Restraint rather than enhancement. . .

I have long thought about this but never formally worked it out.  It is something that I am sure many would argue against and yet I am more and more convinced that this is the way of things.  We have come to think of the Church Year and of the feasts and festivals as being gussied up days with the Sundays and minimal ceremonial being regular and routine.  It is not unlike the way we dress or observe holidays.  The normal or usual way of things is enhanced.  We do not wear work clothes but dress up for church or weddings or funerals or a meeting with our banker.  The ordinary work clothing is normal and the rest is special.  For special holidays we take out the fancy china and good silverware to set the table and work to provide additional foods for the festive table because we are doing something special, out of the ordinary and apart from the routine. 

In this argument, minimal ceremonial is normal and the special days afford the opportunity to pull out all the stops and do things not normally done.  Liturgically, this means reserving certain things for the special days (like processions or incense or choirs) while the ordinary is, well, ordinarily more bland and less, well, special.  I suppose most of us think of things in this day.  Ceremonies become like the Christmas decorations in the Church -- something short term and used rather sparingly so that they remain special.  The poinsettias and lilies used for Christmas and Easter also give credence to the idea that some things are not normal but special and other things are normal and routine.

Let me turn this upside down.  I think we ought to consider Easter and Christmas and all the other high and holy days the normal and anything less to be a restraint which takes away certain things.  This is very different in perspective than the idea of adding this in to make them special.  The end result may be the same but the path there and the idea of how you get this is completely different.  We all recognize that there are times when it is necessary to make the service somewhat shorter than the full Divine Service.  It is, however, the fuller Divine Service which is the norm and the exception is restraint.  Liturgies, it should be understood, are not intended to be bare bones outlines to which we add things either seasonally or locally.  Instead, the fullness is the norm but for good and careful reason sometimes we pare down from the fullness to meet the requirements of the site or season or circumstances or celebration.

Not all Sundays are alike in solemnity and character.  On Easter Sunday, for example, the liturgy remembers Easter as the Queen of Sundays and Seasons.  It is of necessity the day in which we do not pare down or restrain the ceremonial precisely because it is normal.  In this way we admit that Easter is not some oddity and we also acknowledge every Sunday as a mini Easter in some real and profound way although not the Easter.  The Second Sunday of Easter, part of the Great Fifty Days, is distinguished by taking away some, but not all, of the richness of Easter Day itself.  After Easter, in one of the green Sundays of what some call ordinary time, we are even more restrained.  We have no brass or great choir but we might not also have the full complement of acolytes or assisting ministers.  It is not that we add to the green Sunday to make Easter special but we pare things from Easter for the sake of necessity and the resources at hand.  The solemnity of the day remains but in a reduced form. 

It is not utilitarian to be conscious of the length of a service or those who attend.  It is good pastoral care to work within such constraints to provide the fullest celebration.  In this way it is not a matter of taste and creating something that is unrelated to Easter but of Easter in a restrained format. At the core of the Divine Service is the Ordo -- the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Meal.   Early in the history of the liturgy's development an Entrance Rite, or gathering rite was constructed to be as elaborate as needs required or as restrained as required.  After the the Entrance Rite came the Liturgy of the Word proper -- the Collect, Readings, Sermon, Creed, etc...  So it is not that we add onto the Entrance Rite for festive purpose but may omit parts of the Entrance Rite, except the Collect of the Day.  

The Confession and Absolution, with its historical place in Lutheran sensibilities, is not technically part of the Entrance Rite as much as it is its own separate identity and rite.  This was originally a private or part of the individual piety and devotion for the Christian and only after the Reformation being added to the Entrance Rite.  While there may be pastoral reason for its inclusion there is no theological or liturgical reason which requires its use at every celebration.  The Confession and Absolution is omitted, for example, on Passion (Palm) Sunday when it is replaced by the Procession with Palms.  It may be omitted when a baptism begins the liturgy.  Although a general confession and absolution may serve a godly and commendable and even pastoral purpose, it is not the only act of preparation for the Sacrament and was never ordinary until much later than the Reformation.  That said, I would agree that few congregations would be well served by its regular omission.  If omitted, a fitting petition ought to include a prayer for forgiveness and a worthy reception in the Prayer of the Church.

It is essential for every congregation to be accustomed to the full rite as the normal experience.  The pastor should never be placed on the spot to justify what is added to a normal Sunday celebration but should be held accountable for the opposite -- why is this omitted today?  The people must have a sense that the norm is everything but the absence of certain elements happens because of necessity, resources, time constraint, or the more restrained character of the day or season.  The full rite must first be seen as "normal" or the more economic rite will become the end all by which the festive is judged.  It should be the other way around.  It is not that the service is too long but sometimes we must go without the fullest form.  The use of an abbreviated service on a regular basis is both impoverishing to the people and gives the false impression that less is more.  Worship leaders should not have to apologize for the fullness of the rite.  The liturgy ends when all we need to do is done, not when the hands on the clock say the hour is complete.  In the same way, the impetus is on the more that sometimes must be pared rather than why we  have the more at all.