“The situation here can best be
described in the phrase used at the head of this essay. We have liturgical
chaos, a confusion which is not at the present time giving away to order and
uniformity, but which is growing worse confounded” (“Our Liturgical Chaos” in The Problem of Lutheran Union and Other
Essays, CPH, 1935, pg. 135). These
words by my great-uncle, Theodore Graebner, came to mind recently as I spoke
with a congregation member. He was
expressing frustration about how difficult it was for his daughter to find a
LCMS congregation whose worship service looked like what we have at Good
Shepherd – a congregation that uses the settings of Lutheran Service Book as they appear in the hymnal.
The liturgical chaos that
Graebner described was a relatively recent development. In the previous sentences he had noted: “At
the present day our congregations still possess in their German order of
worship a set form which is followed with only slight variations everywhere. It is otherwise with our English
services” (pg. 135). When the Lutheran Church –
Missouri Synod was founded in 1847 there were two rites that were being
used. Most Loehe associated
congregations used his Agende für christliche Gemeinden des lutherischen Bekenntnisses (1844). The Saxon congregations
associated with the immigrants who originally came to Perry County, MO used the 1812
Saxon Agenda (Kirchenbuch für den evanglischen Gottesdienst der Königlich Sächsischen
Lande).
The original constitution of the LCMS said that the reasons for forming a synodical
organization included: “6. The unified spread of the kingdom
of God and to make possible the promotion of special church projects.(Seminary,
agenda, hymnal, Book of Concord, schoolbooks,Bible distribution, mission
projects within and outside the Church.).”
It stated that the business of the synod included: “10. To strive after the greatest possible
uniformity in ceremonies.” The LCMS
immediately set to addressing both of these as in 1856 it published its first
agenda containing services to be used (Kirchen-Agende
für
Evangelisch-Lutherische Gemeinden). The use of this
single agenda provided the uniformity in German services to which Graebner
could still refer in 1935.
However, the
gradual shift to English created problems.
In 1911 the English
Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri became the English District of the LCMS.
The LCMS received a manuscript from the English Synod which was published in
1912 as its first English hymnal, The Evangelical
Lutheran Hymnal which included an order of service. In 1917 the LCMS published its first English
agenda, Liturgy and Agenda. In April
of that year, the United States entered World War I in order to fight against
Germany. World War I and anti-German
sentiment provided great impetus to the shift from German to English in the
LCMS.
This played out in uneven and messy ways. Graebner provides the following description:
Some of our congregations have
frankly repudiated not only the Common Service, but any kind of liturgical
embellishment. The service is opened
with a hymn. The pastor reads the collect, then the Epistle. A hymn, followed
by the Gospel. After the sermon another collect and the benediction. The congregation sings three Amens as its contribution
to the service. This is the extreme left.
The number of such congregations is not large. The bulk of our churches
have developed individuals a type of liturgy, the Common Service rearranged and
condensed, with special original features added and no attempt made to conform
to the standards or practices of any congregation, be it even in the same city
(156).
The publication of The Lutheran Hymnal in 1941 soon
transformed this. From 1941 to the
publication of Lutheran Worship in
1982, if you went to a LCMS congregation you knew what you were going to
find. It would be a rite from TLH.
This is not to say
everything was perfect. More often than
not, the people were not taught about what the parts of the liturgy meant and
eventually this contributed to the situation that exists today. But a LCMS member visiting a LCMS
congregation for the first time would find something there they already knew.
The LCMS had passed through the transition from German to English and again was
accomplishing its business: “To strive
after the greatest possible uniformity in ceremonies.”
Today,
the LCMS is once again a place of “liturgical chaos.” A visitor may encounter “contemporary worship”
in which the focus is music played by a band at the front of the church and
there is almost nothing that resembles the liturgy of the Divine Service. A visitor may find a “liturgical service,”
but one that uses texts he or she has never seen before because they come from
sources like Creative Communications for the Parish. The individual texts of the liturgy may be
ones a person knows, but it may still be a completely new and different rite
because the pastor has used Lutheran Service Builder to mix and match parts
from various settings in Lutheran Service
Book to order make his own version (perhaps just his own version for that
Sunday, before he makes another new one for the following Sunday). The ordering of the service may be completely
different, with the sermon at the end
of the service.
Certainly this does not reflect the synod’s original
business: “To strive after the greatest
possible uniformity in ceremonies.”
However, the language in the LCMS constitution has been changed to
legitimize the chaos. Objectives III.7 now states that the synod shall: “Encourage
congregations to strive for uniformity in church practice, but also to develop
and appreciation of a variety of responsible practices and customs which are in
harmony with our common profession of faith.”
This is contradictory and self-defeating. It represents an abandonment of one of the
original goals of the synod as the LCMS has in fact become a different synod.
This
change is a tragedy, not because it has abandoned the original orientation of
an institution. Rather it is a tragedy
because it means the LCMS has accepted the abandonment of what the Lutheran
Confessions say about worship. The first Lutherans were very clear about how
the Lutheran confession views worship. The Lutheran reformers were evangelical
catholics. They were evangelical in that the Gospel stood at the center of
their belief and practice. They were
catholics because their goal was to be a continuation of what the Church had
always believed and practiced.
The
Lutherans recognized that there was no specific command from God about how to
worship. They confessed: “And it is enough for the true unity of the church to
agree concerning the teaching of the Gospel and the administration of the
sacraments. It is not necessary that
human traditions, rites, or ceremonies instituted by human beings be alike
everywhere” (Augsburg Confession VII.2-4).
At
the same time, the Lutherans said that they retained and used the traditions of
the church because they promote good order, harmony and avoid giving offense:
Concerning
church regulations made by human beings, it
is taught to keep those that may be kept without sin and that serve to maintain
peace and good order in the church, such as
specific celebrations, festivals, etc. However,
people are also instructed not to burden consciences with them as if such
things were necessary for salvation. Moreover, it is taught that all
rules and traditions made by human beings for the purpose of appeasing God and
of earning grace are contrary to the gospel and the teaching concerning faith
in Christ (AC XV.1-2).
We gladly keep the old traditions set up in the church
because they are useful and promote
tranquility, and we interpret them in an
evangelical way, excluding the opinion which holds that they justify. Our enemies falsely accuse us of abolishing
good ordinances and church discipline.
We can truthfully claim that in our churches the public liturgy is more
decent than theirs, and if you look at it correctly we are more faithful to the
canons than our opponents are (Apology
XV.38).
Nevertheless, we teach that liberty in these matters should
be exercised moderately, so that
the inexperienced may not take offense and, on account of an abuse of liberty,
become more hostile to the true teaching of the gospel. Nothing in the customary rites may be changed without good reason. Instead, in order to foster harmony, those
ancient customs should be observed that can be observed without sin or without
proving to be a great burden. (Apology
XV.51).
This is a simple rule for interpreting traditions. We should
know that they are not required acts
of worship, and yet we should observe them in their place and without
superstition in order to avoid offense. This is the way many great and learned men in
the church have felt about it (Apology
XXVIII. 17-18).
They
continued to use them because they teach the faith to the people:
But
as the different length of day and night doe s not harm the unity of the
church, so we believe that the
true unity of the church is not harmed by differences in rites instituted by men, although
we like it when universal rites are observed for the sake of tranquility. So in
our churches we willingly observe the order of the Mass, the Lord’s day, and
the other more important feast days.
With a very thankful spirit we cherish the useful and ancient
ordinances, especially when they contain a discipline that serves to educate
and instruct the people and the inexperienced (Apology VII/VIII.33-34).
“For after all, all ceremonies should serve
the purpose of teaching the people what they need to know about Christ.” (AC XXIV.3).
“Ceremonies
should be observed both so that people
may learn the Scriptures and so that, admonished by the Word, they might
experience faith and fear and finally even pray. For these are the purposes of
the ceremonies.” (Apology XXIV.3).
For these reasons, the first Lutherans described their
practice in the following manner:
Among
us the Mass is celebrated every Lord’s day and on other festivals, when the
sacrament is made available to those who wish to partake of it, after they have
been examined and absolved. We also keep
traditional liturgical forms, such as the order of readings, prayers,
vestments, and other similar things. (Apology
XXIV.1)
“Moreover,
no noticeable changes have been made in the public celebration of the Mass,
except that in certain places German hymns are sung alongside the Latin
responses for the instruction and exercise of the people.” (AC XXIV.3)
In
large segments of the LCMS it can no longer be claimed that worship is guided
by these confessional commitments. In
the liturgical chaos of the LCMS, there is no harmony and good order. Offense is being given. Often the people are being taught the
theology of American evangelicalism as they worship like non-denominational
Christians.
The
liturgical chaos of Graebner’s time was caused by two factors. The obvious one was the shift from German to
English. However, a second cause was the
“desire to eliminate all liturgical features” (140; cf. 156). Revivalism is
woven deep into the American religious psyche. There has always been, and will
always be, a resistance to the liturgical worship that the Lutheran Confessions
set forth. In our own day this plays a
major role as well.
However,
an equally important cause is the ego of pastors turned loose by technology. At the heart of every decision to use some
rite or worship form other than those found in the synod’s hymnals is the arrogant
belief: “I know better.” Technology now
allows every pastor to implement his own vision of what worship should be. And so, “We have liturgical chaos, a confusion
which is not at the present time giving away to order and uniformity, but which
is growing worse confounded” (135).
