Sunday, December 7, 2025

They are the same. . .

The premise behind everything from the style and substance can be different to those who advocate for a contemporary form of worship borrowed from evangelicalism more than the church catholic is that liturgy and ecclesiology are different.  One does not imply another and they can not only be distinguished but can be intentionally different.  That is an idea that is patently false.  Ecclesiology and liturgy are the same -- at least in the sense that to change the liturgy is to change ecclesiology and to change ecclesiology is to change liturgy.  It is a slightly different version of lex orandi, lex credendi.

Let me illustrate from Rome.  The liturgy of the Latin Mass (following from Trent) and the Mass in the wake of Vatican II are not the same and neither is the ecclesiology.  Rome is fighting about this now although it would seem that the Vatican II side has pretty much won and Pope Leo is not showing any sign that this is not true.  Some are trying to say that what was promulgated in the wake Vatican II is the same form, merely updated in language and style.  Everyone who has been to a Latin Mass knows this is not true.  The post Vatican II Mass is focused much more on the people side of the equation.  It is not simply that the priest faces the people but that the whole thing is focused more on the nave than it ever was in the Latin Mass.  The most glaring abuses of the new Mass are not abuses of the form so much as they are taking the whole idea of that new Mass and pushing it to the extreme.  

Reverence and the focus on God's work and the people's work to God has been replaced with the idea that the focus is horizontal more than vertical and the the relationship of the people to each other and the people's work in the liturgy are central in the new Mass.  What has changed is not merely liturgy but ecclesiology.  That new ecclesiology has been pushed to its limits in the idea of synodality (even though this was given the imprimatur of a pope who acted more like a dictator than nearly any other in modern memory).  Synodality deposits the authority in the process and conversation even more than in the creed and doctrine.  It invites people to invest these with their feelings and to change them as needs determine.  So in Rome the natural outcome of the new Mass is to begin talking about changes in marriage, morality, the role of women, etc...  These things are connected.

Okay, so lets talk about Lutherans.  Tinkering with the liturgy is often seen as a technical thing which does not have that much to do with the body of belief.  I think it is just the opposite.  The great divide which has resulted from and fostered even more the worship wars of old was not simply about doing things differently but doing different things in worship.  It is not merely about worship but the church -- it is about ecclesiology and the pastoral office and the sacraments and a host of things.  We end up arguing about whether this pop gospel song is good or if a Lutheran chorale is better but it is a debate at the fringes.  It is not about taste.  It is about what we believe, teach, and confess.  It is also greatly about how we see the church and what we believe the church is about.  It is the great divide between mission and confession except it is played out on Sunday morning.

My point here is not to definitively solve or define this but to challenge us to see that we are not simply talking about what we like to do on Sunday morning or what kind of music hits our souls.  Things have legs and consequences.  Contemporary worship is walking us into another kind of church and the consequences of ditching the historic ordo and abandoning the liturgical form which has accompanied our confession since the get go have consequences.  We are becoming a different church because we are using different forms of worship and because even where the historic form is retained the way we view it has evolved to the point where we no long bind liturgy and confession nor connect worship and ecclesiology together.  That is why our conversations are so difficult and so difficult to resolve.  We focus on one thing but are really talking about another. And, by the way, Christology is not far behind!

1 comment:

  1. Similarities and differences between worship styles across and within denominations, including the LCMS, are cause to wonder if unity is even attainable among the body of Christ. History seems to reflect that everyone is seldom of the same mind. All people are basically strangers to one another, even in tightly knit families. Each has their own mind and will, and perspective. Liturgical or non Liturgical, as you suggest, is more than simply a preference, it denotes a doctrinal reaffirmation of the faith passed down from the Apostolic church to the contemporary. Yet, traditionalist and modernists often cannot even agree to meet half way. This battle will go on into perpetuity, or until the Lord returns. I often look at these things through the WWJS filter. (What would Jesus say?). Nothing in the New Testament defines the exact worship style the church should follow. Might we say this was “intentionally left blank?” Perhaps, Jesus knew that the faithful would argue these points through the church age, and He considered that the style of worship itself is not alone an indication of a faithful or flourishing church. I cannot speculate about the mind of Christ, but I often can’t help but wonder what He thinks about these theological and practical skirmishes within the ranks of His people. One of my favorite verses is useful to guide me and others in this regard: Colossians 3:16, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual sings, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” There is no indication of how or what style one should follow. The Lord allowed some Liberty here. We can do all we can to try to convince others to do things to our own preference, but then we must just quietly retreat. We may never achieve a maximum unified frame of mind on this side of glory. That is why we need the Lord’s grace. Soli Deo Gloria

    ReplyDelete