Although it is undertaken with a view toward improvement, it is not usually so. I am not even convinced there is as much a desire to improve as there is to adapt and make personal something which is far more personal without adaptation. In the end, however, the result is what Marva Dawn described as the "dumbing down" of the liturgy and the substitution and satisfaction for the mediocre in the face of what could and should be more. In adapting and innovating we generally end up trivializing what ought to be held as sacred and noble and making quirky what ought to be standard.
Although this is something that Lutherans are loathe to admit, we have taken the adiaphora about which laws should not be made and turned it into anything goes. Rome, on the other hand, has laws about everything in the liturgy and yet it too finds it impossible to prevent aberration and anything goes from happening there as well. Indeed, Rome seems intent upon forbidding the Latin Mass which allows little or no adaptation and yet turns a blind eye to the post-Vatican II Mass when it is adapted to the point of almost being unrecognizable! As if to mimic the abuses in Rome, some Lutherans get more upset about adding back into the liturgy historical rites or words than they do the wholesale neglect of the form itself among some Lutherans who are evangelical wannabes. Now to be sure, it is one thing to change music while respecting the words but it is quite another to look at the parts of the traditional order as if they were options on a menu. One from column A and one from column B does not allow for any real integrity of rites but even this is not nearly as bad as surfing the internet to see what others are doing and cutting and pasting it into your own local rite. I give as one example those who would move the sermon (and possibly Scripture readings for the day) to the front of the liturgy because they want it to hit home to the people first or moving it to the end for the same reason or those who would add the Words of Institution to Matins (or any other rite) to provide another version of a kind of Divine Service.
The liturgy is not some paint by number kit where you can adapt the colors to your own color pallete. Indeed, the liturgy is not there for your own self-expression. If anything, we ought to lose ourselves in the liturgy, confronted as we are with such riches of God's grace and favor and surrounded by the richest treasures of His Word and Sacraments. Note that I am NOT here saying that we should reduce the liturgy to a minimalism by which we could all abide. Just the opposite. I believe that the hymnal or missal represents the minimal by which we are identified but that those elements of rite which have served us so faithfully over the years but which, for whatever reason, were not included in the book can and should be added. This does not destroy the integrity of what is there but acknowledges that the hymnal or missal is not the exhaustive collection of all that could or should be included within the rite nor does it represent the entire consensus over time. We need to paint within the lines while acknowledging that the lines may be more or less detailed as a nod to the resources available -- deacon or not, choir or not, etc...
1 comment:
Perhaps, we should just ensure that the Liturgy reflects the word of God in a most pleasing way, recite it fervently, believe it deeply, utter it sincerely, and present it to the Lord. We need not be anxious or worried about the exact format. The Lord will always welcome the liturgical prayers of those who love Him. Why? Because the Lord looks at the heart, not the format or style of the Liturgy we choose. Soli Deo Gloria
Post a Comment