Lutheran Worship and the Confessions: Adiaphora Bounded (Part 2)

Last week, I posted Part 1 of this series, returning again to the book Lutheran Worship: History and Practice, and drawing from two essays in Chapter 2 entitled “Worship and the Community of Faith,” by Roger D. Pittelko, and “Liturgy and Evangelism,” by Kurt Marquart. In both of these essays, the authors address the popular abuse of the term “adiaphora” as it is employed by modern pop-church innovators with reference to Worship practice. In Part 1, I highlighted the oft-repeated quotations from the Book of Concord that seem to be favored by advocates of the Church Growth Movement (CGM) among Lutherans. I repeat them here (and I quote from my Reader's Edition of the Book of Concord):

...[W]e believe, teach, and confess that some ceremonies or Church practices are neither commanded nor forbidden in God's Word, but have been introduced for the sake of fitting and good order. Such rites are not in and of themselves divine worship (FC EP X [3]).

We believe, teach, and confess that the churches of God (in every land and at every time according to its circumstances) have the power to change worship ceremonies in a way that may be most useful and edifying to the churches of God (FC EP X [4]).

For the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree about the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. It is not necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies instituted by men, should be the same everywhere (AC VII [2-3]).

As pointed out last week, these quotations are often used in isolation from the rest of the Book of Concord to support the notion that in matters neither commanded nor forbidden in Scripture, that is, in matters of adiaphora, there is complete and unfettered freedom. In the case of Lutheran worship, where in FC EP X we learn that some aspects of its practice fit this category, these isolated statements are “often misunderstood as liturgical carte blanche, and cited in support of license and chaos” [Marquart, K. (1993). Liturgy and Evangelism. In F.L. Precht (Ed.), Lutheran Worship: History and Practice (pg. 62). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House]. I concluded by suggesting that the Lutheran Confessions have much more to say about worship than just “worship is adiaphora,” and promised to post more form them such that the favorite quotations of CGM advocates are given due balance.


Dignity and Reverence

One of the prime requirements of evangelical liturgical form is that it cultivate reverence... The Augsburg Confession itself states that “nothing contributes so much to the maintenance of dignity in public worship and the cultivation of reverence and devotion among the people as the proper observance of ceremonies in the churches” [AC XXI (6)]. And since “good order is very becoming in the church,” reasons the Apology, it “is therefore necessary” [AP XV (22)]. Slovenly irreverence must be called to repentance, lest priceless evangelical pearls be trampled underfoot by swine (Matt. 7:6).

Marquart, K. (1993). Liturgy and Evangelism. In F.L. Precht (Ed.), Lutheran Worship: History and Practice (pg. 63). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House

Expounding more on AP XV quoted by Marquart, above, the context states:

Although the Holy Fathers themselves had both rites and traditions, they did not maintain that these are useful or necessary for justification. They did not cloud over Christ's glory and office, but taught that we are justified by faith for Christ's sake, and not for the sake of these human services. The Fathers celebrated human rites for the body's benefit. For example, by such rites the people know what time they should gather so that, for the sake of example, all things might be done in order and properly in the churches (1 Cor. 14:40) and that the common people might receive a sort of training. Distinctions of times and the variety of rites help in reminding the common people. The Fathers maintained the rites for these reasons. We also conclude it is proper for these reasons to keep traditions... We cheerfully maintain the old traditions made in the Church for the sake of usefulness and peace...

Our enemies falsely accuse us of setting aside good ordinances and Church discipline... Among us many use the Lord's Supper every Lord's Day... The children sing Psalms in order that they may learn. The people also sing so that they may either learn or pray... From this condition of the churches it may be determined that we earnestly keep Church discipline, godly ceremonies, and good Church customs (AP XV [20-44]).

Indeed, even in the immediate context of one of the favorite CGM quotations from the Epitome, far above, “We believe, teach, and confess that the churches of God (in every land and at every time according to its circumstances) have the power to change worship ceremonies in a way that may be most useful and edifying to the churches of God” (FC EP X [4]), the Epitome goes on in the following paragraph to insist “Nevertheless, all frivolity and offense should be avoided in this matter” (FC EP X [5]). In the Solid Declaration, the Formula expounds on this:

When there are useless, foolish displays that are not profitable for good order, Christian discipline, or evangelical practice in the Church, these also are not genuine adiaphora, or matters of indifference. Regarding genuine adiaphora... such ceremonies, in and of themselves are not worship of God, nor any part of it. They must be properly distinguished from ceremonies that are. As it is written, “in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matt. 15:9) (FC SD X [7-8]).

Again, the Confessions say, “some ceremonies and Church practices are [adiaphora]” (FC SD X [1], FC EP X [3]). From the Solid Declaration, above, we learn that those ceremonies which are adiaphora are not worship of God (in and of themselves), and that it is incumbent upon the Church to distinguish which ceremonies are and which are not. Those that are worship of God, are not adiaphora. Moreover, by quoting Scripture from Matt. 15:9 in reference to making such a distinction, the Confessions admit that worship practice teaches, and that holding up indifferent ceremonial practices as true worship is tantamount to false teaching. Yet, even in the case of these indifferent ceremonial practices, sanctified judgment is in order to assure that dignity and reverence prevails.


Practice Teaches, Practice Confesses
In the quotations already cited, the idea that Practice teaches is interwoven into the substance of our Confession regarding Church practice: “that the common people might receive a sort of training” (AP XV [20]); “the children sing Psalms in order that they may learn,” and “the people also sing so that they may either learn or pray” (AP XV [40]). In addition, the Lutheran Confessions point our adversaries to our Practice as proof of our Confession, as stated above: “From this condition of the churches it may be determined that we earnestly keep Church discipline, godly ceremonies, and good Church customs” (AP XV [44]). But there is more.

In AC XXIV, the Confessions state directly, “For ceremonies are needed for this reason alone, that the uneducated be taught what they need to know about Christ” (3). This repeats the afore mentioned, that Practice teaches. Insofar as it teaches, it is not a matter of indifference – we are not free to teach falsely through Practice, and when we do teach, we are bound to make every effort to teach the whole counsel of God. The Historic Liturgy described in the series, Explanation of the Common Service, is an example of this.

Moreover, from this same reference in the Confessions, we see that Practice confesses. Leading to the above statement in par. 3, AC XXIV states, “Our churches are falsely accused of abolishing the Mass. The Mass is held among us and celebrated with the highest reverence. Nearly all the usual ceremonies are also preserved...” (1,2). From this reference we learn two things: (1) in the face of criticism, we not only assert our Confession, i.e., “Falsely are we accused...,” but (2) we point to our Practice as proof of our Confession, i.e., “The Mass is held... [and] nearly all the usual ceremonies are preserved.” Additionally, (3) we learn that inferring Confession from observance of Practice is legitimate, and that those whose Practice is confusing or offensive with respect to their Confession owe an explanation. But there is yet more...

The Formula of Concord goes into much greater detail on this issue:

Under the title and excuse of outward adiaphora, things are proposed that are in principle contrary to God's Word, although painted another color. These ceremonies are not to be regarded as adiaphora, in which one is free to do as he wants. They must be avoided as things prohibited by God. In a similar way, in such a situation ceremonies should not be regarded as genuine free adiaphora, or matters of indifference. This is because they show or pretend that our religion and that of the papists are not far apart in order to avoid persecution, or they pretend that the papist's ceremonies are not at least highly offensive to us. When ceremonies are intended for this purpose, and are required or received (as though through them contrary religions are reconciled and become one body), we cannot regard them as adiaphora. When returning to the papacy and departing from the Gospel's pure doctrine and true religion should happen or gradually follow from such ceremonies, we cannot regard them as adiaphora. (FC SD X [5]).

In this article, we learn that those otherwise indifferent practices which (a) are engaged for relief from “persecution,” (b) which appear to reconcile opposing Confessions, or (c) which may lead to a belief in false doctrine (because practice teaches) are to be regarded as prohibited by God. By way of example, the baptismal mode of immersion, though it is otherwise a perfectly legitimate mode of baptism, is rejected by Lutherans as prohibited by God on the basis of (b), above. By way of application, Lutheran congregations who, cowering in fear from the sentiment of their respective communities, or of their selective “target populations,” hide from their public Confession and confessional identity by removing the word “Lutheran” from their name, fall into category (a), above. Worrying what others may think and what manner of reprisal they may be forced to endure, they describe themselves as under "persecution." In these circumstances, they ought not hide their public declaration of confessional identity by removing the word "Lutheran" from their name, but should rather emphasize it all the more, and redouble their commitment to Confessional fidelity. The Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod (LCMS) has recognized the importance of this, having passed a Resolution in 1995 to require the identifier Lutheran in all congregation names (this was discussed here, by Rev. Klemet Preus (LCMS), as he debriefed fellow Confessional Lutherans regarding their defeat in the MNS District last month).

Likewise, the use of Contemporary worship practices developed by, and singularly associated with, the heterodox in American Evangelicalism, falls into the category (b), above; and because practice teaches, and especially because these practices were developed by the heterodox for the distinct purpose of teaching and reinforcing their false doctrines through the use of their worship practices, category (c) applies, as well. Indeed, the Formula of Concord immediately goes on from these statements in SD X to ascribe the labels “partnership” and “fellowship” to practices under these conditions, and quotes 2 Cor. 6:14-17, which concludes with the command, “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate.”

To the extent that worship practice teaches, it must be calculated to do so according to the whole council of God. To the extent that worship practice confesses, it must be calculated to do so in a way that boldly represents our distinctiveness from popular heterodoxy.


We reject none of the catholic ceremonies that can be practiced without sinning

During the Reformation era the iconoclasts tried to rid the church of all past worship practices and forms. In the face of that pressure the Lutheran Reformers followed a conservative liturgical principle... The Conclusion of the Augustana states it most clearly: “It may be understood that nothing has been received among us, in doctrine or in ceremonies, that is contrary to Scripture or to the church catholic [AC Conclusion (5)].”

Pittelko, R.D. (1993). Liturgy and Evangelism. In F.L. Precht (Ed.), Lutheran Worship: History and Practice (pg. 56). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House

Likewise do the Confessions state, “[o]ur churches teach that ceremonies ought to be observed that may be observed without sin. Also, ceremonies and other practices that are profitable for tranquility and good order in the Church (in particular, holy days, festivals, and the like) ought to be observed” (AC XV (1)).

In the face of all the jarring liturgical changes advocated by Lutheran CGM activists, the question is begged: which of the “indifferent” liturgical practices rejected by them is “sinful”? The answer is never “your liturgical practice is sinful,” but is bound up in the infuriating relativistic parlance of our postmodern culture, to wit: we respect that you do what you think is right for you, we demand that you respect what we think is right for us. In such answers we see that, for them, practice is above criticism and that adiaphora has become the basis of Confessional equivocation.


Liturgy is the Service of the Means of Grace

The word liturgy itself is a good conversation starter. It seems to be taken by many as a collective term for everything that is not important in [the divine service]... How different is the understanding of liturgy in article XXIV of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:


But let us talk about the term “liturgy.” It does not really mean a sacrifice but a public service. Thus it squares well with our position that a minister who consecrates shows forth the body and blood of Christ to the people, just as a minister who preaches shows forth the Gospel to the people, as Paul says (1 Cor. 4:1), “This is how one should regard us, as ministers of Christ and dispensers of the sacraments of God,” that is, of the Word and sacraments [LC I (72-74)].


Clearly, liturgy here is first of all theological content, not ritual form. In itself the word means simply and generically “public service” ...The Apology, however, uses the term liturgy in a more special sense here, [equating it] with what had come to be called the Mass in the Western Church of the Middle Ages. In other words, not any sort of service in general is meant, but quite concretely the rite of the Lord's Supper as the matrix and content of regular Gospel proclamation... The church, in this view, meets in solemn public assembly not to conduct pep rallies for worthy causes, or to boost a religious talk with publicity stunts, but to transact the awesome and life-giving “mysteries of God” (1 Cor. 4:1)...

What is at stake here is the centrality of the Means of Grace. Consider the Augsburg Confession's unique ...concentration on the Gospel as the very essence of the public ministry: “To obtain such faith God instituted the office of the ministry... that is, provided the Gospel and the sacraments. Through these, as through means, he gives the Holy Spirit, who works faith, when and where He pleases, in those who hear the Gospel” [AC V(1,2)]... [T]he public ministry is there simply for ...the public service, the liturgy of Word and Sacrament...

Liturgy, then, is much more than forms and ceremonies, which are in themselves indifferent. It is first and foremost a firm theological content, namely, the holy Gospel and sacraments of God.

Marquart, K. (1993). Liturgy and Evangelism. In F.L. Precht (Ed.), Lutheran Worship: History and Practice (pp. 58 – 61). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House

“It's adiaphora” is far from the “End of discussion”
Quite the contrary, labeling something as “adiaphora” is only the beginning of a very long and important discussion, as so many of the intertwining issues cross immediately over into matters of doctrine and confessional unity – which are not free at all. As pointed out in the series of blog posts, Lutheran Worship: History and Practice, significant theological, liturgical and historical acumen, not to mention Confessional fidelity, is required in these areas of sanctified judgment.

Yet, in order to elevate practice above the scrutiny of their Christian Brothers, many among Lutheran CGM advocates are quick to issue the preamable, “in and of itself...” to their insistence that “worship practice is a matter of indifference.” In answer, it must be forcefully maintained that “in and of itself” only applies in theoretical considerations, and not at all in practical considerations, since worship practice is never executed in situations that are isolated from all other issues, particularly from issues of catechesis and confession.

In the matter of sanctified judgment, advocates of the Church Growth Movement display little, and abdicate any position from which they might compellingly exercise judgment in the name of the Church: rejecting the compounded wisdom of 2000 years of New Testament Church practice, they rest in the vacuous security of their own prognostications and optimistically look forward to what their innovations will produce. Rather than exercise judgment from a foundation of excellence upon excellence, they confuse judgment with hopefulness. Neither wisdom nor judgment, this is foolishness manifested.

In the matter of Confessional fidelity, it is plain to see that elevating three isolated quotations from the Confessions as a characterization of our public confession regarding worship practice, in a way that advocates "unbounded freedom in practice," is more than mere oversight. It is disingenuous and misleading. The quotations above are but a sampling. The Book of Concord has much more to say on the subject.

Is there a degree of freedom in worship practice? Yes, there is. But it will be found that such freedom is bound by a host of decidedly non-trivial decisions which immediately involve deep issues of theology, confession and catechesis. To treat them as "indifferent" is to regard them as frivolous matters. Returning to Part 1 of this blog post, 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.

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

<-- Lutheran Worship and the Confessions: Adiaphora Bounded (Part 1)