Saturday, June 2, 2018

Missouri's Catholic History. . .


https://static.panoramio.com.storage.googleapis.com/photos/large/16694566.jpgIf one were to judge LCMS worship attitudes and practices by what you saw or experienced in the 1920s or 1930s, it might lead to the conclusion that the black gown and reluctant ceremonial had always been typical among the parishes and pastors of the Synod.  That might not be accurate.  For the truth is that early on Missouri had as much interest in hymnody and liturgy as others Lutherans had not.  Under CFW Walther, the worship life of the congregations he served were rich in ceremony and enjoyed a rich musical life that accompanied the full liturgy of the church.  It was said that visitors to Missouri Synod congregations in St. Louis in the 1850s "would have experienced not only an elaborate liturgical rite based on Luther's Reformation revisions, but chasubles, chanting, candles, and crucifixes, as well..."  For Walther maintained that "the Lutheran liturgy distinguishes Lutheran worship from the worship of other churches to such an extent that 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 the Christians serve God publicly before the world."


Outside of Missouri, Lutherans were somewhat shocked by this.  Even those who were confessional conservative were Reformed in worship practices and leaned pietistic with its suspicion of liturgy.  For example, the WELS in 1917 published an English language hymnal, Book of Hymns, that excluded collects, Psalms, and other liturgical elements insisting that their members often do not take part in the liturgical service, "as they know neither the words nor the melody of the responses."  As late as the 1940s, a Wisconsin Synod pastor could claim that no congregation he knew of even owned a Liturgy and Agenda.  It would seem that while Missouri began with a more catholic liturgy, a concern for hymnody that truly expressed the faith faithfully, and found much to appreciate in ritual and ceremony, others were not so such this was good.  "Those who can't preach it, wear it [a surplice?]."

By the time 1930 came, whatever was characteristic of the fuller liturgical form, ceremonial, and vestments had surrendered to typical 4-6 times yearly celebration of Holy Communion (the people receiving it generally twice annually), a pastor wearing a black gown (more of an academic style than cassock), and hymns that tended to mirror the American landscape of generic religious songs of the day and Gospel style American hymns.  While there were some who believed that giving attention to the liturgy and hymnody was itself a means of relegating the preached Word to a secondary place, most younger clergy of the day knew the time had come to make some changes and to restore even some of what had been lost.  Even Time  magazine had been watching and on February 19, 1934 reported on those "Lutheran Liturgists" advocating not a "change not in theological doctrine but in church services, with pastors wearing proper vestments, decking their altars with flowers and tapers, emphasizing the crucifix, reviving traditional Lutheran rubrics, singing only the purest liturgical music..."

By 1960 a monthly celebration of Holy Communion had become the norm and reception of the Sacrament increased significantly among the people.  The cassock, surplice, and stole had replaced the preaching gown.  This was against the backdrop of a church body still uncertain about the value of or even the wisdom of restoring Reformation practices.  Walter A. Maier had once characterized the norm for worship not as the historic practices of the Reformation era but the plain, common service that best fit the American mind.

When the 1970s hit, it was clear that there was a perceived link between those interested in liturgy and those interested in doctrine and there were many who began to frame the growing conflict in Missouri in liturgical terms and not simply Biblical.  From then on a different dimension entered the fray as the restoration of Lutheran liturgical practices and attitudes toward ceremonies and vestments continued.  It would take another couple of decades between the connection between confessional theology and confession liturgy would be restored.  By then Missouri had already suffered a split, most other Lutherans had coalesced around a loose merger called the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and it was clear that there was a difference between the Roman liturgical movement and the Lutheran one.  Even Wisconsin became familiar with the alb, chanting, processions and the like.

Yet who would know that at the same time the Lutheran liturgical movement became mainstream, other challenges to Lutheran worship were to come from non-denominationals and evangelicals who attracted followers on the basis of preferences and, most of all, perceived success in growth (especially from the unchurched).  Indeed, some have blamed the liturgical movement with what they considered a loss of momentum and passion for outreach, missions, and evangelism.  Thus by the year 2000, the missionals grasped onto the issue of outsider friendly worship that mirrored the music and culture the unchurched might be familiar with against the confessionals who were concerned with a liturgical identity that mirrored our confessional identity.  Now the genie has been let out of the bottle and it seems that what happens on Sunday morning is even more diverse and agenda driven than ever before.  Homemade liturgical orders and borrowed hymns not from Lutheran sources has created the circumstance in which everyone did [does] what is right in his own eyes and a liturgical chaos (Theo Graebner's phrase) that produced The Lutheran Hymnal has become the norm for most Lutherans no matter what their jurisdiction.  That said, the frequency of the Lord's Supper has moved ever closer to a weekly standard, more pastors are wearing the historic Eucharistic vestments of the Church, and there is far more catechesis being done on the why of worship than ever before.  Will it be enough to restore some sense of uniformity?  Only God can tell.




18 comments:

Anonymous said...

The biggest need in the LCMS is not uniformity in Eucharistic
vestments We need uniformity is good preaching in our pulpits.
We need pastors who are able to prepare law/gospel sermons
centered in Jesus Christ. There is a wide disparity in the
quality of preaching in LCMS parishes.

Carl Vehse said...

"We need pastors who are able to prepare law/gospel sermons
centered in Jesus Christ."


You mean the sermons won't be better just because the pastor is wearing a fancy miter and cope?

Anonymous said...

"Homemade liturgical orders and borrowed hymns not from Lutheran sources has created the circumstance in which everyone did [does] what is right in his own eyes and a liturgical chaos (Theo Graebner's phrase) that produced The Lutheran Hymnal has become the norm for most Lutherans no matter what their jurisdiction."

My copy of TLH shows a copyright date of 1941, well before the 1960s.

I expect many here will disagree with me, but I think the emphasis on "Lutheran sources" is an error. The emphasis should be on Christian sources, not limited to Lutherans. No one group has a sole grasp on truth.

Fr. D+
Continuing Anglican Priest

Carl Vehse said...

"No one group has a sole grasp on truth."

C.F.W. Walther's Thesis XXV: The Evangelical Lutheran Church has thus all the essential marks of the true visible Church of God on earth as they are found in no other known communion, and therefore it needs no reformation in doctrine.

Anonymous said...

Dismissing objective, Biblical, doctrinal truth is the norm for Anglicans and the like. Why else can they justify holding onto error, just say the truth is elusive that no one has it so I'm good with a part of it, all churches have issues. To suggest "no one has sole grasp on truth" is to suggest Jesus failed to be clear for others to follow in His truth and that God's truth is unattainable. So where is the LCMS in error? Where are truth Lutherans in error of the truth? Why not have 100 different Anglican groups so no one can pin you down and almost no one really knows the differences. It's so easy to dismiss God's truth and so to tell people to embrace theirs sins regarding inerrancy, women priest, sexual behavior, marriage, and sanctify of life. After all, no one knows truth, has truth, can know the truth.

Anonymous said...

https://books.google.com/books/about/Christian_Worship.html?id=t1IrAAAAYAAJ

This is a great book about Lutheran Worship by the esteemed Gettysburg Seminary theologian J.W. Richard. It is a peerless study of the principles of Lutheran worship established by Martin Luther in three writings from 1523-6. Word and Sacraments alone are the true worship of God. All else is adiaphora. Hence Lutheran worship during the Reformation exhibited great variety, from Wuerttemberg minimalism, to Saxon moderation, to Brandenburg extravagance. Richard contrasts Luther's emphasis on the primacy of the preached Word of God as the center of Lutheran worship (the higher of the "twin peaks" of Word and Sacrament) vs. the Roman/Loeheist emphasis on the sacrament as the primary center of worship. To do so, argues Richard, is to deny the objective justification of Christ 2000 years ago to forgive our sins once and for all (Hebrews 10). This reconciliation is appropriated by the Christian subjectively by faith in the Gospel. The Sacrament is a pledge sealed by Christ's body and blood that our sins are forgiven and for the strengthening of faith to life everlasting.

Lutheran Lurker said...

Quote: All else is adiaphora. Hence Lutheran worship during the Reformation exhibited great variety. . .

Adiaphora does not mean unimportant or a free for all. It means that the conscience cannot be bound to such things. Furthermore, the Lutheran Confessions do not dismiss as unimportant such things as ceremonies, rubrics, church usages, etc., but insist that these things confess the faith and are useful for teaching and learning.

Finally, it is a myth that such variety happened from congregation to congregation. It happened from jurisdiction to jurisdiction so that all congregations in one region or jurisdiction were uniform in liturgy and in ceremony. Finally, the variety was so narrow compared to the free for all that goes in Lutheranism today that nobody would even call it variety. You cannot compare the two times and the two situations.

Anonymous said...

The confessions speak of ceremonies as useful for teaching the uneducated or non-Christians the faith. Hard for us to grasp today, because non-Christians rarely go to church nowadays. The confessions nowhere speak of the liturgy and its forms as a realization on earth of the vision of worship portrayed in Revelation. Luther contrasted the simplicity of evangelical worship as portrayed in the Bible vs. the elaboration of man-made ceremonies resulting in the Medeival Mass. Luther's unrealized evangelical worship for true Christians was ceremony free. Just the Word, Sacraments, prayer, and good works in someone's home!

As for jurisdictions, these were cities. Strasbourg had an elaborate church order. Nuremberg did too. Wittenberg (written by Jonas) was less so. Wuerttemberg's order the 1530s (when Calvin was still a Lutheran) had no surplice or vestments and did have a general confession and absolution, which decades later they got rid of! So in a sense, you are right: arguing over guitars vs traditional liturgy is nothing compared to arguing whether a general confession/absolution is doctrinally appropriate for Lutheran worship during the Reformation.

Lutheran Lurker said...

Quote: Luther's unrealized evangelical worship...

Which is precisely why Luther is interesting but not the final or even the pivotal word for what Lutherans do in worship. Luther was all over the place depending upon the abuse or who he was talking to. When Rome insisted upon ritual, Luther denied it. When the radicals shattered stained glass and statues, he defended these things against those who dismissed them. What Luther wanted is hardly of importance since Lutherans are bound to few of his writings.

Quote: The confessions nowhere speak of the liturgy and its forms as a realization on earth of the vision of worship portrayed in Revelation...

But neither do they deny it. In fact, the Confessions were addressing the things in conflict more than anything else and the liturgy was not really a controverted issue (vs the sacrifice of the Mass which was). The Confessions are not a systematic or dogmatic or even liturgical theology text but a confession addressing things of most import against the people who insisted upon them. Even when the Lutherans insisted upon freedom from these commands regarding worship, they did not practically explore the limits of that freedom but their forms begged the people in the pew to notice much difference in form and ceremony between the Lutherans and their opponents. That IS in the Confessions.


Carl Vehse said...

We are now prepared to understand' the Romanizing tendency of Loehe, who displaces the pulpit by the altar, and like the Roman Catholic makes the Sacrament the chief thing in worship. In the Preface to the first edition of the "Agende," he says: "The liturgical development running through public worship I would compare to a mountain with two peaks, of which one, like Horeb and Sinai, is lower than the other. The first peak is the sermon, *he second is the sacrament of the altar, without which I can conceive of no complete worship on earth." And in the Preface to the second edition, referring to the foregoing passage, he says: "If I had again to give an explanation, I would now assign a still higher place to the Last Supper." With these views, which appear to be both un-Lutheran and anti-Protestant, it is not strange that his liturgy in its several parts and arrangement is almost identical with the Roman Mass.

The Protestant Church, and especially the Lutheran Church, look upon the Word and sacraments as the ordinary means of grace—the media through which God communicates his blessings. The Word, however, comes first; for without the Word the sacraments could neither be understood nor exist.


Excerpted from p. 23, J.W. Richards, Christian Worship: Its Principles and Forms (Lutheran Publication Society, 1892, 350 pages).

Anonymous said...

And when all of the Evangelical megachurch preachers eventually follow the lead of Andy Stanley and embrace homosexuality, will LCMS Lutheran pastors still be eager to imitate them?

Anonymous said...

We're not discussing Evangelical megachurches nor homosexuality. Topics so far have included Missouri's liturgical history, uniformity of vestments, Anglican views on worship, Richard's Christian Worship: Its Principles and Forms, Luther's views on worship, variety in various early Lutheran church orders on worship, Loehe's views on worship, whether the LCMS should heed the worship views of the "third Elijah," Martin Luther at present, the Book of Concord on worship, and the relation of Word and Sacrament in Lutheran worship.

If you don't have a constructive, thoughtful, pertinent comment relative to the discussion at hand, don't just blurt out "I hate megachurches."

William Tighe said...


"The Protestant Church, and especially the Lutheran Church ..."

What is this "the Protestant Church?" Does it make any more sense to speak of "The Protestant Church, and especially the Lutheran Church" than it would to speak of "The Catholic Church, and especially the Lutheran Church?"

Carl Vehse said...

I'd give you Prof. J. W. Richard's phone number or email address so that you could ask him about what he meant by "Protestant Church," but Prof. Richard died in 1909. You might see if Prof. Richard explained the term in his book, Christian Worship, or in another one of his books.

Anonymous said...

"The Protestant Church" no doubt refers to the magisterial Protestant church bodies of the Reformation (Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican) and their descendants, all of whom affirm in their confessions that word and sacrament are ordinary means of grace. Lutherans view the means of grace with great certainty (unlike other Protestants) based on the promises of God. Before the last half of the 20th century, the Lutheran church was frequently referred to as "the mother church of the Protestant Reformation." Remember that Luther and the Swiss agreed on 14 of 15 articles of faith at Marburg. Bucer signed a concord with Luther at Wittenberg. The real world correctly views Lutherans as the first Protestants. It is only through the efforts of some in the last century that this fact has inexplicably been claimed otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Prof. Richard also famously opposed the Common Service of 1888 in the pages of the Lutheran Quarterly in his article, "The Liturgical Question" (Jan. 1890). He was challenged by Drs. Seiss and Wemmer in back and forth articles for the remainder of the year. Richard praised the Missouri Synod for using the Saxon liturgical order of 1539, while criticizing the Common Service for being, in his mind, a mishmash unlike the services of Luther, Melanchthon, and Brenz.

https://books.google.com/books?id=NxBIAQAAMAAJ

August Crull published an English translation of the Saxon order of worship in 1881, entitled "Church Liturgy for Evangelical Lutheran Congregations of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession. Published by the German Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States. Translated from the German."
It is not available in print, but can be reconstructed from Pastor Weedon's blog in 2010.

https://weedon.blogspot.com/2012/03/article.html?m=1

This service continued in use in the Missouri Synod until the 1936 Church Agenda, where it was listed as Divine Service II, Divine Service I being the 1888 Common Service. From there it passed into the mists of history. Ironically, Missouri seemed to prefer in the end the Common Service and the unity with other English speaking Lutherans it provided, to the English-translated Saxon Church Liturgy. Perhaps this partly explains Graebner's comments about liturgical chaos.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...

We're not discussing Evangelical megachurches nor homosexuality. Topics so far have included Missouri's liturgical history, uniformity of vestments, Anglican views on worship, Richard's Christian Worship: Its Principles and Forms, Luther's views on worship, variety in various early Lutheran church orders on worship, Loehe's views on worship, whether the LCMS should heed the worship views of the "third Elijah," Martin Luther at present, the Book of Concord on worship, and the relation of Word and Sacrament in Lutheran worship.

If you don't have a constructive, thoughtful, pertinent comment relative to the discussion at hand, don't just blurt out "I hate megachurches."

Did you even bother to read the last paragraph of the blog article before assuming the role of blog moderator? I am responding to the last paragraph in Pastor Peters' post.

Are LCMS pastors copying the worship forms of the Evangelicals, or are they not?

Carl Vehse said...

Here's the quote with context from Theodore Graebner:

“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.”

“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” (from "Our Liturgical Chaos” in The Problem of Lutheran Union and Other Essays, CPH, 1935, pg. 135).

Later (p. 156) Graebner describes:

"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."

Graebner's quotes were taken from Rev. Mark Surburg's May 24, 2018, article, "Mark's thoughts: Liturgical chaos the second time around."

Rev. Surburg then goes on to state:

"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'."

The Lutheran Hymnal was the response TO the "liturgical chaos." It was NOT "produced BY" the liturgical chaos.