As the ELCA lives into the promises of “Evangelical Lutheran Worship,” it is perhaps useful to take a step back and consider what is really happening in worship in our church in the last years.
From my point of view, I see many congregations using “Evangelical Lutheran Worship,” both by using the musical and ritual contents of the books, and living in the spirit of “Evangelical Lutheran Worship” — the conviction that there are certain central things that mark our worship — patterns that we hold in common — and those patterns can be enfleshed, realized, enacted and imagined in a great variety of ways.
Some congregations are admittedly using material from “Evangelical Lutheran Worship” but still in a “Lutheran Book of Worship” environment. And, of course, other congregations are not using “Evangelical Lutheran Worship” much or at all.
The Introduction to “Evangelical Lutheran Worship” states its approach to worship that is unified but diverse in this way:
Evangelical Lutheran Worship continues to emphasize that “freedom and flexibility in worship is a Lutheran inheritance, and there is room for ample variety in ceremony, music, and liturgical form” (Lutheran Book of Worship, Introduction). And, through its design and through a variety of interpretive materials herein, it seeks to make more transparent the principle of fostering unity without imposing uniformity.
Patterns for worship
Thus, “Evangelical Lutheran Worship” champions unity amid diversity. We have “patterns for worship” (see pages 91-93, 225, 248-249, 273-275, 295-297) that we hold in common, not just in our denomination, but often ecumenically. The claim of “Evangelical Lutheran Worship” is that where these patterns are kept, we are indeed attending to the proclamation of the gospel and the celebration of the sacraments, which define the true unity of the church, and allow that these patterns can carry a remarkable diversity of ways to enact them.
These patterns show grand schemes: the Sunday and festival assembly of Holy Communion is the now well-known four-fold shape of Gathering, Word, Meal and Sending. But under these grand schemes lie other central elements with secondary elements that support the primary movements.
In some congregations, the grand schemes are all that are really observed, and the details of the unfolding of the main parts are not held in common with other worshiping assemblies.
So, I begin to wonder — how important are the more detailed central elements in each rite? For instance, how much do we value reading three biblical readings with a sung psalm at Holy Communion, or for that matter, the readings appointed by the Revised Common Lectionary?
Is there anything that unites us as we pray in thanksgiving at the meal?
Are there some musical elements — either hymns or service music — that we all hold in common?
Should it matter to us when and where we gather an offering? How will our rites invite us to a deeper understanding of baptism and baptismal identity?
One of my more realized fears of late is that some congregations plan worship always only with the bare essentials — “the book says that this is all we need to do” — so these congregations and their worship planners take the road of minimalists just getting by.
In some cases, we think that any music or any ritual will be fine — “let’s just sing a bunch of songs and call that a gathering” — without reflecting on the character and content of the elements and how they contribute to the purpose of the event.
The things we hold in common
More: In our time of rampant individualism, where many feel entitled to “have it their way,” where more options are better, where menus in restaurants include everything but the kitchen sink — I wonder if church and the church’s worship ought be marked by more things that we hold in common.
Rather than celebrating primarily how we are different and unique, perhaps we should accentuate those elements that link us to churches down the block, in our country, around the globe. Have we fostered congregational worship that is primarily contextual, and then to a lesser degree the ways worship is trans-cultural, cross-cultural, or even counter-cultural?
And what I mean most specifically is this: Can we encourage more of our congregations to read the readings appointed by the lectionary?
Could we propose that congregational worship not be segregated by musical styles and learn a core repertoire of hymns and songs that spans diverse origins of time, place and people?
What would we lose by adopting the services in “Evangelical Lutheran Worship” for Lent and the Three Days rather than the plethora of services offered in many of our congregations during Holy Week?
Is there some merit to using the words in the book that have been crafted, edited, reviewed and commended by the church? What is a book in our time of paperlessness and wirelessness?
Some may say I am imposing an unnecessary uniformity. I think, rather, that I am proposing that we be a church at worship — not just a congregation at worship — but an assembly that is linked to a body, united by central signs and actions that form us to be God’s people in the world.
Will our worship still be diverse? Yes, of course, but in balance with the ways our worship is also catholic, is also a sign of sharing among the people of the world, and is a sign of our unity in the gospel.
Mark Mummert is organist at Christ the King Evangelical Lutheran Church, Houston, and is the organist for the Bach Society of Houston, an affiliate ministry of Christ the King. Mark is a composer of “Setting One of Holy Communion” in “Evangelical Lutheran Worship” and was general editor of “Psalm Settings for the Church Year,” published by Augsburg Fortress.
You might also like to read:
Planning Lutheran worship in the season of Lent
Not going anymore
Some assembly required
I would charge that you are proposing an anti-Lutheran uniformity. Your proposal is completley contrary to the 7th Article of the Augsburg Confession:
"The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.
And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4:5-6."
There is one thing that we need to hold in common to be church, and that is proclamation of the Gospel in Word and Sacrament. It's not the lectionary, it's not a worship format. If we're gathering to just sing some songs, it's not church because the Gospel is not present. If we're gathering to proclaim the Gospel by singing a few songs, we're church. If we do the liturgy because we have to, or simply by rote, we're not church, and we're not proclaiming the Gospel, regardless of what the words we're mindlessly reading. When we do the liturgy to proclaim the Gospel, we're doing church.
Mark: I appreciate this topic a great deal but find that I tend to agree with Peter on this. While unity within the church is desired, uniformity can be detrimental to congregations in local contexts.
Congregations should be given wide flexibility in how they structure and conduct worship to effectively share the good news in their setting. while I agree with the 4 grand schemes as being central, I do not believe more is required or should even be suggested.
The lectionary in particular can be helpful for unity but it also can be problematic. I tend to think that there is no purpose in reading a scripture passage and not preaching on it. Most sermons that are lectionary based only focus on the gospel (rightly so I believe) and only give lip-service, at best, to the other readings. Why not just read the gospel? If you want to preach on the OT then read that and proclaim the gospel through it.
We are in big trouble worship-wise when we can no longer distinguish between the major and minor aspects of worship. for me it is enough to have the gospel proclaimed and the table. Beyond that congregations should do what they need to do to be missional in their context. Hymns, lectionary, or ELW does not unite only Christ can unite.
Unfortunately, in the Lutheran Church's quest to be all things to all people, it has become diluted to the point which it stands for nothing - it has no "brand".
The comments above only serve to further illustrate this. Sorry ben, but it's much more than just "word and a meal". The Lutheran Church has always been, and always will be a traditional, liturgical church. Give people the familiarity and regularity they deserve by not demeaning worship and destroying the liturgy.
Peter if you want to quote from the Augsburg Confession, perhaps you should further study this passage:
"...we do not abolish the Mass but religiously keep and defend it. Among us the Mass is celebrated every Lord's Day and on other festivals, when the Sacrament is made available to those who wish to partake of it, after they have been examined and absolved. We also keep traditional liturgical forms, such as the order of readings, prayers, vestments, and other similar things." (Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article XXIV.1)
Your book isn't helping, Mark. You've taken the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and cheapened it by calling it "the meal". Sorry, but a meal is something you have at McDonalds... Don't trash the Holy Communion by calling it a meal.
The ELCA needs to return to its roots as a firmly liturgical, traditional church, and explicitly expecting its congregations to adhere. There are many non-liturgical denominations (UCC, Baptist and others) which are the place for those Lutherans who eschew liturgical worship.
Only by honoring, respecting, and even venerating tradition can the ELCA have any sort of hope for the future.
Martin,
The part you quote from Apology XXIV is the exact statement most of the people supporting the groups you disdain could say back to you. Consider the original Article XXIV in the context of this debate (emphasis mine): "Falsely are our churches accused of abolishing the Mass...For ceremonies are needed to this end alone that the unlearned be taught [what they need to know of Christ]. And not only has Paul commanded to use in the church a language understood by the people 1 Cor. 14:2-9, but it has also been so ordained by man's law...The people are also advised concerning the dignity and use of the Sacrament, how great consolation it brings anxious consciences, that they may learn to believe God, and to expect and ask of Him all that is good. [In this connection they are also instructed regarding other and false teachings on the Sacrament.] This worship pleases God; such use of the Sacrament nourishes true devotion toward God. It does not, therefore, appear that the Mass is more devoutly celebrated among our adversaries than among us."
If you want further evidence that your position aligns most closely with the Catholic Confutors, read further along in Apology XXIV "And if we must speak of the outward appearance, attendance upon church is better among us than among the adversaries. For the audiences are held by useful and clear sermons... [There is nothing that so attaches people to the church as good preaching. But our adversaries preach their people out of the churches; for they teach nothing of the necessary parts of Christian doctrine; they narrate the legends of saints and other fables.] And the true adornment of the churches is godly, useful, and clear doctrine, the devout use of the Sacraments, ardent prayer, and the like."
Venerating tradition is also a no-no: it makes an idol out of Tradition. Even in just "honoring tradition", you are forgetting what tradition the Lutheran church is a part of. Churches that discard liturgy and lectionary in the interest of proclaiming the Gospel are more solidly in keeping with the Augsburg Confession than the church body that insists upon it because it's "tradition". It's also important to point out that these traditions are those of human origin, which means they are not central to salvation, proclamation of the Gospel or the Sacraments.
Mark’s thoughts regarding Evangelical Lutheran Worship serve to illustrate that liturgical form is only as good as those whose hands it is in. ELW, while being extraordinarily helpful in some regards is unhelpful in others; and, like all matters liturgical, arguments over conformity/nonconformity, form/freedom from form are not about the matters liturgical themselves: they are, instead, about ecclesiology. A survey of the comments above hurling quotes from the Confessio Augustana back and forth as proof texts illustrate this point beautifully. Such confessional bombs do nothing to promote a serious discussion of theology, catholicity, or the ways that those things are embodied in the Liturgy.
ELW is – let’s be honest – a reflection of at least two things (if not more): what the current situation is the ELCA (reflective), and what it is hoped that it will be (anticipated). Both ways of formulating liturgical theology are, by themselves, inadequate, and alone they are perhaps even dangerous. The numerous options that ELW provides reflect what already is: people do what they want. The “grand schemes” of which Mummert speaks and to which ELW points are the anticipated hope of a book that is doing its best to herd cats. Again: if pastors and communities are unwilling to embrace the “grand themes,” then the matter of ecclesiology does, in fact rear its ugly head. We do not embrace a polity that is prescriptive in matters of liturgy. Instead, the Lutheran liturgical tradition is simply suggestive (as ELW is); it ultimately has no power to make anyone do anything, which may in reality not be a prudent course of action since liturgy is embodied, primary theology, and such theology is – in fact – defined rather specifically in the Lutheran tradition (oh ye who would appeal to the confessions – what are they if not specific definitions of theological thinking?). If the embodied primary theology is not catholic and responsible to a larger tradition, then – what is it? Individual?
But, is a menu of liturgical options that reflects everything we do and everything for which we hope the only way to formulate a liturgical book for a tradition that is liturgical? Can a denomination have a core musical expression of liturgy when there are ten settings? Can rubrics that are non-specific and non-prescriptive be of any use to pastors who suspicious of authority of any kind (again, a question of ecclesiology)? What of those who neither have the ability nor care to engage seriously in what it means to be a good presider? What will the menu of options do then? To those who would appeal to the Article Seven of the Augsburg Confession (“The Church is a congregation of saints in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the sacraments rightly administered”), serious consideration needs to be given to the plausibility of such a statement: is that, in fact, an adequate ecclesiology? If it is, why are there so many different kinds of Lutherans, all claiming that they “rightly teach and celebrate the sacraments,” while Lutherans of other denominations do not? Is not the definition of those terms, in fact, subjective? Who is to say who “rightly preaches?” Who is to say who “rightly administers” the sacraments and who does not? Indeed, does anyone ever voluntarily believe that they are not doing these things?
I would propose that AF 7 is helpful, but inadequate. Its use of the term “rightly” implies catholicity: that there must be some standard, some authority by which something is judged to be “right.” Complete dismissal of liturgical uniformity is a slippery slope, and when carried to its extreme, means that the very things you practice – for example meeting on Sunday – could be done away with. Even meeting at the same time each week is, to some degree, liturgical conformity. The fact is that liturgy is primary theology; it is the place where the vast majority of the faithful encounter God, and the faithful have a pastoral and liturgical right to see clear form, to encounter well-crafted liturgy that is theologically sound and confessional, and to be invited to engage fully in the “work of the people.”
Likewise, those who craft liturgy – pastors, musicians, laity – need to realize that the “freedom” of which postings on this blog speak was only practiced in some parts of the post-Reformation world. While liturgies were certainly free in the cities of Northern Germany (and even then, the given liturgies in a city were prescribed by law; parishes were not free to do as they pleased), they were not in Scandinavia, where liturgy was highly prescribed and authoritarian. Again – both expressions believed, subjectively, that they were adhering faithfully to AC 7. Both of these ways of thinking liturgically is faithful to the Lutheran tradition.
We do not, however, worship history. We worship the Trinity, and we do not do it alone. Which means that catholicity to tradition, to form, to even prescribed form, may not diminish freedom but instead give it. Mark’s question “what do we loose” if we fully embrace the liturgy is a good one. To those who are suspicious and afraid of liturgical conformity, the question is the same: what do you loose by fully embracing the liturgy? Do you loose your individualized way of viewing the world? Do you loose your authority? Do you loose being in control of what’s going on in favor of a “communion of saints” whom you do not know, whom you may have not even met, who may require of you that you stand in a communal rather than individual understanding of God? Do you feel that you loose the Gospel, and if so, is the Gospel then dependent – to you – on your freedom, and if so, is it then not subject to that very freedom instead of itself being free?
ELW is, in my opinion, a tool-box. The problem is not so much the hymnal itself as those who are charged with using it: pastors do not know how to use the liturgy properly when one worship class will suffice in Seminary. And rubrical thinking (“this is a chalice, this is an alb, stand here, lift your hands here…”) is a very different thing than thinking liturgically. We are sorely deficient in pastors who are able to thinking symbol, in mystery, in beauty and in catholicity. It boils down to, I think, the lack of imagination: the inability to imagine a world of angels and saints and things we cannot see that only reveal themselves in “forms” of bread and wine and water and Word. If the liturgy is not a reflection of this incarnational reality of Jesus himself, what is it?
Patrick,
While there is some subjectivity in "rightly taught", the rest of the Augsburg Confession makes it clear what the Reformers meant by that. Article IV and its Defense lay it out: The Gospel is that God promises to forgive sinners on account of Christ's death and resurrection alone and only. No extras, especially like saying 'we all have to do this one custom' or 'we need a unifying liturgy'. The unity we have is that we are all Christ-trusting sinners. That's all we need to be the Body of Christ. (And on a grander scale than just the ELCA, it's what unites us with the widely divergent praxes of the historical church, the African church today, and even our fellow non-Lutheran American Christians today)
Since church was an issue back in the 16th century, the AC expands on this, especially in regard to what the church is. Along with AC7 and 8 laying out the fundamentals, AC14 and AC15 try to make this explicitly clear in regards to church. Liturgy is human custom, not divine gift. It is certainly a useful human custom for a great many people, and nowhere am I putting forth the argument that liturgy must be abandoned. BUT... liturgy is not the Gospel. It may proclaim the Gospel, and where it comforts consciences, it does so well. But where liturgy fails to proclaim the Gospel, when it burdens instead of comforts consciences, it is not just unhelpful, but anti-helpful. This was one of the big sticking issues between the Reformers and the Confutators-- are universal rites (aka a uniform liturgy, among other things) necessary? The Reformers said 'no', the Confutators, 'yes'. It comes up in AC4, AC7/8, and again in AC14/15 (especially when read with the Confutation and Defense)
Yes, I am saying that some churches could decide to no longer worship on Sunday and yet remain part of the Body of Christ (and should be able to remain in the ELCA, even). I'm not united with all other Christians because I worship on Sunday with them, or even if I worship at the same time with them or in the same building with them. I am united with them through shared faith in Christ's death and resurrection.
I do agree that liturgy is theology. Orthodoxy of the liturgy is a different matter entirely, however. (Nor does having a church bureaucracy oversee it make it any more right or trustworthy... see Church of Rome). Also, no matter how "right" the words are, if the liturgy fails to connect sinners to Christ, it's worthless.
Where liturgy is understood as theology is where it should most clearly be seen that a prescriptive liturgy is contrary to the Gospel. Whether one wants to or not, the theology proposed by a prescriptive liturgy is that it must be done this way. That is an extra added on to 'God promises forgiveness to sinners out of mercy for Jesus' death and resurrection alone and only'. It's no longer only Jesus' death and resurrection, it's Jesus' death and resurrection recognized in one particular way (ie the liturgy). It's not about limiting my freedom, so much as attempting to limit God's freedom. But the Gospel Promise isn't restricted to those who celebrate liturgy, nor is there anything in the Gospel Promise that requires liturgy. That is why we are free as Christians to participate in liturgy and enjoy it as the gift that it is, but also why we are not (and should not be) constrained to any one liturgy, and indeed free to worship as we are moved by the Spirit.
This is an excellent discussion. I agree with Patrick that we should see the ELW as a toolbox. But, I feel that way too often Lutheran congregations and pastors seem to get distracted by their own creativity. Recently I had a parishoner share with me that while visiting around Easter last year in X city he decided to attend worship on Easter Sunday. It so happened that there was a very large and prosperous ELCA congregation near where he was staying. He told me that the service was unrecognizable to him and they did not celebrate communion on Easter because they were too busy with music and skits and videos and all kinds of other adiaphora. I am sure that that Senior Pastor felt he was being creative and providing a celebrative worship experience, but he (in my view) was also being irresponsible and unfaithful. Above, someone suggests that only the texts that get preached on should be read. Is it not possible that I even though my pastor preached on the John text last Sunday (Lent 3) that I might have also heard the Gospel through the reading of the "Foolishness of Christ" Epistle text and the Moses story from Exodus? I served for 11 years for an Episcopal congregation and there was no flexibility at all under that particular Bishop. I found myself longing for some flexibility. Now I serve as a Pastor in an ELCA congregation and there is so much flexibility that some of my colleagues seem to have lost their bearings. It seems to me we need to find a middle course. Worship needs to be contextual, and reflective of the congregation and the community - but the structure needs to be respected. And it is always Word AND Sacrament. And for what it is worth - I agree with the comment above about the use of the word "Meal." Please - It is the Sacrament of Holy Communion or The Eucharist. I have other objections to the ELW (like the lack of page numbers in the Psalter - nice in theory, but in practice it renders the Psalter useless) - but it also provides some wonderful resources - I love the liturgies for the Three Days for example. And the hymn section is really a major improvement over the LBW. I also really like that Sundays and Seasons is available. What a very useful and helpful resource.