An Explanation of the Common Service (Part 1)

In 1908, the General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America published an Explanation of the Common Service -- a harmony of sixteenth century Lutheran liturgies published in 1888, in the English language. This is the same Common Service found in The Lutheran Hymnal, published by the Synodical Conference in 1941, and which is still used in many Lutheran Congregations even today. Over the next few days, I will be posting from the contents of the Explanation.

As the reader may recall, the General Council was a consortium of Lutheran church bodies, founded in 1867 under the leadership of Charles Porterfield Krauth, and which was dissolved with the formation of the United Lutheran Church in America (ULC) in 1918. The Wisconsin Synod was a member of the General Council from 1867-1869, while the Minnesota and Michigan Synods (which later joined the Wisconsin Synod) left the General Council in 1871 and 1887, respectively. Here is a technical history of the General Council.

Interestingly, this Explanation was dedicated to "Young Lutherans who ask the meaning of the beautiful liturgy of the Lutheran Church." As you read this Explanation, notice the use of language it contains. Consider the fine education and catechesis "Young Lutherans" must have enjoyed, which was deliberately reinforced by the church in books such as this. Do Lutheran publishing houses have such respect and concern for the youth of today? Certainly, they target young people with a great deal of material, so concern unquestionably exists -- but does the quality of these materials generally "aim for the head" or "aim for the knees?" Does it generally advocate and reinforce Confessional practice? Does it refer to the liturgy as something "beautiful" and as something to be valued? I don't believe I've seen this sort of thing coming from the main Lutheran publishers.

(The reader may be delighted to learn that such materials are available, however. Pax Domini Press is a Lutheran publisher of Sunday School and Vacation Bible School curriculum, whose materials our family has begun to use in the home. Check out their About Us page!)

Anyway, here is a link to the Explanation on Google Books. Over the next few days, I will be posting its contents, up through the explanation of "The Service," omitting what follows after it (explanations of "The Matins" and "The Vespers," glossaries, appendicies, and indicies). I begin with the FOREWARD.

-------------------------

An Explanation of the Common Service (1908)
Board of Publication of the General Council of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church in North America


To the
Young Lutheran who asks
The Meaning of the
Beautiful Liturgy of
His church

FOREWARD
The preparation of this little book was begun February 9, 1903. The first edition was issued in four parts, beginning September 29, of the same year. The work was undertaken at the instance of the Luther League of the Allentown District, by the committee appointed for this special purpose. The book was intended for use in the Luther League meetings, as a guide and aid in the study of the Common Service. In its new form it is offered to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, for use in the Luther League, Sunday school and the home. For League and Bible Class study, it will furnish abundant material for a half year's course of twenty-six lessons.

The text of the Common Service, as it appears in this book, is that of the Standard Manuscript adopted by the Joint Committee of the several General Bodies uniting it its preparation. [For a list of variations in the published editions see article by the Rev. L. D. Reed, Lutheran Church Review, July, 1901.]

In the preparation of this Explanation the standard sources and authorities have been consulted. It has been deemed unnecessary to give particular credit for whatever has been adopted from these sources, as the only pretension which the book makes is to a certain unique fitness and convenience for popular use. Whatever seemed well adapted to explain the meaning and the connection of the several parts of the Services of the Church was freely used.

In order to give completeness to the work, and to bring out more clearly the beautiful harmony of the parts of the Service which are appointed for the particular Festival or Day, the propria for the Festival of Christmas were selected and have been inserted and examined in their appropriate places in the Service.

The Lutheran Church may justly claim that, in the Common Service, she possesses and uses “the completest embodiment of the Common Service of the Christian Church of all ages;” a Service “which may be tendered to all Christians who use a fixed Order, the Service of the future as it has been of the past” (Preface to the Common Service). Should this book be of assistance to any one, in awakening interest, or in developing a better understanding, a more intelligent use, as a higher appreciation of the forms of Divine Worship, as the Church of the Reformation conceives and orders it, the very considerable time and labor which its production has cost will not have been spent in vain.

An Explanation of the Common Service (Part 2) -->

 

Abide with Me, Fast Falls the Eventide

A hymn for the 4th Sunday after Trinity



(TLH:552, CW:588, ELH:561, LSB:878)

"Abide with Me! Fast Falls the Eventide"
by Henry F. Lyte, 1793-1847

1. Abide with me! Fast falls the eventide;
The darkness deepens; Lord with me abide.
When other helpers fail and comforts flee,
Help of the helpless, oh, abide with me!

2. Swift to its close ebbs out life's little day;
Earth's joys grow dim, its glories pass away;
Change and decay in all around I see.
O Thou, who changest not, abide with me!

3. Not a brief glance I beg, a passing word,
But as Thou dwell'st with Thy disciples, Lord,
Familiar, condescending, patient, free.
Come not to sojourn, but abide with me.

4. Come not in terror, as the King of kings,
But kind and good, with healing in Thy wings;
Tears for all woes, a heart for every plea.
Come, Friend of sinners, thus abide with me.

5. Thou on my head in every youth didst smile,
And though rebellious and perverse meanwhile,
Thou hast not left me, oft as I left Thee.
On to the close, O Lord, abide with me.

6. I need Thy presence every passing hour;
What but Thy grace can foil the Tempter's power?
Who like Thyself my guide and stay can be?
Through cloud and sunshine, oh, abide with me!

7. I fear no foe, with Thee at hand to bless;
Ills have no weight and tears no bitterness.
Where is death's sting? where, grave, thy victory?
I triumph still if Thou abide with me.

8. Hold Thou Thy cross before my closing eyes,
Shine through the gloom, and point me to the skies.
Heaven's morning breaks, and earth's vain shadows flee;
In life, in death, O Lord, abide with me!

The Lutheran Hymnal
Hymn #552
Text: Luke 24:29
Author: Henry F. Lyte, 1847 (?)
Composer: William H. Monk, 1861
Tune: "Eventide"

 

We are the Sons of Liberty

from The Declaration of Independence

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, a separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. –

We hold these truths to self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. –

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. –

[...snip delineation of abuses...]

In every stage of the Oppressions, We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. –

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the Good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. –

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

-----------------------------

A couple of points that may be worth pondering:

(1) Notice that Jefferson repeatedly appeals to an Authority transcendent of Man, in defense of our position and actions. He starts with it, and he ends with it. In contrast, it is the political fashion these days to enforce a broad and impenetrable separation of politics from religion, and on this basis to adopt a belligerent posture toward the functions of Religion in society, and to censure religious speech in the public sphere. What happens, politically speaking, when “the governed” are denied an appeal to God before those who would govern them? That is to ask, what happens when “the governed” are denied an appeal to an Authority which their Sovereigns owe accountability? Does not their accountability then rise no higher than themselves and their own political allegiances and objectives in this case? Under God, governors are Servants, not Lords. Without God, they are utilitarian Lords, and the governed are reduced to pleading, on the basis of human solidarity, in the name of their Sovereign's kind benevolence. Given that mankind is fallen and sinful, can the People expect any such benevolence? What does history teach us? What is the sensible conclusion given the obvious testimony of Natural Law in this regard?

(2) It is currently fashionable among Lutherans, it seems, to parrot Luther in applying Biblical teaching to the role of the Christian with respect to his government, to advocate near unquestioning obedience, with the only mitigating criteria being whether government takes on the role of the Church, or requires one to disobey God. They seem to equate individuals with political authority, rather than Law with political authority. This was a perfectly legitimate conclusion in Luther’s day, given the form of government he was under – a feudal system where individuals as Sovereigns were indeed the embodiment of political authority. Jesus, along with St. Paul and St. Peter, were addressing the Christian's obligations to government in a political context incongruent with ours, as well: the Republic of Rome fell before the birth of Christ, becoming the Roman Empire (a military dictatorship) in 27 B.C., with the appointment of Augustus as Caesar.

In our system of government, however, no individual has such political authority. The last vestiges of the Rule of Man were swept away by the People, themselves, with the Declaration of Independence, and it was replaced by the People with the Rule of Law, under the U.S. Constitution. Law, not any individual, holds political authority in our system of government. And individuals who occupy offices in our government, do so within strict boundaries under the Law, not as Sovereigns in any respect, but as manifest Servants of the People. In our system of government, the People are their own Sovereign, electing from among themselves Representatives to serve them within the boundaries of the Law. Representatives are not to be regarded as holding any form of political authority, but as under the authority of the People, as the People derive and institute their own Law through them, placing all individuals equally under it. In our system of government, the People embody political authority, not individuals, and not institutions of government. This is called self-government. This is Liberty.

Thus, Representatives who act outside the purview of their office, whether collectively by passing un-Constitutional laws or laws which fundamentally war against the People in favor of the State, or individually by creating laws through Judicial fiat or abuse of Executive privilege, do so as political enemies of both the People and of Liberty. Indeed, their actions are un-Lawful in the deepest sense of the word. They create chaos out of Order, and stand in rebellion against God and His institution of Government – which in our society is Of the People, By the People, and For the People. Remember that old phrase?

While the obligation of obedience stands without question, the real questions for Christians in our society remain: To who or what is obedience rightly rendered? and Are the People bound under Civic Duty to resist the un-Lawful? and if so, What obligations does this place on the individual?

And I wonder, given that political Liberty was brought to us in the Modern Age, What will Liberty be like in the post-Modern Age?

(3) Interestingly, our Declaration seems to stand as a form of “confessional unity” in the Political Estate. The intent was unity under the words and principles it declares, as the authors “mutually pledg[ed] to each other [their] Lives, Fortunes, and [their] sacred Honor.” Do we so pledge today? There was a time, I remember, when, despite differences of opinion (which create political parties and other factions) and the various actions of individuals proving motivations to the contrary, we could collectively be regarded as standing united under the principles of Liberty. Does this unity still exist? How important is such unity to the continuity and integrity of our nation? I, for one, being convinced of its vital importance, am seeing less and less evidence of this unity. What should happen when unity is broken? Do we continue in a state of manifest disunity, while paying lip-service to unity? Is rhetorical unity also manifest unity?

 

Culture and Lutheran Worship

Brett Meyer's quote from Luther in yesterday's post gave me an idea regarding quotes from obscure (though important) documents to post over the next couple of days. I will revisit the issue of language usage next week, but for now I will post a rather lengthy series of quotes from a single, rather recent, document: Dr. Gene E. Veith's article "Religion, Culture, and our Worship" from the January 1998 (Vol. 62, No. 1) edition of the Concordia Theological Quarterly. Though I am tempted to think that Dr. Veith needs no introduction in Confessional Lutheran circles, I'll provide one anyway: Dr. Veith, current Provost and Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, is also co-director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist (and former Culture Editor) for World Magazine and author of over 18 books on different facets of Christianity and Culture. The article from which I quote is available online, so I do so liberally, as follows, encouraging the reader to consult the full article at its source: (in all cases, emphasis is mine)

Church Growth worship reformers should ...realize that if liturgical worship is culturally out of step, the same could be said of the elements of traditional worship they themselves usually retain - congregational singing (even of "praise songs"), preaching (even of practical tips for successful living), and congregating in large communal groups (even in megachurches). About the only place Americans sing, listen to long, oral exhortations, and gather together every week is in church. If such rituals are still comprehensible to a godless culture, perhaps the other elements of historic Christian worship might likewise continue to be relevant after all.

As today's Church struggles with controversies over worship, the efforts to untangle the various theological and cultural issues involved are hampered-on both sides of the controversy - by two kinds of misunderstandings. First, there is widespread confusion about what culture actually involves. Second, there is widespread begging-of-the-question about what the relationship between Church and culture is supposed to be. This paper will examine the various dimensions and levels of culture as they relate to worship. It will then explore how the Lutheran doctrine of the two kingdoms establishes a distinct relationship between Church and culture, which ensures that worship is both culturally relevant and supernaturally transcendent.

The Complexities of Culture
Culture is more complex than is often assumed. ...There are many different kinds and levels of culture. Discussions about the relationship between worship and culture need first to be clear about their terms.

Today's use of the term "culture," in the sense of an all encompassing social world view characteristic of a particular group, is extraordinarily recent. It is nowhere to be found in the Oxford English Dictionary (1933), which lists raising a crop (as in agriculture) and, by extension, the cultivation of the mind. The Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1976) finally gives as one of the new meanings of the word, "the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group." What we today refer to as cultures were in the past termed "civilizations," with the different regions of the world developing their characteristic governments, customs, and art forms. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, scholars in the newly developed social sciences, influenced as they were by the primitivism and organicism of the romantic movement, began to minimize "civilization” (referring to a society's tangible accomplishments), in favor of "culture"(referring to the organic, unconscious identity of a people).

If theology was the queen of the sciences in the premodern era and the physical sciences wielded the scepter in the modern era, the social sciences rule all other fields in these postmodern times. Consequently, the concept of culture has been extended to include every facet of human knowledge and behavior. ...Religion is understood solely as a cultural phenomenon and is defined by many contemporary cultural anthropologists as nothing more than a means of exerting social control by giving cultural norms a sacred status.

Thus, for much of contemporary thought, culture is all inclusive, all-determining, and inescapable. A corollary, of course, is cultural relativism, the idea that since every culture has its own construction of reality, one is just as valid as another. Not just customs and governments, but morality and truth become relative.

If these postmodernists are correct, if culture does embrace everything, then any kind of orthodox Christianity, strictly speaking, is ruled out of consideration. A discussion of the relationship between religion and culture is out of the question; there is only culture. On the other hand, though popular postmodernists might urge us to change the way we worship and the way we believe to correspond with our culture, the more thoughtful postmodernists know this too is impossible. If we are culturally determined, our worship and beliefs are already culturally determined. Culture is not a malleable force that can be accommodated or changed. We do not manipulate culture; culture manipulates us.

My contention is that this postmodernist apotheosis of culture is grossly exaggerated. God transcends culture, and so do morality, science, and art. Culture is not all there is. The diverse cultures of the world do not in fact teach different moralities; rather, all are descended from Adam, giving us all a common humanity, a common sin, and a common Savior. We are not slaves to our culture; human beings shape their cultures through their own deliberations and creativity.

...Rituals are not to be taken lightly, as sociologists will testify. A culturally-defining ritual is a product of a community, a history, and an ideology, and is not something that can be made-up and revised at will. If Church Growth advocates sometimes put too great an emphasis on culture (that is, in adjusting to the culture of the unchurched), they also sometimes take culture much too lightly (that is, the culture of the Church). The notion that a group should change its culture in an attempt to make it appeal more to those outside of the group, is sociologically naive. Destroying a group's identity does not make it more attractive; it makes it cease to exist...

The Levels of Culture
Another aspect of culture that needs to be understood more clearly in today's controversies is that culture exists on several levels. The more or less unconscious, traditional, and historical traits and norms of a group constitute its folk culture. ...Another level of culture refers to the achievements of people in that culture, the contributions of artists, inventors, and constitution writers. This is the high culture, what older writers meant by "civilization."

...Most societies have both a folk and a high culture, but today's technologies of mass production, mass communication, and mass consumption make possible a third level of culture: the mass culture, also known as popular or pop culture.

...Pop culture, by its very nature, must appeal to the lowest common denominator, otherwise it cannot attain its mass audience; therefore it values simplicity, shallowness, and accessibility. The high culture is intellectual and demands effort on the part of its audience. The pop culture, on the other hand, must be instantaneously accessible and is thus received passively, requiring neither the communal context of the folk culture, nor the creative perception of the high culture. The only real ideology of pop culture is commercialism - the need to sell products by indulging consumers - and thus, while market driven, it cares little for ideas or morality. While the folk culture tends to be conservative and the high culture is intergenerational, the pop culture is governed by the dynamics of fashion, and so must be in a state of constant change.

...The Church Growth Movement is all about pop Christianity. Every one of the marks of pop culture are evident in the theory and practice of the Church Growth Movement: consumerism, instant gratification, large scale mass appeals, anti-intellectualism, permissiveness, entertainment focused, technology dependence, fashion consciousness, novelty seeking, purposeful superficiality, and the like. Church Growth advocates favor pop music and pop psychology over folk culture hymns and high culture theology.

...The cultural genius of liturgical worship - again, to set aside for a moment its theological significance - is that it satisfies and brings together both the folk culture and the high culture. The liturgy establishes continuity between generations and between eras, with its roots deep into the history of Christian Church. To say that the Divine Service comes out of German culture is absurd. Its roots go back to Rome and Greece, North Africa and the Middle East, but its very text is drawn from the Word of God. The liturgy, in its history and use, is of no culture and of every culture - to use a technical term, it is "metacultural"; that is, it offers a framework that both transcends and accords with all cultures. Liturgical worship carries a profound psychological and cultural resonance, comprised of memories, time tested truths, feelings of continuity, and a sense of belonging - hallmarks of the folk culture.

But liturgical worship also satisfies the demands of the high culture in its substantive content, its challenging theological nuances, the beauty of its language, its settings in fine music, and its aesthetic richness and use of the other arts. Liturgies, while keeping their roots in church history, are certainly subject to translation, updatings, and theological revisions. Designing a liturgy, however, is no light or easy undertaking. It demands the best and most careful work of high culture scholars, theologians, and musicians...

The Two Kingdoms
Thus far we have been examining culture. Even if we come to a perfect understanding of cultural dynamics, we will not thereby solve the dilemma of how the Church in a particular culture is to worship. Those who attempt to sort out the issues of culture and worship must also factor in a major theological point, dealing with what the relationship between the Church and the culture - whether folk, high, or pop - is supposed to be.

...One option is to put culture above Christ. In this view, Christianity serves culture, or, in the words of the National Council of Churches slogan, the world sets the agenda for the Church. When the culture changes, Christianity must also change. This is the path of liberal theology. ...What makes a person a liberal is not any one set of beliefs or unbeliefs; rather, a liberal in theology is defined by his willingness to make culture authoritative over the Word of God. The church growth movement is thus, in the most technical sense, a manifestation of liberal theology.

...The doctrine of the two kingdoms is usually discussed in the context of the role of government or the Christian's political duties, but it applies directly to issues of culture. God is sovereign over culture. This means, among other things, that the folk culture, the high culture, and the pop culture are subject to God's moral law. This also means that a Christian may participate in the various levels of culture, in all of their secularity. Christians have the freedom to love their country, become highly educated in technical fields, and watch TV. They will do such things under God's Law, and thus can be expected to get involved in politics, criticize secularist ideologies, and demand that Hollywood clean up its act. They will be full and active members of their culture. The other part of the doctrine of the two kingdoms is that the Church must be set apart from the culture. The Church, Luther said, is governed solely by God's Word, and its prerogatives are not to be surrendered to the world. ...Today the Church must resist the dictates of the pop culture.

The doctrine of the two kingdoms, when applied to worship and culture, might mean that a Christian might enjoy popular music - but not want it in the Divine Service. A Christian might be a good businessman - but not want to turn the Church into a business. A Christian might love TV, movies, and computer games - but not look to the Church to be entertained. A worship style would be valued because it is not part of the dominant culture of the moment. Ways would be sought to keep the Church different from the world. The Church would seek to counter the ways of the world, not imitate them. The lost would see in the Church an alternative to the vanity, deceit, and futility of the world.

Our family has the custom of inviting people who have no relatives in the area to our house for Thanksgiving dinner. We do not change our time honored, invariable menu according to what our guests are accustomed. Not only would our children never allow it, but the sense of family established by our eating rituals is exactly what our homesick guests crave. Besides, it would be inhospitable to offer those who eat fast food every day a McDonald's hamburger instead of a Thanksgiving dinner. Our family's task is to invite the lonely and those with no place to go, bring them in, and make them welcome at our feast. This is also the task of the Church.

Veith, G.E. (1998). Religion, Culture, and our Worship. Concordia Theological Quarterly, 62(1), 25-38.

The reader may be interested to know, that Dr. Veith is a Confessional Lutheran of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS) and, as I understand it, attends church here. Professional classicist and undisputed expert on culture and vocation that he is, it causes one to wonder how it is that so many Lutheran pastors and theologians, enamored with the Church Growth Movement, fail to take advantage of the rather straightforward distinctions in culture that he makes rather clear -- almost as if it is common knowledge among those in his circles. Why do Lutheran parish consultants, students of culture that they are, seem to gravitate so heavily toward pop-culture in their recommendations? Are they truly competent students of culture, or do they have an agenda? Then again, perhaps they dispute Dr. Veith on academic grounds? If so, what are their credentials, and what objective analysis do they offer in correction of Dr. Veith? That would be an interesting debate to sit in on...

 

Lutheran Worship: History and Practice (Day 7)

With today’s blog entry, I finally complete a detailed review of the essay, “Liturgical Renewal in the Parish,” by Arthur A. Just, which is the lead essay in the book, Lutheran Worship: History and Practice. Centering the need for “renewal” on the congregation, rather than on the liturgy itself, two aspects of liturgical life were pointed out by the author, which if renewed in the congregation will impact all its other aspects. The first was discussed in Day 5 and Day 6 of this review: restoration of the theology of worship. Today, I cover the second aspect of liturgical life in which the author calls for renewal: renewal of time.

“Renewal of time” is a metaphor for a return to observance of the church year and use of the lectionary.

The church year ...gives to the congregation access to the life of Christ so that it may fully employ an understanding of the Bible in light of his real presence that forms it into the Body of Christ. ...Time has always been a critical commodity in the church, and the church has no other choice but to be good stewards of time.

Time in the Christian sense is a servant of theology, and in this time the church has taken the incarnation and the crucifixion, the two scandals of Christianity, and raised them up to be the two great festivals of the church year, Christmas and Easter. ...Within sacred time, the church has harmonized the seasons of nature with the seasons of the church year...

Just, A.A. (1993). Liturgical Renewal in the Parish. In Precht, F.L (Ed.), Lutheran Worship: History and Practice (pp. 31 - 32). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

The author goes on to describe how the themes of judgment in the church year coincided with late autumn, when “nature is dying,” symbolizing the ultimate death of the old world, and the permanent separation of unregenerate souls from God, at the Judgment. This naturally leads to a period of expectation, of looking for new life and salvation from the certain separation from God that all mankind faces. This is the period of Advent. Then, “[w]hen the sun reaches the point of death at the winter solstice and begins to rise again, the church celebrates the birth of the new world when ‘the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings’ (Mal. 4:2)” (pg. 32). Following this, new life in Christ by His resurrection coincides with the period of spring. Pentecost – the Jewish harvest festival celebrated 50 days after the Passover – is for us Christians also a celebration of harvest, of the giving of the New Testament Church for this purpose. The season of Pentecost begins for us as the seed is sown, and comes to maturity in autumn as the fields ripen for harvest. [Note: under the Historic Lectionary, the Pentecost Season observed by most Lutheran congregations today, is, instead, the Trinity Season – whose liturgical color is green, signifying the new growth of the Christian under the teaching of our risen and ascended Lord, Jesus Christ - FF]. The author then concludes with this observation:

The church has transformed the world by its liturgy and served the Gospel’s goal. The church has raised secular time to the level of the sacred. This sacred time becomes sacramental because Christ now appears in it for the benefit of his people.

Just, A.A. (1993). Liturgical Renewal in the Parish. In Precht, F.L (Ed.), Lutheran Worship: History and Practice (pg. 32). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

Necessary to a “renewal of time,” the author goes on to stress the importance of Sunday worship (celebrating God’s gifts to us on the Day of the Resurrection), and also insists that a renewal of language is elemental to any renewal of time and renewal of liturgy:

The role of liturgical preaching and catechesis is of vital importance in the congregation’s renewal of time. Liturgical preaching and catechesis belong under the rubrics of renewal of language, but liturgical renewal of time will take place through liturgical preaching and catechesis. In both of them, the language and metaphors of Scripture must become the language and metaphors of our sermons and our catechesis. Scriptural language must again become the primary theological language of the congregation, a language that is rich in the stories, the images, and the people of the Bible.

Just, A.A. (1993). Liturgical Renewal in the Parish. In Precht, F.L (Ed.), Lutheran Worship: History and Practice (pg. 32). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

In this final comment, the author has hit upon a particularly troubling and irritating trend that I have noticed among Confessional Lutheran congregations (and among most Christian groups in America): an appalling degradation, even elimination in many cases, of distinctly Ecclesiastical terminology and manner of speech. Gone are the theological terms. Gone are the liturgical terms. And with them, gone is the thorough and vigorous catechesis that Lutheran layman once enjoyed, gone among the layman are the specific ideas those terms embody and communicate, gone are the important distinctions created by those specific ideas in the mind of the average layman, gone is the deep insight brought about by realizing those distinctions, and reduced is the common layman to discussion of Christian liturgical life according to subjective and personal criteria. In coming days, I intend to post more on this issue specifically, in exploration of the deplorable trend and gross catechetical error of dumbed-down and white-washed ecclesiastical language, and its tragic consequences. In anticipation of these entries, consider this fact: by dumbing-down the language we use, we are deliberately presenting ideas which we expect will be outgrown and left behind by those who hear them, rather than presenting ideas into which the average hearer will grow and mature.

<-- Lutheran Worship: History and Practice (Day 6)