. But where do we go from here? Some of our churches are considering
replacing TLH with one of the new Lutheran hymnals that have been produced. Other pastors
develop their own liturgies, either regularly or for special services on occasion. Appreciating our Lutheran Liturgy as a Confessional Tool
Introduction
The congregations of our synod almost exclusively use The Lutheran Hymnal as the hymnal of
choice for corporate worship. Printed in 1941, this hymnal is still a wonderful treasure in both
hymnody and liturgy for those who use it. In recent years there has been a great deal of discussion
on liturgy at our pastoral conferences, and many pastors and congregations of the CLC have been
seeking liturgical alternatives to what is presented in TLH for varying reasons. This is evidenced
by the CLC’s production of Worship Supplement 2000 and the general acceptance of this resource
throughout our synod
. But where do we go from here? Some of our churches are considering
replacing TLH with one of the new Lutheran hymnals that have been produced. Other pastors
develop their own liturgies, either regularly or for special services on occasion.
The history of our Lutheran liturgy is an interesting and very complicated one, tracing its history
back through several centuries, countries, and languages.
But it is a valuable study in that it helps
us to see the theological confession of our liturgy in the face of the influence of rationalism. In
short, it teaches us to have a greater appreciation for what we have in our midst – and often take
for granted. In presenting this paper, it is my prayer that this study will help us understand the
vital importance of our liturgy in worship, to reflect on the proclamation of our Lutheran liturgy,
and to take great care in the selection of alternative liturgies. May the Holy Spirit bless our
consideration of this subject. Amen.
The Nature of Liturgy
The word “liturgy” is derived from the Greek and means “service” (see Acts 13:2). Throughout Christian history the term has been used to refer to the standard order of events within a worship service. Consider how many people in our time refer to churches as either “liturgical” or “non-liturgical” depending on the formality or complexity of their worship service. There is certainly a huge gulf between the order of service in a Catholic church and that of a Baptist church. The Catholic service is very structured and purposeful, while the Baptist service is very free and superficial.
Sadly, since the time of the Reformation, many churches have come to see the liturgy as mere decoration instead of an essential part of the worship service. To a growing number of churches the liturgy is seen only as “window-dressing” for preaching. The result is that the real substance of the liturgy has been altogether removed by many churches. When liturgy is seen as simply decorative, then it becomes basically trivial and of no value. But liturgy is much more than ritual form. Before anything else, liturgy is (or should be) theological substance serving to instruct and teach. Our Lutheran liturgy is confessional. The liturgy we use serves a specific purpose and is based directly on the words of Scripture. As we move through our worship service we are on a spiritual journey – not of emotion, but of substance.
Throughout its history the orthodox Lutheran church has had to fight to keep a truly orthodox Lutheran liturgy. It has had to resist pietistic and rationalistic influences and has had to purge them at times. Kurt Marquart comments on our Lutheran forefathers’ understanding of the liturgy as a confessional tool and their struggle to keep it as such:
The orthodox fathers of the Lutheran Church believed that the confession of the church was at stake in its liturgy. They therefore resisted persistent nibbling away at the liturgy by degrees (p. 70).
Generally, this has been understood in our Lutheran heritage. While we realize that there is no divinely given law that mandates a specific form of worship for New Testament believers, this is still an issue of the utmost importance. Marquart adds:
The fact that such decisions are not divinely prescribed does not make them unimportant. Already the Formula of Concord insisted that even “indifferent” matters could, in certain situations, have strong doctrinal implications, in which case they were no longer indifferent (p.63).
Lutheran Hymnal History
The smallest changes in a liturgy can reveal that there are serious doctrinal issues being
compromised, whether knowingly or unknowingly.
This has repeatedly been the case throughout
the history of Lutheran hymnals in America. During the dawn of Lutheranism in America the New
York Ministerium produced a confessional Lutheran liturgy which was very quickly corrupted by
rationalism. Describing this period of history Precht writes:
Sad to state, as the Lutheran churches gradually began worshiping in English, the Lutheran liturgical forms suffered erosion, and congregational participation waned to the point that many congregations became almost indistinguishable from their Reformed neighbors (p. 101).
The tide of rationalism in the liturgy was stemmed thanks to the efforts of Charles Porterfield Krauth and Beale Schmucker who edited an earlier liturgy and included it in their Church Book of 1868. Both of these men were instrumental in developing the Common Service, which is the foundation for the order of service that is found in TLH. This order of service was based “on the liturgies contained in the conservative church orders of Saxony and North Germany” and was “reflective of Luther’s reform of the Latin Mass in his Formula Missae of 1523” (Precht, p. 101). Precht also adds this bit of information about the texts for the Common Service:
“It also took over directly from the Anglican/Episcopal Book of Common Prayer the wording of such traditional liturgical pieces as the Kyrie, Gloria in Excelsis, the Creeds, Prefaces, Lord’s Prayer, Collects, as well as other items” (p. 103).
Of course, in many other cases the tide of error allowed or taught in a liturgy has not been turned back. In 1966 the Inter-Lutheran Commission on Worship (ILCW) was formed with members of the LCA, ALC, LC-MS, ELCC, and Slovak Synod. One of the results of this commission was the publication of Lutheran Book of Worship in 1978. Near the end of this project many in the LC-MS were having doubts about the end product. At the 1977 Convention a special committee was formed to review LBW and bring a proposal back to the synod of what to do with the hymnal. Sauer describes the committee’s review of LBW which was published in a December announcement to the congregations of the LC-MS:
The December announcement called attention to theological problems in both the liturgical section and the hymnody. Among these were sentences in the Marriage, Burial, and Baptism rites which, the committee stated, had no Scriptural basis. “Missing in these orders are clear scriptural teachings on original sin, for example, and the empowering Word in Baptism. Universalistic concepts are evident in the burial service prayers” (Sauer p. 119).
The special hymnal committee further proposed that LBW be revised and the new work be titled Lutheran Worship. The 1979 LC-MS convention supported this and adopted the proposed hymnal which was published in 1982.
Another example can be found in even more recent history. In 2006 the ELCA published a new hymnal called Evangelical Lutheran Worship. Since then there has been a large backlash by ELCA pastors and members against ELW. These protests have resulted in the production of an “underground”hymnal being produced by a group called Reclaim. According to Oliver K. Olson:
ELW is guilty of numerous heretical departures from Scripture and the Confessions, from unfaithful renditions of the Psalms to a prayer for the dead. The most serious flaw... is that ELW presents Holy Communion as human-initiated instead of God-initiated, something that we do for God rather than the other way around (WELS Topical Q&A).
Some of the specific errors are an avoidance of referring to God using masculine pronouns (3rd
person pronouns in the Psalms such as “he” are turned to 2nd person pronouns like “you”)
; a
depersonalization of the Trinity in the Invocation and Creeds
; and the inclusion of Apocryphal
books as Scripture lessons
to name a few. Even within the liberal ELCA this is seen as a very
important issue by some. One ELCA member has stated:
“This new hymnal will do much more to shape the theology of the next two generations of Lutheran laity than reams of theological statements, no matter how correct those statements may be” (Torgersen p.2).
Liturgies are confessional and, as such, they play a crucial role in the Scriptural education and instruction of those who worship. The examples that we have seen within Lutheranism should serve as a warning to us today. We should not be eager to give up our orthodox Lutheran liturgies for the so-called success of theologically “watered-down” liturgies. We should strive to avoid falling into the errors of others by learning from their mistakes.
The Confessional Nature of our TLH Liturgy
Let’s begin by stating that there is no such thing as a perfect hymnal or a perfect liturgy. As edifying as many hymnals may be, none will ever be perfect. Some of this is due to overlooking theological implications of certain words or hymns. Much of this may also depend on the geographical perspective of the congregation or pastor. Within our own TLH consider:
► the use of the term Sabbath in the Lord’s Day section of the hymnal which in some cases implies that Sunday is the New Testament Sabbath (compare TLH 11);
► the apparent reference to John chapter 6 as a reference to the Lord’s Supper in TLH 312;
► the millennialistic impression of the translation of TLH 237:1 “and peace shall reign on earth again” – a hymn often used as a substitute for the Gloria in Excelsis in our congregations.
► the several references from Apocryphal books among the Introits for the Church Year.
We don’t have a perfect hymnal, and we would all have our own examples of other shortcomings of TLH in one way or another. But, in spite of these shortcomings, we still find in TLH a liturgical and confessional treasure. A study of other Lutheran church bodies reveals that they are no longer accurately teaching essential Christian doctrines like the Inspiration of Scripture, the Deity of Christ, the Vicarious Atonement of Christ, Original sin, and forgiveness of sin through the grace of God in Christ. A look at many liturgies from our Lutheran and Protestant neighbors will show these doctrines to be slighted if not neglected completely. With this in mind, let’s consider the rich confessional nature of our Lutheran liturgy in TLH.
► The Trinity - The Common Services (pages 5ff, 15ff) contain regular and repeated references to the Trinity. These can be found in the Invocation, Absolution, Gloria Patri, Gloria in Excelsis, Collect, Triple Hallelujah, Creed, Prayers, Nunc Dimittis, Benediction, and Triple Amen. These services are replete with specific references to the unity and persons of the Triune God.
► Original sin - This is a doctrine that is also being whitewashed in many liturgies today. One liturgy states: “we are in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves. While this may sound good on the surface, it is greatly lacking. There is no acknowledgment that our sin justly deserves God’s wrath and that we have been sinful from birth. When the doctrine of sin is weakened, the doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ is also diluted. Consequently our liturgy is full of references to our inherent sinfulness and the resulting truth that we deserve nothing but God’s condemnation. We confess that we “are by nature sinful and unclean and that we have sinned against You in thought, word and deed” and that we “justly deserved Your temporal and eternal punishment.” This is reiterated in the Gloria in Excelsis, Offertory, Lord’s Prayer and Agnus Dei where we plead for forgiveness and ask the LORD to have mercy on us in Christ.
► The Vicarious Atonement of Christ - In an age where an increasing number of churches are teaching that God did not punish Jesus for our sins it is essential that the atonement for sin be clearly confessed in our liturgy. In the Confession and Absolution of our liturgy we acknowledge “the holy, innocent, bitter sufferings and death of Your beloved Son, Jesus Christ” and “Your only begotten Son to die for us.” The atonement of Christ is clearly presented in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds.
► Forgiveness by the Grace of God through Christ - This also is an important aspect of our proclamation. One pastor commented: “More and more, liturgies emphasize our offering of thanks and praise to God, rather than God’s Word coming to us to justify the ungodly. Our worship should clearly confess that it is in Christ alone that forgiveness from sin can be found. This is again clearly announced in our liturgy through the Confession and Absolution, Gloria in Excelsis, Creeds, Agnus Dei, Nunc Dimittis, and Benediction.
What a clear and joyful expression of our Lutheran confession can be found in our Lutheran liturgy! One pastor, commenting on the grandeur and substance of the Trinitarian Lutheran liturgy, stated that it is “so full of Gospel that if one fell over on the spot he could have died hearing the Gospel, with the praise of the Lord on his lips.” What a blessing indeed!
Challenges
At this point we should all agree that the liturgy serves as a very important confessional tool
through which we proclaim faithfully the teachings of Scripture. The Common Service found in TLH
is a fine example of such faithful proclamation. But there are challenges that confront us. Within
the congregations of our synod there are many minor differences in the use of the Common
Service.
This is due in part to congregational custom and history. However, as a result of these
changes it can be difficult for those unfamiliar with the liturgy to follow along. There are also
those who struggle to understand parts of our liturgy due to its archaic wording. There are those
who think that we should change our liturgy to make it appealing to the unchurched. Recognizing
that the Lutheran liturgy is a confessional tool, we should not ascribe to such philosophies!
Marquart writes:
In this view, the church meets in solemn public assembly not to conduct pep rallies for worthy causes, or to boost a religious talk with publicity stunts, but to transact the awesome and life-giving “mysteries of God” (1 Cor. 4:1) (p. 59f)).
He goes on:
The church’s historical liturgical ways, however, are not, as it were, a necessary evil, an evangelistic liability, to be endured for the sake of orthodoxy. Quite the contrary, the “liturgical mode” is actually a great missionary advantage, because it is the best, most natural setting for the priceless jewels of the means of grace” (p. 71).
The apostle Paul spoke to the elders of Ephesus saying:
For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves (Acts 20: 27-30).
As undershepherds of Christ, how can we deal with the challenges facing the people of our congregations?
► Liturgical Instruction - First and foremost we should make a continual point to explain the
meaning and history of our liturgy to our members. This can be done through individual
instruction, Bible Class studies, and even narrative worship services. When our people
understand the liturgy, they will appreciate it’s clear confessional nature.
► Update the Language - Some of the new hymnals and supplements have produced revisions of the Common Service with updated language. In these services the archaic words have been replaced by words more easily understood. An example of this can be found in Worship Supplement 2000 setting 1. While the wording of the liturgy is generally retained in this setting, most of the music has been changed. The LC-MS’s Lutheran Service Book setting 3 is another revision of the Common Service which has retained the melodies found in TLH. Our congregation has even produced our own “Liturgy Supplement” that contains the Common Services in updated language. At some point we may also include an updated version of Matins, Vespers and the Confessional service.
► Use alternate liturgies - The Worship Supplement 2000 setting 2 is a strong alternative liturgy which can be easily learned by congregations. There are also various other liturgies that have been put together by various CLC pastors that are well constructed and can be used for occasional services.
With this let me add a word of caution. Sometimes change is brought about because the words
of the liturgy are so familiar that it can be done without thinking about it. Some have responded
to this problem by using a different liturgy every week. While this may keep your members on
their toes, there is a major problem with such a response. One of the most important benefits of
repetition in our worship is learning formularies by heart. This is an aspect which should not be
overlooked or minimized. This is a benefit for all age groups, but especially the young who cannot
read and the elderly who lose their sight. Through the repetition of our confessional Lutheran
liturgy, we become more versed in the teachings of God’s Word especially when we consider how
much of our Lutheran liturgy is based directly on specific passages of Scripture.
Conclusion
As pastors we need to recognize that our Lutheran liturgy is a confessional tool. We also need to emphasize this point to our people, and explain why it is vital for our church to have a solid, Scriptural, liturgical foundation. We should also learn from the history of our Lutheran forefathers, and avoid slipping into the errors of many Lutheran (and non-Lutheran) liturgies. We should review liturgies critically and be careful in our use of new ones, remembering that the liturgies we use do much to shape the theology of our members. At the same time we should learn to imitate that which is clearly and solidly confessional in our Lutheran liturgy. In short we should value and appreciate the confessional nature of our Lutheran liturgy and not be eager to set it aside for something new.
May God grant that we continue to proclaim His Word in its truth and purity by means of our preaching and our liturgy. As we strive to make faithful confession of His saving Word to all the world, may He also help us to realize that only His Word brings about results according to His divine will! Lord, keep us faithful stewards of that Word!
Lord, keep us steadfast in Your Word;
Curb those who by deceit and sword
Would wrest the kingdom from Your Son
And bring to naught all He has done.
Lord Jesus Christ, Your pow’r make known,
For You are Lord of lords alone;
Defend Your holy Church that we
May sing Your praise eternally.
O Comforter of priceless worth,
Send peace and unity on earth;
Support us in our final strife
And lead us out of death to life.
(LSB 655)
SDG
Bibliography
Albrecht, Martin. “Dateline 1941: The WELS and The Lutheran Hymnal.” Focus on Worship. Spring 1988. <http://icmnews.org/ICMNwsltr/Articles/grindal5.htm>
Commission on Worship of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod. “A Review of With One Voice: A Lutheran Resource for Worship (Summary Form).” January, 2000. <http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=3727>
Commission on Worship of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod. Lutheran Service Book. Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, Missouri; 2006.
Grindal, Gracia. “Lutheran Hymnals in America.” Word Alone Newsletter. Summer, 2005. <http://icmnews.org/ICMNwsltr/Articles/grindal5.htm>
Grorud, Scott. “Think long and hard – before buying new ELCA hymnal.” Word Alone. June 5, 2006 <http://wordalone.org/nr/think-long.shtml>
Luther, Martin. Liturgy and Hymns. Fortress Press, Philadelphia; 1965. Volume 53 of Luther’s Works, American Edition.
Marquart, Kurt. “Liturgy and Evangelism.” Lutheran Worship: History and Practice. Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, Missouri; 1993.
Olsen, Norman P. “Critique on how Evangelical Lutheran Worship (ELW) claims to renew worship.” Reclaim. Feb. 19, 2007.
<http://www.reclaimresources.org/reclaim_articles/norm_critiquefeb19_2.pdf>
Precht, Fred L. “Worship Resources in Missouri Synod’s History.” Lutheran Worship: History and Practice. Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, Missouri; 1993.
Schalk, Carl, F. Source Documents in American Lutheran Hymnody. Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, Missouri; 1996.
Torgersen, Jack L. “Liturgical Understanding as a part of the Confessional Crisis.” Word Alone Newsletter. Winter, 2004. <http://icmnews.org/ICMNwsltr/Articles/JackT.htm>
Torgersen, Jack L. “Confessional Confusion in Worship.” Word Alone Newsletter. <http://icmnews.org/ICMNwsltr/Articles/JackT2.htm>
Wainwright, Geoffrey, and Karen B. Westerfield Tucker, eds. The Oxford History of Christian Worship. Oxford University Press, New York, NY; 2006.
WELS Topical Q&A. “Advice for those considering buying the ELCA’s new hymnal ELW.” WELS Topical Q&A: Music/symbolism/worship.
White, James F. Documents of Christian Worship. Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville; 1992.
And of course:
The Lutheran Hymnal. Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, Missouri; 1941.
The Holy Bible, New King James Version. Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1994
Note: This study was prepared for the 2009 CLC Southeastern Pastoral Conference by Pastor Nathanael Mayhew.
If you would like more information about this study,
please contact Pastor Mayhew