Confessional Anthology: Why is the Lutheran Church a Liturgical Church?

Back in December 2008, I posted the following on Bailing Water, along with this link to the article it addresses:

Why is the Lutheran Church a Liturgical Church? -- A Confessional Anthology

This article was compiled and edited by Rev. David Jay Webber of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ELS), and was published originally in 1992, in their theological journal, Lutheran Synod Quarterly. This online version includes an addendum that has since been included based on recent experience with the Ukrainian Lutheran Church, a Byzantine Rite church body that has Lutheranized the eastern Divine Liturgy and incorporated some elements of the Western Rite, as well.

I repeat from Bailing Water, with some minor revisions:

I include the link to the article, Why is the Lutheran Church a Liturgical Church? -- A Confessional Anthology, for several couple reasons.

(a) It continues to be relevant and comprehensive, yet succinct.
(b) It defends the liturgy rather than merely allow for it alongside other supposedly equal practices.
(c) It identifies and emphasizes the importance of catholicity in our practice – use of the liturgy itself does not carry the Roman associations as the poorly catechized among us may accuse, rather it celebrates the continuity of a single apostolic church in a way that is impossible for modern forms to duplicate. Lutherans must be reminded that, though we are by no means Roman, we are catholic, and there is no shame in this. There is, however, great shame in sectarianism, and to adopt practices that overtly celebrate anti-catholic sentiment, such as the practices of modern pop-church Evangelicals, many of whom reject the Creeds and have never claimed, nor desire, association with the Church catholic.
(d) It demonstrates that catholic liturgical practice both results from and maintains sound Orthodoxy. Popular alternatives do not function this way – they result from impatient dissatisfaction with Confessional restrictions, loosen Fellowship standards, make Orthodoxy a byword, and teach the theology of the sectarians. And
(e) it includes four very useful appendices.

I would ask you to take a look at these appendices, especially Appendix II and III. Both of these appendicies contain quotes from Dr. C.F.W. Walther directly addressing the issue of adopting the worship forms of the American sects over against the wholesome and distinctive worship of Lutheranism. The pertinent quotes are as follows (and for the full context of Walther’s quote in Appendix III, which was taken from The True Visible Church, read the “Related to this Topic” section at the bottom of the article, Why Use the Historic Liturgy):

From Appendix II
Church usages, excepting the case when confession of a divine truth is required, are indeed adiaphora. But they are nevertheless not without an import of their own. Congregations that adopt the church usages of the sects that surround them, will be apt to conform to their doctrines also, more easily and quickly than those that retain their Lutheran ceremonies. We should in Lutheran services, also when held in the English language, as much as possible use the old Lutheran forms, though they be said to be antiquated and not suiting this country. We will mention here the words of a pious Lutheran duchess, Elisabeth Magdalena of Brunswick-Lüneburg. Her court chaplain Prunner relates as follows: “Although her ladyship well knew that the ceremonies and purposes of this chapter (at which Prunner officiated) must have the appearance and repute of popery with some people, she still remembered the instructions which that dear and venerable man, Luther, had once given to her father concerning such ceremonies. I remember in particular that her ladyship several times told me that she did not desire at these present times to commence discontinuing any of those church usages, since she hoped that so long as such ceremonies continued, Calvinistic temerity would be held back from the public office of the church.” (C. F. W. Walther, The Controversy Concerning Predestination [translated by August Croll] [Concordia Publishing House, 1881], pp. 77-78.)

From Appendix III
We refuse to be guided by those who are offended by our church customs. We adhere to them all the more firmly when someone wants to cause us to have a guilty conscience on account of them. ...It is a pity and dreadful cowardice when one sacrifices the good and ancient customs to please the deluded American sects, lest they accuse us of being papistic.

Indeed! Am I to be afraid of a Methodist, who perverts the saving Word, or be ashamed in the matter of my good cause, and not rather rejoice that the sects can tell by our ceremonies that I do not belong to them?

We are not insisting that there be unity of perception or feelings or of taste among all believing Christians, neither dare anyone demand that all be minded as he. Nevertheless it remains true 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. (C. F. W. Walther, Essays for the Church, Vol. 1 [Concordia Publishing House, 1992], p. 194.)

The Lutheran way of worship has always been “out of style” in America. Our current struggle is nothing new. Lutherans of the 19th Century struggled with the impact of Charles Finney and the allure of the Anxious Bench. In those days, many Lutheran congregations cast an envious eye in the direction of the Revivalists, adopted the songbooks of the American sects, and experimented with alternative worship forms (for more information on this, re-read my recent post, More Quotes from Krauth...). In these two appendices, notice Walther’s leadership. He rejects the worship practices of the sectarians on three grounds:

(1) they teach the false doctrines of the sectarians, i.e., application of lex orandi, lex credendi,
(2) their use compromises the distinctiveness and effectiveness of our public Confession, and,
(3) their use constitutes overtures of Fellowship with the heterodox from whom such practices are borrowed.

The Old Norwegian Synod
The Old Norwegian Synod addressed the issue of non-Lutheran worship practice as well. The following was found in one of its early hymnaries, We should teach our children to remain in the Lutheran Church instead of to sing themselves into some Reformed sect. This quote is taken from the article O Come, Let Us Worship! A Study in Lutheran Liturgy and Hymnody, a 1995 ELS Convention paper by Mark DeGarmeaux. The footnote accompanying this quote adds a thought from Matthew Lundquist, a Lutheran hymnologist:

Many American Lutheran churches do not sing Lutheran church hymns at all. How deplorable! We often attend Lutheran church services where not a single Lutheran church hymn or Lutheran chorale is sung. Here is a serious flaw in American Lutheran education and leadership. How about the hymn singing in our American Lutheran Sunday schools? Would it not be well to sing at least one Lutheran church hymn each Sunday? Or shall we permit Lutheran hymnody to die? Is great Lutheran hymnody a thing of the past? (Hymnological Studies, 1926)

A serious flaw in leadership. A serious flaw in catechesis. Indeed! And what courage it must have been for him to say so!


John Schaller speaks from the past
John Schaller, a celebrated theologian of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), had a bit to say about distinctively Lutheran liturgies and hymnody, as well. A brief compilation of quotes by Rev. Webber entitled, Wisdom from the Fathers Pertaining to the Establishment of Lutheran Home Mission Congregations includes the following from Schaller:

The first care, then, of all who work in the field of English Mission, pastors and laymen alike, ought ever to be that they steadfastly adhere to the biblical doctrine in all its parts. Lutheran hymns, Lutheran liturgies, Lutheran prayers, above all Lutheran sermons ought to be heard wherever our missionary work is carried on. True Lutheranism need not fear any criticism. It has stood the test of centuries, and no modern weapon of offense will subvert it. It is an impregnable fortress. Be not afraid, then, to show its beauties to all who come to hear. They expect to be treated to something new in our churches, and they ought not be disappointed. To follow the example set by sectarian clergymen, to sermonize on anything else rather than upon questions of doctrine, or to fill the hearers’ ears with weak generalizations and pasture them on fine, poetic language alone, would be worse than folly. To make a good impression, to effect some real, living good, solid meat must be offered, which alone can satisfy the soul’s desires. Emphasize doctrine, if you would accomplish your aim. Else why should we expend money and labor, only to do what others may do as well? (John Schaller, “Danger Ahead!”, Lutheran Witness, Vol. 10, No. 8 [Sept. 21, 1891], pp. 57-58)

What form of Leadership do we need today?
In the past, strong Lutheran leaders have stepped forward to repudiate sectarian challenges. We need the same sort of leadership today, not the soft permissiveness that has brought us to the current crisis. Maybe I’m blind, deaf, or simply uninformed, but I’m not aware of any such leadership among us, at least none with the celebrity of Church Growth advocates. Recognizing none, I look back to the leaders of the past, to the form of leadership we need today on these issues, and quote a letter from C.F.W. Walther (from Appendix A of DeGarmeaux’s article, Sacramental Worship, Sacramental Preaching: Treasures of our Lutheran Church):

Honored Sir,

This morning I received your worthy letter, written on the 19th of the month. In your letter you ask for my opinion on whether it is advisable to introduce the singing of Methodist songs in a Lutheran Sunday School. May what follows serve as a helpful reply to your questions:

No, this is not advisable, rather very incorrect and pernicious.

1. Our church is so rich in hymns that you could justifiably state that if one were to introduce Methodist hymns in a Lutheran school this would be like carrying coals to Newcastle. The singing of such hymns would make the rich Lutheran Church into a beggar which is forced to beg from a miserable sect. Thirty or forty years ago a Lutheran preacher might well have been forgiven this. For at that time the Lutheran Church in our country was as poor as a beggar when it comes to song books for Lutheran children. A preacher scarcely knew where he might obtain such little hymn books. Now, however, since our church itself has everything it needs, it is unpardonable when a preacher of our church causes little ones to suffer the shame of eating a foreign bread.

2. A preacher of our church also has the holy duty to give souls entrusted to his care pure spiritual food, indeed, the very best which he can possibly obtain. In Methodist songs there is much which is false, and which contains spiritual poison for the soul. Therefore, it is soul-murder to set before children such poisonous food. If the preacher claims, that he allows only "correct" hymns to be sung, this does not excuse him. For, first of all, the true Lutheran spirit is found in none of them; second, our hymns are more powerful, more substantive, and more prosaic; third, those hymns which deal with the Holy Sacraments are completely in error; fourth, when these little sectarian hymnbooks come into the hands of our children, they openly read and sing false hymns.

3. A preacher who introduces Methodist hymns, let alone Methodist hymnals, raises the suspicion that he is no true Lutheran at heart, and that he believes one religion is as good as the other, and that he thus a unionistic-man, a mingler of religion and churches.

4. Through the introduction of Methodist hymn singing he also makes those children entrusted to his care of unionistic sentiment, and he himself leads them to leave the Lutheran Church and join the Methodists.

5. By the purchase of Methodist hymn books he subsidizes the false church and strengthens the Methodist fanatics in their horrible errors. For the Methodists will think, and quite correctly so, that if the Lutheran preachers did not regard our religion as good as, or indeed, even better than their own, they would not introduce Methodist hymn books in their Sunday schools, but rather would use Lutheran hymn books.

6. By introducing Methodist hymn books, the entire Lutheran congregation is given great offense, and the members of the same are lead to think that Methodists, the Albright people, and all such people have a better faith than we do.

This may be a sufficient answer regarding this dismal matter. May God keep you in the true and genuine Lutheran faith, and help you not to be misled from the same, either to the right or to the left.

Your unfamiliar, yet known friend, in the Lord Jesus Christ,

C. F. W. Walther
St. Louis, Missouri
January 23, 1883

To repeat from the conclusion of yesterday's post, Lutheran Worship and the Confessions: Adiaphora Bounded (Part 2), what Walther, Schaller and others apparently knew very well,

the Bible states, “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not” (1 Cor. 10:23) The context of this statement is freedom in practice. As St. Paul demonstrates in this section, use of adiaphora ought to be thoughtfully calculated, as it otherwise stands to harm fellow Christians, damage the reputation of the Church, and interfere with Her work in the World. Likewise do the Lutheran Confessions indicate that the necessity of change in the rites of the Church, when and where it should arise, is predicated on that which is most edifying to the Church. This is never an indifferent question.