Friday, July 15, 2011

More from one of our founding Pastors...

The fuller quote  from C.F.W. Walther:

"We know and firmly hold that the character, the soul of Lutheranism, is not found in outward observances but in the pure doctrine. If a congregation had the most beautiful ceremonies in the very best order, but did not have the pure doctrine, it would be anything but Lutheran. We have from the beginning spoken earnestly of good ceremonies, not as though the important thing were outward forms, but rather to make use of our liberty in these things. For true Lutherans know that although one does not have to have these things (because there is no divine command to have them), one may nevertheless have them because good ceremonies are lovely and beautiful and are not forbidden in the Word of God. Therefore the Lutheran church has not abolished "outward ornaments, candles, altar cloths, statues and similar ornaments," [AP XXIV] but has left them free. The sects proceeded differently because they did not know how to distinguish between what is commanded, forbidden, and left free in the Word of God. We remind only of the mad actions of Carlstadt and of his adherents and followers in Germany and in Switzerland. We on our part have retained the ceremonies and church ornaments in order to prove by our actions that we have a correct understanding of Christian liberty, and know how to conduct ourselves in things which are neither commanded nor forbidden by God.

We refuse to be guided by those who are offended by our church customs. We adhere to them all the more firmly when someone wants to cause us to have a guilty conscience on account of them. The Roman antichristendom enslaves poor consciences by imposing human ordinances on them with the command: "You must keep such and such a thing!"; the sects enslave consciences by forbidding and branding as sin what God has left free. Unfortunately, also many of our Lutheran Christians are still without a true understanding of their liberty. This is demonstrated by their aversion to ceremonies.

It is truly distressing that many of our fellow Christians find the difference between Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism in outward things. It is a pity and dreadful cowardice when a person sacrifices the good ancient church customs to please the deluded American denominations just so they won't accuse us of being Roman Catholic! Indeed! Am I to be afraid of a Methodist, who perverts the saving Word, or be ashamed in the matter of my good cause, and not rather rejoice that they can tell by our ceremonies that I do not belong to them?

It is too bad that such entirely different ceremonies prevail in our Synod, and that no liturgy at all has yet been introduced in many congregations. The prejudice especially against the responsive chanting of pastor and congregations is of course still very great with many people -- this does not, however, alter the fact that it is very foolish. The pious church father Augustine said, "Qui cantat, bis orat--he who sings prays twice."

This finds its application also in the matter of the liturgy. Why should congregations or individuals in the congregation want to retain their prejudices? How foolish that would be! For first of all it is clear from the words of St. Paul (1 Cor. 14:16) that the congregations of his time had a similar custom. It has been the custom in the Lutheran Church for 250 years. It creates a solemn impression on the Christian mind when one is reminded by the solemnity of the divine service that one is in the house of God, in childlike love to their heavenly Father, also give expression to their joy in such a lovely manner.

We are not insisting that there be uniformity in perception or feeling or taste among all believing Christians-neither dare anyone demand that all be minded as he. Nevertheless, it remains true that the Lutheran liturgy distinguishes Lutheran worship from the worship of other churches to such an extent that the houses of worship of the latter look like lecture halls in which the hearers are merely addressed or instructed, while our churches are in truth houses of prayer in which Christians serve the great God publicly before the world.

Uniformity of ceremonies (perhaps according to the Saxon Church order published by the Synod, which is the simplest among the many Lutheran church orders) would be highly desirable because of its usefulness. A poor slave of the pope finds one and same form of service, no matter where he goes, by which he at once recognizes his church.

With us it is different. Whoever comes from Germany without a true understanding of the doctrine often has to look for his church for a long time, and many have already been lost to our church because of this search. How different it would be if the entire Lutheran church had a uniform form of worship! This would, of course, first of all yield only an external advantage, however, one which is by no means unimportant. Has not many a Lutheran already kept his distance from the sects because he saw at the Lord's Supper they broke the bread instead of distributing wafters?

The objection: "What would be the use of uniformity of ceremonies?" was answered with the counter question, "What is the use of a flag on the battlefield? Even though a soldier cannot defeat the enemy with it, he nevertheless sees by the flag where he belongs. We ought not to refuse to walk in the footsteps of our fathers. They were so far removed from being ashamed of the good ceremonies that they publicly confess in the passage quoted: "It is not true that we do away with all such external ornaments."


Christopher Gillespie said...


Carl Vehse said...

This excerpt comes from C.F.W. Walther's presentation, "Explanation of Thesis XVIII, D, Adiaphora, of the book The True Visible Church", to the 16th Central District Convention, beginning August 9, 1871, at St. Paul's Lutheran Church in Indianapolis, Indiana, , translated by Fred Kramer, printed in Essays for the Church,Vol. 1 (C.F.W. Walther, St. Louis: Concordia, 1992, ISBN 0570042518, 9780570042518, pp. 193-4).

Anonymous said...

the battle between PURE DOCTRINE
church is the same as Style versus
Substance. We need the substance
of pure doctrine over the style of
pretty decorations. The black geneva
gown of Dr. Robert Preus in the
1960's chapel services at St. Louis
Sem was just as appealing as the
chasuble of Dr Hohenstein on Sunday
at a suburban St. Louis church in the

Terry Maher said...

Well I'll be died and go to hell if there's a single reference to Black Genevas, chasubles, or vestments at all in the quotation from Walther.

Perhaps one assumes attire is obliquely contained in the "similar ornaments" after candles, altar cloths and statues.

What is specifically mentioned is an order of service recognisably the same, not just similar, and a place which looks like such an order of service is conducted therein.

And, that is an abuse of Christian Freedom to either legislate these things into existence on the level of doctrine or legislate them out of existence similarly.

And, that the connexion between these things and pure doctrine is not one of a style and a substance, but rather an exterior that on the one hand does not guarantee the interior but on the other hand is as it is to express that interior and not just here and now but in continuity with past and present.

Which is done in a chasuble, alb and stole, Black Geneva or business suit.

But which is not done when in the same synod one place looks like a house of prayer and another like a lecture hall or theatre, and between the covers of one book here the traditional calendar there a version of Rome's new one, here the traditional order of readings the Confessions retain there a version of Rome's new one, five orders of service but none common, literally or figuratively, options within each order, two turtle doves and a partridge in a pear tree.

In which it is impossible to follow as before the sage similar advice "Congregations are urged to let the basic structure of the Service (singular) remain intact. The wide choice permitted in the Rubrics makes it possible to have the Service (singular) as simple or as elaborate as the circumstances of each congregation may indicate."