." He did not leave us an explanation for the sudden change in rubrics. He only said: "Do this in memory of me." We have no evidence to suggest Pastor Jesus ran a year's worth of articles in the congregational newsletter, cleared it with His circuit counselor, or ran it by the voters assembly. He did not get CPH to publish it in the hymnal first, or vet it by the doctrinal review committee or the CTCR. Worst of all, He did not take into account the weaker brethren. He just barged in like a Gottesdienst editor in a china shop.
Nobody claims that our use of many cups nullifies the substance of the sacrament, but it is odd that we took the Lord's change in ceremony and undid it - for the reason that we just like it better our way. Think about how silly it is grammatically to consecrate using our Lord's words meant specifically for a singular chalice, and applying those words to a tray full of knock-em-backs.
So, yes, I hate the cups. I believe they are an abomination. They are a tool of Satan to mock our blessed Lord and to effect desecration of His holy blood. Screwtape cannot get rid of the Lord's blood, but he sure can do things to desecrate it all with the cooperation of the church's pastors. Under the circs, that's quite a coup for the devil.
But you will be pleased to know that my congregaton uses them. I consecrated a tray of them this evening. I do it because of the obvious reason: they have become so entrenched that it would "offend the weaker brother" to change that quickly. There needs to be an exit strategy. Whereas I never had a peep about the above-mentioned ceremonies, I know there would be a riot if I got rid of the cups. But this is not to say there aren't ways to move things in a good direction. I have gotten some individuals weaned off of the individualist cups.
But, for churches that have no chalice at all, a pastor might, say, introduce it by simply using it at the altar and only drinking out of it himself. Every pastor has to use his own judgment, but to say "never intriduce anything without a long period of teaching" is just something I'm not prepared to say. In fact, the long period of acceptance of some practices might even be interpreted as approval, and only serve to calcify a sense of irreverence. Sometimes the right thing to do is to move with haste. It is a judgment call. It worked out well for me regarding the ceremonial of the celebrant. It can be done.
In fact, some things *must* be done right away. As soon as I become sole pastor, the throwing of the Lord's blood in the garbage ceased - immediately. I did not let the altar guild continue to desecrate the Lord's blood until I could arrange a seminar about it. Rather, I implemented the change and explained it later. They were not only fine with it, but appreciated it.
Reverence is important, and pastors can indeed use ceremonies "to teach the people" - especially when those ceremonies are things that don't require the people themselves to do anything different. The pastor sets the tone. If he wants reverence, it starts with how he conducts himself at the altar.
5. Do we realize that we trouble the weaker brethren with stuff like this? Again, I'm pointing to the brother who apologized for not genuflecting. Did he sin by not genuflecting? What would you brothers have said to him? And what of our weaker brothers who are concerned that their parishes don't measure up to well... genuflecting, chanting, elevation, and chasubles?
I would tell him he's not sinning by not genuflecting. Don't we have to tell people such things from time to time: "You did nothing wrong, you are not to blame for this"? I don't think we should all say Mass like Baptists out of fear that some pastor might think he is sinning if we genuflect. And I would also tell him that if he wants to elevate the level of reverence in his celebration, I would encourage him to do that. We need to stop worrying about whether we "measure up." The focus needs to be on our Lord. And when that truly happens, the reverence will follow. Again, nobody has ever, ever, ever said that a pastor sins by not genuflecting. We will soon have enough herring to have a fish fry - and we're still quite a ways to Friday. ;-)
6. Finally, did anyone else have the desire that the people would just follow our lead as pastors rather than test us with the Word? Again, I saw evidence of this in a few of the posts (I’d rather not look over the whole thread) and so I’m going to ask in order that a proper “no” answer can be confessed. Doesn’t our authority flow from the external Word?
This sounds like more fish. It's hard to address "evidence" that isn't even sited. Again, I don't really know what you mean here. But as for our authority as pastors, of course, our authority flows from the Word (who has said otherwise?) - which He extends to us through our ordination and vocation. It flows from our Lord breathing on the disciples and granting them the Holy Spirit, giving them authority to forgive sins, to serve as overseers and elders, to be shepherds. So, we should use that authority - not in an overbearing way, but neither should we be handwringing ninnies so consumed with the fear of offending someone that we drag out bad practice (or even mediocre practice that gives the impression that we're basically Baptists) for years when it could be fixed sooner.
There is a difference between "testing us by the Word" and refusing to "obey your leaders and submit to them" (Heb 13:17). The polity in the LCMS does encourage anticlericalism. I once heard a layman bragging about how he greeted a newly elected president of the LCMS by walking up to him at the convention and saying: "You better stay in line or I will kick your butt." This kind of topsy-turvy negation of Hebrews 13:17 has resulted in faithful pastors being run off by laypeople who have been taught for generations that they hold the keys and the pastor is the guy they "hire" to do the "job" as they tell him to do it. And the pastor, the outsider, better just keep everything the same or we'll yank his health insurance, or worse.
If a pastor is not doing his work, if he is leading a manifestly immoral life, or if he is teaching demonstrably false doctrine, he can, and should be, deposed. But if he is chanting and the chairman of the board of elders doesn't like it, or if the head of the LWML doesn't like his chasuble, or if the youth leader doesn't like the traditional liturgy, or if the principal thinks the sign of the cross is "too catholic" - none of these are reasons to remove him. For crossing onself and refraining from doing so are both ceremonies. The pastor has to decide which ceremony he will do at the altar. The reality is that he may well have to submit to the Baptist rubrics if he is to stay there. But nevertheless, the fact that pastors can be forced to "bend the knee" (as it were) by being compelled to not "bend the knee" at the altar as he is celebrating is to mock the very definition of what the word "pastor" means. We opened Pandora's Box by mixing democracy into our polity. Sometimes, the term "weaker brother" is just a euphemism for "bully."
But that's certainly another discussion for another day.
I hope this clarifies at least where I stand on your questions, George (and thanks for posing these questions - again, I find them very helpful and constructive for the most part). And maybe this will spur further threads of discussion.
Pentecost Eve and the Blessing of the Baptismal Font
by Larry Beane
Click here for a beautiful and edifying liturgical analysis and recapitulation of a ceremony that was recently discussed by Dr. Eckardt. The piece was written by the Reverend Subdeacon Latif Gaba, lay brother in the Society of St. Polycarp, liturgical scholar and gifted writer whose blog is well worth subscribing to or visiting often.
Considering the rise in demonic artivity and in the general darkening of our times, I do believe we should consider making use of as many opportunities for blessing and exorcism as possible. Most of us in the American Lutheran world simply haven't been trained to make use of these rituals, nor taught the deep Christological meaning behind them.
Thank you for your fine work, Brother Latif, and for giving us an example of how gentlemen and scholars can express diagreement in a constructive way.
Click here for a beautiful and edifying liturgical analysis and recapitulation of a ceremony that was recently discussed by Dr. Eckardt. The piece was written by the Reverend Subdeacon Latif Gaba, lay brother in the Society of St. Polycarp, liturgical scholar and gifted writer whose blog is well worth subscribing to or visiting often.
Considering the rise in demonic artivity and in the general darkening of our times, I do believe we should consider making use of as many opportunities for blessing and exorcism as possible. Most of us in the American Lutheran world simply haven't been trained to make use of these rituals, nor taught the deep Christological meaning behind them.
Thank you for your fine work, Brother Latif, and for giving us an example of how gentlemen and scholars can express diagreement in a constructive way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)