Freddy Finkelstein's Blog: Dedicated to True Christianity and Confessional Unity in the Visible Church; to Conservative Morality, Free-Market Capitalism, and political Liberty in Society; and indebted to the collected wisdom of Western Civilization as it has, by the Hand of Providence, been empowered to derive, preserve and/or otherwise carry these ideas and teachings through the past two millennia, into the present, and, Lord willing, to project them into the future.
Foundational to the perspectives I maintain is my Christian Faith: though I am a wretched sinner, destitute of merit before a perfectly Righteous God, this same perfectly Loving God has given me the gift of Faith, by which I lay hold of and appropriate to myself the objective promises of His Word -- that through the perfect life, suffering and innocent death of His Son, Jesus Christ, I have been reconciled with God by His work, my sins are forgiven, and I bear the Name and perfect Righteousness of Jesus Christ before my Heavenly Father. I am Justifed, by God's Grace, alone, through the Faith He has given me, alone, as a result of the work of Jesus Christ, alone; and God's Word, alone, assures me of this. Thus, I am a Christian, of the Lutheran Confession.
I am also a dyed-in-the-wool Conservative. Partly personality, mostly the result of study and life experience, I know a little about many things, a lot about a few things, and strive to be a conscientious student in all things. I am not a crowd follower, having been weaned off the opinions of others at a young age. Thus I hold what opinions I do because I am convinced they are correct, and therefore worth having.
In Day 5 of discussion regarding Lutheran Worship: History and Practice, still covering the lead essay by Arthur A. Just entitled “Liturgical Renewal in the Parish,” we started a discussion of what manner of “renewal” is required for “liturgical renewal” to occur in Lutheran congregations: (1) renewal of the theology of worship and (2) the renewal of time. Stated by the author in two parts, I started yesterday with part one of “renewal of the theology of worship:”the restoration of the belief that Jesus Christ is present in our worship, which occurs by emphasizing what he calls a “real-presence hermeneutic” and leads to an understanding of the presence of God’s kingdom among His people as a presence transcending time, place, and people. The presence of the kingdom of God means that the saints of all time are with us as well, participating with us in our worship. Proclamation of this fact in corporate worship is a fundamental requirement of the Lutheran congregation. Today, we conclude with part two of “renewal of the theology of worship”: renewed belief in the church as a community of saints.
Having an understanding, then, that the presence of the kingdom of God, contrary to the idea that God has entered into our own space and time, means that God has brought us into His timeless presence together with all of the saints.
[Such] real-presence hermeneutics requires that we think twice about the metaphors we use in describing our worship. ...The metaphors we use to describe who we are and what we do reflect our theological vision. If a renewal of biblical theology [of worship] allows the people of God to see themselves first and foremost as a community of saints, then they will no longer tolerate metaphors of their life that reflect the individualism of today’s [American] culture which has become pervasive in their lives. ...Individualism is a chronic problem that undermines the corporate character of the Christian assembly. The tension between the individual character of society and the corporate character of the church cannot be allowed to be resolved by adapting the church to the culture. The culture must be shaped by the church.
Just, A.A. (1993). Liturgical Renewal in the Parish. In Precht, F.L (Ed.), Lutheran Worship: History and Practice (pg. 28). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
Congregations who change or eliminate the liturgy in order to cater to the experiential needs of the individual, who regard the worshiping assembly as an assembly of individuals rather than a single corporate assembly, in effect treat “liturgy as ‘education of surface memory’” and “reduce worship to pedantry” (pg. 29). As a result, “preaching and sacramental piety are separated and the Gospel is lost. When our concern is education of surface memory, then our basis for any liturgy becomes superficial, and our theology is destroyed” (pg. 29).
Christ is present throughout the [Divine Service], not for himself, but for us, his community. ...This conforms with Paul’s image of the church as the body of Christ composed of individual members, but members who sacrifice their individuality for the sake of the church. ...There is diversity in the unity, but the dominating image is still the one body of Christ, the church: “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit – just as you were called to one hope when you were called – one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph. 4:3-6). Such a corporate model of the church is sacramental, and because it is sacramental the Gospel is glorified.
Just, A.A. (1993). Liturgical Renewal in the Parish. In Precht, F.L (Ed.), Lutheran Worship: History and Practice (pg. 30). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
It seems to me, that in an effort to cater to diversity – to satiate experiential demands from the diversity of individuals in the worship assembly, that is – the idea of “blended worship” is often bandied about (often, it seems, as a rather transparent half-step toward eventually eliminating use of the liturgy and solid Lutheran hymnody). But the focus is still the individual, the focus is still on the “here and now,” rather than the timeless presence of God’s kingdom of which we have been made a part, rather than the community of saints which constitutes the church.
Tomorrow, I will conclude examination of this essay, “Liturgical Renewal in the Parish,” by covering the second aspect of renewal in the congregation that is required if “liturgical renewal” is to occur: renewal of time. After that, I’ll move on to a couple of other topics, and return to another essay in this book, Lutheran Worship: History and Practice, perhaps next week.
Here it is, Day 5 of discussion regardingLutheran Worship: History and Practice, a book of essays published by Concordia Publishing House (CPH) in 1993, that was meant to support the publication of their hymnal, Lutheran Worship – which at that time was about ten years old – and to apparently contribute to liturgical renewal in the congregations of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (LCMS). This book is full of valuable essays for all Confessional Lutherans, in my opinion – some covering the history of Lutheran worship, others discussing the theology of worship, some describing the music and appointments of Lutheran worship, and many addressing the details of the hymnal, Lutheran Worship, directly.
The first essay, “Liturgical Renewal in the Parish,” by Arthur A. Just, sets the tone of this book with a vigorous defense of Lutheran liturgical worship, not as a good or even better choice among others, but as necessary in many respects, not the least of which is in fidelity to our Lutheran Confession. I have been covering this essay in detail, since Day 1 of this review. While the winds of “liturgical renewal” have blown hard from American Evangelicalism and the Church Growth Movement, in this essay the author centers the need for renewal square on the congregation, not in the liturgy. Indeed, rather than allowing the liturgy to be transformed by contemporary culture, he declares that
[t]he goal of a good liturgy is always [the transforming of culture] by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is hardly accomplished if the liturgy is subjected to the whimsies of culture. Culture, untransformed by liturgy, in effect destroys that liturgy. The Church becomes indistinguishable from the culture and the Gospel is lost. This is the real secularization and destruction of the Gospel.
Just, A.A. (1993). Liturgical Renewal in the Parish. In Precht, F.L (Ed.), Lutheran Worship: History and Practice (pg. 22). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
On Day 4, I quoted the author declaring what was required for “liturgical renewal” in the congregations: (1) renewal of the theology of worship and (2) the renewal of time. Today, I will begin to cover the renewal of the theology of worship.
The author insists that there are two critical aspects to a renewal of the theology of worship in the congregation. The first is the restoration of the belief that Jesus Christ is present in our worship, by emphasizing what he calls a “real-presence hermeneutic:”
[t]he presence of Jesus Christ in our worship as we assemble around Word and Sacrament is central to a Lutheran ethos... This is nothing more nor less than a recognition that a sacramental vision of the church must be present in our perception of the liturgy from the entrance hymn to the closing Amen.
Just, A.A. (1993). Liturgical Renewal in the Parish. In Precht, F.L (Ed.), Lutheran Worship: History and Practice (pp. 26 – 27). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
But this is more than just a recognition that Christ is present in the elements of the eucharist, more than, He is here with us now as we worship in this place. Such is not a truly Ecclesiastical perspective. To understand what it means that “Christ is present with us” is to understand that the Lord has always been present with His people throughout history, and that Christ has been the center of that presence.
Are we able to see that the story of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, of Moses and Joshua, of David and Solomon, and the story is the Israelites is our story? ...We are bound together as a community at worship by the common history that we, as the children of Adam and Eve, have, for we are now one in Christ through Baptism.
One of our principle responsibilities on Sunday mornings is to proclaim to each other, and to the world, that the kingdom of God in Jesus Christ is present with us... [that] His presence has been with the world from the beginning of time with the singular purpose of accomplishing this redemption through suffering and sacrifice, through death and resurrection... [and that] the presence of the kingdom of God in the world's midst in Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The hiddenness of the kingdom in the world in no way vitiates against the present reality of that kingdom when we gather together as God's people in worship. If we are serious about liturgical renewal we must proclaim every Sunday that the kingdom of God is present among us. Liturgical renewal will only happen “when leaders... are willing to celebrate the signs of the kingdom now at work in the world.”
Just, A.A. (1993). Liturgical Renewal in the Parish. In Precht, F.L (Ed.), Lutheran Worship: History and Practice (pp. 27 – 28). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
The kingdom of God, Who exists outside of time in His eternal Now, Whose kingdom spans human history, is present among us who are trapped within time “on a historical and eschatological continuum” (pg. 28). The use of the liturgy proclaims that the kingdom of God is with all the saints, including us here and now, as it “straddles the gap of history so that all saints are joined in one worshiping assembly” (pg. 27). Use of the liturgy has been the vehicle throughout the history of the Church by which this weekly, and even daily, proclamation has been made. Oh how sad it is, when liturgical innovators, informed principally by the whim of contemporary pop-culture, make their ill-informed changes and reduce our proclamation of the presence of God's kingdom from something transcendent of time, people, and place, to a critical dependence upon “contemporary times and tastes,” which aspire only to serve an assembly of individuals rather than the community of saints. In such congregations, it is, indeed, critical that a sacramental vision of the church be restored in their perception of the liturgy.
Tomorrow I'll conclude the renewal of the theology of worship in the congregation, by covering the second of its two critical aspects: renewed belief in the church as a community of saints.
1. Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, the King of creation! O my soul, praise Him, for He is Thy Health and Salvation! Join the full throng: Wake, harp and psalter and song; Sound forth in glad adoration!
2. Praise to the Lord, who o'er all things so wondrously reigneth, Who, as on wings of an eagle, uplifteth, sustaineth. Hast thou not seen How thy desires all have been Granted in what He ordaineth?
3. Praise to the Lord, who hath fearfully, wondrously, made thee; Health hath vouchsafed and, when heedlessly falling, hath stayed thee. What need or grief Ever hath failed of relief?-- Wings of His mercy did shade thee.
4. Praise to the Lord, who doth prosper thy work and defend thee, Who from the heavens the streams of His mercy doth send thee. Ponder anew What the Almighty can do, Who with His love doth befriend thee.
5. Praise to the Lord! Oh, let all that is in me adore Him! All that hath life and breath, come now with praises before Him! Let the Amen Sound from His people again; Gladly for aye we adore Him.
The Lutheran Hymnal Hymn #39 Text: Neh. 9:6 Author: Joachim Neander, 1679 Translated by: Catherine Winkworth, 1863, alt. Titled: "Lobe den Herren, den maechtigen" Tune: "Lobe den Herren, den" 1st Published in: _Erneuertes Gesangbuch_ Town: Stralsund, 1665
Yesterday, I promised that the latin liturgical phrase, lex orandi, lex credendi, would turn up in today's quote from the first essay in the book, Lutheran Worship: History and Practice. And so it does:
The maxim of Prosper of Aquitaine bantered about in liturgical circles today (“The law of worshiping founds the law of believing” [i..e., lex orandi, lex credendi -FF]) needs to be worked out in our church so that both scholars and [laity] may be reconciled in their goals and the means to accomplish them. Our most recent tradition [i.e., that of itching dabblers, liturgical changers and fiddlers, that were enabled by ILCW and other Contemporary advocates in the 1970's – see my response to Brett in Day 2 - FF] has in effect reversed that maxim to read: “The law of believing founds the law of worshiping.” That may be true on one level in our church body, but on the congregational level, we who are so passionate about congregationalism need to recognize that if we want orthodidaskalia (right teaching) to be a leaven in our churches, then orthodoxia (right worship) must prevail and help to form orthodidaskalia. If this does not happen, we will continue to experience warped worship and with it warped doctrine...
Thus the watchwords for our church must be reverence, not relevance, fidelity, not innovation. This will necessarily involve us with biblical theology, Christology, ecclesiology, eschatology, liturgical tradition, and the Reformation.
Just, A.A. (1993). Liturgical Renewal in the Parish. In Precht, F.L (Ed.), Lutheran Worship: History and Practice (pg. 25). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
Then the author goes on to essentially reiterate that congregations (especially the average layman), on their own, are simply not qualified to meaningfully engage these topics in a balanced way, and to maintain fidelity to our Confession or to whole council of God as they engage in their own liturgical innovations. They must have the guidance of liturgiologists and musicologists, those recognized by their brothers as having the gifts, expertise, and faithfulness to do so with integrity, who are called by them to serve in such capacity. Regardless of whether the average layman can pronounce the words like "Christology," "ecclesiology" and "eschatology," or articulate their meaning, they nevertheless engage those very topics, and more, in the liturgy, and in this way come to a latent understanding of them.
The author then concludes this introductory section of his essay as follows:
The goal of liturgical renewal in [Confessional Lutheranism] must be to give the worshiping community access to a Lutheran ethos that embraces the depth of our theology and the richness of our heritage. The parameters of this goal will be outlined here by looking at two areas of our liturgical life, which, if renewed, will influence all others: the renewal of the theology of worship and the renewal of time.
Just, A.A. (1993). Liturgical Renewal in the Parish. In Precht, F.L (Ed.), Lutheran Worship: History and Practice (pp. 25 – 26). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
A Lutheran ethos that embraces the depth of our theology and the richness of our heritage. This statement recalls part of my extended quote from this essay on Day 3: At stake in liturgical renewal is nothing more and nothing less than the very ethos of our church. What is at stake when making liturgical "changes?" Theology. Heritage. In short, our Identity. Careless liturgical dabbling has profound consequences, which compound over time. If you haven't read Day 3, follow the link above, read the post, and also read my followup commentary in which I point folks to Rev. David Jay Webber's (ELS) June 3 interview on Issues, Etc. Listen to it. We are facing an identity crisis – and for us Lutherans, this is nothing less than a Confessional crisis.
In coming days, I will cover these two areas of Lutheran liturgical life from the remaining two-thirds of this essay. Look for me to summarize much more than I have up to this point! I'll admit, it is tempting just to reproduce the whole essay and say, “There. Now wasn't that great?” It alone is worth the price of the book, in my opinion. Yet, there are at least two other essays, which, in my opinion, are worth covering in this forum: "Worship and the Community of Faith," by Roger D. Pittelko, and "Liturgy and Evangelism," by Kurt Marquart. I intend to do so over the coming weeks, interspersed, perhaps, with other things too.
Moving ahead with more fromLutheran Worship: History and Practice, still in the lead essay by Arthur A. Just, entitled “Liturgical Renewal in the Parish,” the author begins to address the topic of what is meant by the phrase “Liturgical Renewal.” Addressing on pg. 23, the tension between a liturgy that is owned by the whole church, but practiced in the local congregation (where “church” is manifest in a visible sense, in its highest form), and pointing out that liturgical changes, as they may occasionally be required, are therefore a response to the needs of the practitioners of the liturgy, he stresses that this fact nevertheless must be “tempered” by a liturgical practice which realizes the true needs of the practitioners, that points them to their Confessional identity:
But this view must be tempered lest we find ourselves returning to those makeshift liturgies of our very recent past. This requires that we take a hard look at [our identity as Confessional Lutherans]. We do have a tradition with a cultural and historical context, and that tradition is both evangelical and catholic... A battle is [now] taking place for the heart and soul of our church... [and] is being waged between those who want to move toward an American form of Protestantism with Calvinistic roots and those who want to regain historical Lutheranism. At stake in liturgical renewal is nothing more and nothing less than the very ethos of our church...
One problem today is that our congregations are generally uninstructed, not only in biblical theology and Lutheran liturgical traditions, but worse, they do not know the Lutheran tradition as a positive unfolding of the New Testament and early post-apostolic church, which in turn comes from the Old Testament as practiced by Jesus himself. They do not know what it means to be Lutheran... If people lose their Lutheran identity, it will result in the irrecoverable loss of the liturgy, and the loss in each case is hard to imagine.
Concerned liturgical scholars are well aware of the consequences of lost liturgy and are equally aware of the sad state of biblical knowledge and traditional awareness in our congregations. They recognize that it is disastrous to leave the liturgy in the hands of people who know little of liturgy, theology, or Scripture...
Just, A.A. (1993). Liturgical Renewal in the Parish. In Precht, F.L (Ed.), Lutheran Worship: History and Practice (pp. 23 – 24). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
Arthur Just goes on from this point on pg. 25, agreeing with the obvious conclusion that congregations, though it is ultimately their responsibility, generally lack the qualifications to create their own Confessionally sound liturgies due to ignorance, and argues that (a) they need to be guided by the expertise of those who are qualified and who are publicly held to some level of accountability for faithfulness to our identity as Lutherans, and (b) they need to be educated in order to critique the liturgies handed to them and effectively hold their liturgiologists accountable.
Now for a recap of what I consider to be key points, so far. In Day 1, I quote from this essay an important distinction, expressed as a confusion by the author: “...confusing a church that has liturgies with a liturgical church.” They are not the same thing. Any old order of service, or small “l” liturgy, does not qualify a congregation as a Liturgical church. In Day 2, I quote the author as he stresses the connection between liturgy and theology, and that on this basis the liturgy is something which transforms its practitioners (the only relevant “culture” in liturgical considerations, that is), doing so in a way that respects its broad ownership. In today's excerpt, the author indicates that the transformed culture brought by a liturgy with Confessional integrity is one which is both evangelical and catholic, an identity that has been carried forward to the present from the time of the Old Testament, through sound liturgical practice. A congregation has the responsibility to uphold fidelity to their Confessional identity in their liturgical usages. Tomorrw, lex orandi, lex credendi will enter the picture, and the author will state precisely what forms of “liturgical renewal” are needed in today's congregation...
Confessional subscription isn't just agreeing to words. It is a public declaration of identity, and requires that subscribing congregations engage in public practice which proves that Confession. The Liturgy embodies our Confessional identity in a way that visibly and tangibly unites us not only with each other, but with those from throughout the Church's history, from the earliest "Christians" of the Old Testament (those with faith in the Messiah who would come) to the Christians of today (who look back in faith to the Messiah who did come). The loss of the Liturgy would indeed be hard to imagine...
A brief interlude, here -- I'll post again regarding Lutheran Worship: History and Practice, later today.
Anyone who knows me, or who has seen my personal library, knows that I am a lover of books. Especially old books. I have great respect for the "classic" writers, whose thoughts and ideas have been evaluated and re-evaluated since their time, and yet have nevertheless been retained. Their value has been confirmed. Therefore, when I received an email yesterday from Concordia Publishing House (CPH) announcing that they are now making out-of-print titles available through digital "print on demand" technology, I was elated.
Searching through the list, I see they already have many (if not all) titles from the Concordia Classic Commentary Series -- several of which I have, and have found beneficial. They are also making Dr. P.E. Kretzmann's Popular Commentary available again, which is a fine commentary and very helpful, especially for those of us who still prefer to study the Bible in the KJV. Kretzmann's Popular Commentary is also available online, in a searchable format, here. CPH has also listed Dallmann's excellent biographies of Peter, Paul, John, and Luther, among those available via print-on-demand. Of course, to finish off that list of biographies, one would need to get Dallmann's biography of Jesus, published by Northwestern Publishing House (NPH) in 1914...
One title I would especially like to point out, however, is Dr. P.E. Kretzmann's Christian Art: In the Place and in the Form of Lutheran Worship. In a relatively recent discussion over on Bailing Water, I extolled this forgotten work, and begged CPH or NPH to reprint it (OK, I didn't "beg," but I remember feeling like I should...). Perhaps it is just a coincidence, but one can get it in book form now, from CPH, via print-on-demand. I very highly recommend it.
Picking up where I left off yesterday, from the lead-off essay by Arthur Just inLutheran Worship: History and Practice, he continues by pointing out that liturgical renewal is not a tactical consideration at all, but strategic. Changes must be carefully and holistically considered as a church's liturgy spans the whole church and impacts the whole life of each Christian:
Because this is true [i.e., that subjecting the liturgy to the whimsies of culture destroys the liturgy, and in turn secularizes and destroys the Gospel], then our approach cannot be tactical but must be strategical. Our run at renewal comes from viewing the whole life of the church through liturgy, a holistic view that calls for strategy, not tactics. A tactical approach trivializes our life in Christ, focusing that life on today's relevancies and today's style. A strategical approach is focused more on reverence than on relevance, more on renewal of substance than on renewal of form, more on theology than practice. If we are reverent in worship, we will be relevant; if our life in Christ is substantial, we will develop forms to support that life; if our vision is biblically theological, we will be confessionally practical.
... In our changing culture, today's congregations are often too likely to subject the liturgy to the same criteria by which they judge everything else in society: [tinker to "make it work"]... Liturgy and theology should not conform to this world, but should transform the world... [It] is a cultural assumption that it is the liturgy that needs to be changed, when ...it is we who need to be changed through the liturgy, for here Jesus Christ comes to us most completely, Sunday in and Sunday out. ...The liturgical movement must give priority to restoring the liturgy to the faithful, to recognizing that the liturgy does not belong exclusively to any one congregation, or to the clergy, or to the synodical office. It belongs to the whole church as it is expressed in a congregation.
Just, A.A. (1993). Liturgical Renewal in the Parish. In Precht, F.L (Ed.), Lutheran Worship: History and Practice (pp. 22 – 23). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
Some, upon reading this, may be troubled by the author's statement "liturgy and theology should not conform to this world," agreeing that theology should not so conform, as it comes to us directly from Scripture, but that liturgy does not, and therefore ought not be subject to the same restrictions from this conformity as theology. Why does he seem to equate liturgy with theology in this way? This thought is explained more fully in another essay in Lutheran Worship: History and Practice, by a different author, which I will get to in a few days. But until then, notice the author's further reference, "through the liturgy... Jesus Christ comes to us most completely." The explanation comes in understanding the definition of the word liturgy, and realizing Who is serving who through it. Moreover, a church's liturgical practice, while facilitating this Divine Service, will also accurately and publicly confess Who is serving who, how, why... and how we know. But more on this in a couple days.
Tomorrow, and probably Saturday, I will provide a few more brief excerpts from this essay, along with brief commentary, and then move on to a couple of the other essays in this very helpful book, Lutheran Worship: History and Practice.
Well, it seems I have been quoted, at length, in an open letter posted on Bailing Water (here) and Ichabod (here). Concerns over the inroads of the Church Growth Movement (CGM) expressed in that letter are broadly shared by Lutheran laity and clergy alike, and are growing. Hopefully somebody comes to understand this fact, and finds the fortitude to decisively act.
Nevertheless, and despite my contribution to the discussion on Bailing Water and elsewhere over the past year, my intent is not that my own blog focus (entirely) on the issues of CGM and the topic Lutheran Theology. In fact, several days ago, I had begun to write my first post -- it was going to be a post about a book from my boyhood that I am now reading to my older sons, a book which has had profound political impact on me. Suffering from momentary writer's block, I set aside that first post. Then the Open Letter was posted on Ichabod and Bailing Water. And so, I've changed my mind about an opening salvo of posts.
Before I get into it, I would like to briefly recognize Mr. Joseph Schmidt, "Sceleratissimus Lutheranus" -- the first follower of this blog -- whose bio line reads "I am a WELS layman who is dead set against the Church Growth Movement in my synod." Yes, indeed, this is a man with whom I share Confessional Unity! He joined before I had posted anything. That's quite a vote of confidence, Mr. Schmidt! Thank you. I hope I don't let you down.
And now for the meat. I recently acquired a book: Lutheran Worship: History and Practice. It was published in 1993, by Concordia Publishing House, and was meant to support the publication of their hymnal, Lutheran Worship, which had been published in 1982. Addressing their ten-year-old hymnal, this 639 page book is chok-full of essays by top Lutheran theologians and academics like Arthur A. Just, Kurt Marqurt, John Pless, and Carl Schalk, who actually actively defend Lutheran worship. Yes, they do so in public and in writing. What gall!
Over the next several days, I will be posting short excerpts from this work, for the benefit of readers, as a point of discussion among them, and as an encouragement to purchase this book for themselves.
And so I begin. From the opening paragraphs of Lutheran Worship: History and Practice:
Discussing liturgical renewal tempts one to give what people want – a panacea, a recipe, a perfect liturgy, ten steps to a contemporary, Lutheran, liturgical Church. Such an approach centers on tactics of renewal, another how-to manual toward relevant liturgy that, next year, would be totally irrelevant. The Roman Catholic Church, with its rich and ancient liturgical heritage, the seedbed for our own Lutheran liturgy, has succumbed to liturgical trends. This is borne out by a cursory reading of the literature on the liturgical movement since Vatican II (1962-1965). The search goes on for the perfect liturgy, for the secret to liturgical renewal, and thus far, no one has the answer. The tactical approach to liturgical renewal never satisfies. It ignores the complexity of the context in which liturgy is acted out, confusing a church that has liturgies with a liturgical church.
...What is wrong is not the liturgy, but the culture, and thus, instead of constantly asking “What's wrong with the liturgy?” we should be asking “What's wrong with the culture?” -- concentrating our attention on the renewal of the culture through liturgy, not vice versa. The goal of a good liturgy is always to transform the lives of people [the transforming of culture] by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is hardly accomplished if the liturgy is subjected to the whimsies of culture. Culture, untransformed by liturgy, in effect destroys that liturgy. The Church becomes indistinguishable from the culture and the Gospel is lost. This is the real secularization and destruction of the Gospel.
Just, A.A. (1993). Liturgical Renewal in the Parish. In Precht, F.L (Ed.), Lutheran Worship: History and Practice (pp. 21 – 22). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
I was shocked and pleased to have read this -- I'm not alone in these observations.
