Worship preferences. . .

It has become part of Lutheran mythology to suggest that the liturgy just might be what is keeping good folks from becoming Lutheran and that the "high church" component of the liturgical crowd is creating its own impediment to Lutheran growth.  As often as this is repeated, it is still probably mostly false.  In fact it is a Lutheran straw man used by those within Lutheranism to exert their own preferential choice for a liturgical style (or lack of one).  

In the 46 years I have been a pastor, if there have been complaints about Lutheran worship they have come not from those interested in Lutheranism or those new to Lutheranism but primarily from those whose issue is that is not like the Lutheranism I grew up with.  While I am not here arguing for or against more or less ceremonial, I will insist that my own experience has shown that the most likely culprits for complaints about the worship service being too formal or ceremonial or liturgical are not those just learning about Lutheranism or those fairly new to the faith but the folks who are already Lutheran and do not like it.  Since everything in this age is all about likes or preferences, they want it to be known that they do not like high church worship.  Instead of simply admitting this, they feel the need to transfer the cause of their complaint from themselves to those who might become Lutheran except for the ceremonies -- too many of them!

The weak in the faith or those just new to the faith are generally the folks cited as the reasons for a simpler liturgical style or even one without any ceremonial at all.  Again, based on my own experience as a pastor for 46 years and a ministry to congregations returning to a more traditionally Lutheran liturgical life, the new people were drawn to the liturgy and the ceremonial of the liturgy was not an impediment for them but a sign, in their minds, that we took what we said seriously.  Many of them, coming, as it were, out of a non-denominational background or one with an evangelical church style of worship were not simply rejecting what they found missing or wrong in the theology of these churches but also how that theology was expressed liturgically.  Coming to Lutheranism, they encountered not simply words which said what we thought or said we believed but a liturgical life and practice that said exactly the same thing.

Some, who insist that anything that smells Catholic is an impediment or stumbling block to church growth, are forgetting that they folks coming from church lite are looking for catholicity, for a church deep not simply in theology or history but in liturgy that practices with reverence and solemnity what we actually say about God.  The creeds and confessions of our churches are a lex in search of a ratio, a belief which has an actual practice or shape in real life.  They do not hold this against Lutheranism but just the opposite.  They respect Lutheranism for holding to what these other churches have long ago jettisoned or never practiced at all.

In fact, the only folks who ever asked for incense in my parishes were those who came from these church lite kind of backgrounds and wanted the fuller the better.  Smells and bells did not seem out of character for them because they took what we said we believed so seriously that they expected smells and bells.  One family said we should begin the regular use of incense in the Divine Service with Christmas Eve.  I smiled on my face but in my heart I knew that it could be the very thing the Lutherans in the congregation would use to stir up trouble.  Not the new folks or weaker brethren but the Lutherans strong enough to know how to throw their weight around.

Now, full disclosure, I am NOT at all suggesting that any pastor damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead into a full medieval ceremonial to accompany the words and music of the Divine Service.  No pastor worth his salt would do that ever.  Longevity and teaching are required to usher in serious and long term change.  That said, every pastor I know would admit that the folks more likely to complain about any introduction of a new ceremony or practice are those who have been there longest.  How odd it is that in one case (some years ago) an LCMS pastor was lauded by the District and many of his peers for his foresight in ditching the traditional service which had been slowly moved earlier and earlier on Sunday morning until it began at 7 am before it never began at all.  They were, according to many, the loving pastors who really cared about the Gospel.  Other pastors who tried to restore the traditional service to a congregation which had long ago forgotten Lutheranism ever looked like that were derided as uncaring and hard men who loved liturgy and ceremony more than Jesus and more than the people in the pews.  I have to admit I cheered when I found out that the traditional folk who had been pushed out of the congregation took their wallets with them to the tune of some $175K a year!  Others complained that they were too rigid and should have learned to go along with the flow.  That is the dichotomy of how we deal with liturgical practices and worship preferences in the LCMS.

If Missouri dies it will not be due to our catholic liturgy but it could very well be due to our lack of a liturgical identity that mirrors our theological confession.  At least the early Missouri Synod and Walther agreed with this when they insisted that this fledgling Synod strive for liturgical uniformity, using only pure agendas and hymnals, which reflects a narrower standard than simply y'all do what seems right so long as it is not too crazy or catholic.  Reverence today takes on many forms, it would seem, except the look of the Old Testament.  Okay, take you best shot to dispute me.