Apology of the Augsburg Confession XXIV.1 and an Apology for the Historic Lutheran Divine Service

Opening Remarks atThe First Annual

Liturgical Parish Life ConferenceTrinity Lutheran Church – Worden, IL

3 February A+D 2007 (revised for 2009)

Rev. Pr. H. R. Curtis

Confessional Minimalism vs. The Confessional Mindset

In his seminal essay, Why Why Should Our Pastors, Teachers and Professors Subscribe

Unconditionally to the Symbolical Writings of Our Church, CFW Walther gives this definition of the

content of an unconditional (quia) subscription to the Confessions:

Whatever position any doctrine may occupy in the doctrinal system of the Symbols, whatever the form may be in which it occurs, whether the subject be dealt with ex professo or only incidentally, an unconditional subscription refers to the whole content of the Symbols and does not allow the subscriber to make any mental reservation in any point. Nor will he exclude such doctrines as are discussed incidentally in support of other doctrines, because the fact that they are so used stamps them as irrevocable articles of faith and demands their joyful acceptance by everyone who subscribes to the Symbols (CTM XXVIII[1947].4: 16-17)

If a man will come this far, if he will swear to uphold the entire doctrinal content of the Confessions –

including those doctrines which are mentioned only in passing – then I will consider him a brother, a

fellow Confessional Lutheran and heir to our great theological heritage. This is what I will call the

Confessional Minimum. Without this unequivocal acceptance of the doctrinal content of our

Confessions, there can be no true Lutheran Church. Those ecclesiastical jurisdictions who have

eschewed such a quia subscription have proven that.

Today I know of no one in our midst who actually argues for doing away with this Confessional

Minimum. One could certainly argue that certain doctrines of the Confessions are honored more in the

1

breach than in the main, but at least all agree to swearing to this Confessional Minimum. There is a

touchstone, a standard, a norma normata against which we can all be judged and to which we can all be

called when we err from it.

But there is something more to the Confessions, something that goes beyond the mere

formulation of doctrinal statements. The Mindset of the Confessions determines the way questions are

approached. The Confessions establish the general hermeneutic of what Krauth calls “the Conservative

Reformation.” The basic divide between those who advocate a mere Confessional Minimalism and

those who advocate adhering to the Confessional Mindset is the distinction between prescriptive and

descriptive statements in the Confessions.

Confessional Minimalism says that only the doctrinal statements in the Confessions mean

anything. It is only that which tells me what to believe, the prescriptive doctrinal statements, that

matter. Anything else in the Confessions, anything other than the raw doctrinal data, is as little binding

on me as the Formula of Concord's statement that garlic juice impedes magnetism.

The Confessional Mindset is more sweeping. It sees more substance in the descriptive

statements of the Confessions. Those statements tell us how the churches of the Augsburg Confession

lived out their confession. Confessional Mindset partisans are less sanguine about the possibility of

separating doctrine from its expression in the life of the parish.

The difference between the Minimalist and Mindset approaches is the difference between

mechanical and organic models of doctrine. For the Minimalist, doctrine is data, stuff, items, points,

things. These doctrinal points, like ball bearings, are self-contained and can be moved from one context

to another without diminishing or endangering their nature, their ball-bearing-ness. Mindsetists, on the

other hand, view doctrine organically – more as a plant that grows best in a certain climate. To move

that plant from one climate to another can endanger its health or even its very nature.

Consequently, advocates of the Confessional Mindset seek to understand the mindset and

2

churchly life which gave rise to the doctrine of the Confessions. Indeed, Mindsetists seek to take on

this Confessional Mindset and imitate the churchly life in which the Reformation grew up.

Confessional Minimalists, however, are interested in these things as mere historical questions with no

binding force – either legal or moral – upon their current parish life.

Examples

An example will help clarify the difference. Apology XXIV.1 says that our churches celebrate

the Mass on every Sunday and other Holy Days. This is a descriptive statement of the life of the

evangelical churches in 1531. It is not a prescriptive doctrinal statement. Thus the Confessional

Minimalist finds no direct import in this statement for his current life. If he finds it convenient for his

parish to have communion each Sunday, they will. If, however, he finds it convenient to have

communion only every other week so that he can preach longer sermons or sing more songs on the off

weeks, then that is what he will do. It does not matter to him what the Church before him did. He only

cares about the abstraction of their thoughts, their “doctrine.”

The Confessional Mindestist feels himself drawn to this descriptive statement of the Churches

of the Augsburg Confession. He asks questions such as “If this is what the churches who produced

these doctrinal confessions were doing, should I be doing it too?” “If I am sworn to the same doctrines

as these churches, won't my parish's churchly life look like theirs?” “If I cannot describe my parish in

the same way that these founding congregations described themselves, have I missed something very

important indeed?” “Doesn't a unity in confession imply a basic unity – though not lock step uniformity

– in practice?”

Indeed, the Confessional Minimalist is really a full-fledged son of the Enlightenment. He likes

the clean, esoteric, scrubbed doctrine of the Confessions, but doesn't want the messy, organic, earthy

practice they endorse. He's like a Puritan in regard to Christmas. The Puritans advocated traditional

Chalcedonian Christology – but thought you could separate that from the presents and the tree and the

3

carols. And maybe in a more perfect world you could. Perhaps if folks were just more spiritual you

could have the doctrine without the earthly trappings. But in the end, the Puritans couldn't make a go of

it: Christmas kept on creeping back in. Because the tree and the presents and the carols – for all their

adiaphoraisticness – helped support the Chalcedonian Christology in the lives of the people.

Apology XXIV.1 and the Lutheran Divine Service

And so it is with the doctrine of the Confessions and the liturgical practice which they describe

as their own. The Confessional Mindsetist sees them as a whole – divisible only in the abstract, not in

practice. So when thinking about the liturgical life of his parish, the Confessional Mindsetist asks not

only what doctrine the Confessions confess about our worship but also how the Confessions describe

the workings of that worship. This will lead him to the Apology, article XXIV, paragraph one:

To begin with, we must repeat the prefatory statement that we do not abolish the Mass but religiously keep and defend it. In our churches Mass is celebrated every Sunday and on other festivals, when the sacrament is offered to those who wish for it after they have been examined and absolved. We keep traditional liturgical forms, such as the order of the lessons, prayers, vestments, etc.”

Here is where the Confessional Mindsetist begins: We do not abolish the Western Mass, we keep the

traditional liturgical forms, the lessons, prayers, vestments, etc. This described the Lutheran parishes at

the time of the Reformation, the parishes which confessed and lived the Evangelical doctrine of the

Augsburg Confession. Therefore, it should describe my parish as well.

Now again, should you decide that this is too much, that you can sign on to the doctrine of the

Confessions but want no part in their practice: fine, we are still brothers, go with God. I hope you can

indeed make authentic Lutheranism grow in the foreign soil of Baptist and Pentecostal worship forms.

But I also hope you will tarry with me as I narrate what these traditional liturgical forms, lessons,

prayers, and vestments are and why I believe they are intrinsically more appropriate, both theologically

and practically, than the forms native to other confessions.

Tradition for Tradition's Sake

4

What are these traditional liturgical forms, lessons, prayers, and vestments that the Apology

says the churches of the Augsburg Confession observe and why should we observe them today? They

are first and foremost an inheritance. The Lutheran Reformers – unlike some of their Calvinist and

Zwinglian counterparts – did not start with a blank slate and create new worship forms ex nihilo.

Rather, the leaders of the Lutheran Reformation – Luther chief among them – took what they received

from their fathers in the faith and excised only those portions of the Medieval Church's worship which

contradicted Scriptural teaching. In other words, they pruned the inheritance given them by their

forebears in a Scriptural light.

Thus, the practice of Apology 24.1, the keeping of the traditional liturgical forms of the

Western Church, is first and foremost a keeping of the 4th commandment. What does this mean? We

should fear and love God so that we do not anger or despise our parents or other authorities, but

honor them. We honor our fathers in the faith by first seeking to understand and use the worship forms

they gave us, instead of thinking them stilted and dead and unable to speak to our age. Indeed, Apology

24.1 shows the great humility of the Lutheran Reformation. It was with fear and trembling that the

early Lutherans defied pope and emperor. They were driven to it only as a last resort. Like Peter and

John they were finally forced to say, “We must obey God, rather than men.” But where the history of

the Church could be honored – it was. Today, fools rush in where these great Reformers feared to tread.

Today many hold their own creativity in higher esteem than the inheritance they received from their

fathers.

The traditional liturgical forms, on the other hand, seek to protect us from this pastoral hubris.

In those Lutheran parishes which have abandoned the model of Apology 24.1, the parishioners are at

the mercy of the pastor. If he writes everything from the order of service, to the selection of readings

(that is, making up his own lectionary), to the sermon, to even the liturgy of the Lord's Supper: they

have given a dangerous amount of power to one man. The traditional liturgical forms are the creation of

5

no one man. Rather the Church as a whole, slowly and over time, accepted some things and rejected

others. The traditional liturgical forms therefore embody the experience and wisdom of two millennia

of Christians. Furthermore when we compare these forms with the earliest forms found in the New

Testament, in the Didache, and in the liturgy of St. James, we find that they are not only strikingly, but

indeed organically similar: thus we see how basically conservative the history of the liturgy has been

from Apostolic times down to our own.

But our pastors are not the only ones we need be wary of: for we have found the enemy and he

is us. In his famous preface to Athanasius' On the Incarnation CS Lewis notes that we need to be

especially wary of falling into the spirit of our own age. His recommendation is that we read five old

books for every one new one. In a like manner, the worship forms we might create if given a blank

slate would reflect the particular errors and weaknesses of our own time, culture, and personality. The

very point the advocates of new worship forms base their arguments on - “cultural appropriateness” - is

just the problem. We need to have some perspective on our culture and its weaknesses. The traditional

liturgical forms serve as a filter to protect us from this. What we have in the historic liturgy has been

passed down through ages – strengthened and slightly changed by each one, yet protected by the others

from what was bad in each.

Reverence vs. Hey Jesus, Pull My Finger

All these are the benefits of tradition qua tradition. But the argument for the traditional

liturgical norms approved in the Apology's twenty-fourth article goes further than that. We are not

merely traditionalists for tradition's sake – although as I have just narrated, that is not a bad thing:

keeping the 4th Commandment is never a bad thing. Rather, those of us who advocate upholding the

description of the churches of the Augsburg Confession as churches which adhere to the traditional

liturgical forms do so because we find these forms objectively more excellent, appropriate, and praise

worthy than modern neo-Evangelical forms.

6

In the first place, the traditional liturgical forms and ceremonies encourage reverence and awe.

Our age and culture does not do reverence well. For us, nothing is sacred. Everything that is not

humorous, sarcastic, or comfortable is stodgy, stilted, and unauthentic. This seems a far cry from the

Biblical witness. You can't read your way through the Torah or the Gospels without constantly running

into people kneeling, crying out in fear of the Divine Presence, and clearing temples of worshipless

activity. The traditional liturgical forms embody this sort of serious reverence – where our age has

given us the coffee shop church: where the house of the Lord has literally been turned into an

emporium and the altar of our Lord's Presence has been pushed to the side to make room for the band.

These words from Pr. David Petersen eloquently describe the difference between a reverent

approach to worship and the modern comfortable approach.

There are those among us who think the Gospel is best or most fully expressed as a casual, comfortable relationship with God. For them the resurrection of Jesus Christ means no fussiness, no solemnity, no seriousness, or formality. It is not enough that Jesus is your friend, He must be your bosom buddy. He is the kind of God you could go fishing with. It'd be okay if you hadn't showered and smelled like fish, if you wiped you nose on your sleeve. If you belched He'd laugh. He is the kind of God who likes greasy snack foods and licks His fingers. It is not really the Gospel for these people unless you can say: "Hey, Jesus, pull my finger." For them He is the kind of God you can tease. He understands. That is why they're always telling us He has a sense of humor (His sense, by the way, is always the same as theirs.) The bottom line though is that they find nothing to be afraid of in their God. They do not mean to be disrespectful. It is simply that they are completely and utterly comfortable with Him. It is this theology that creates casualness and unpreparedness in those who lead worship. They are sloppy on purpose. They want to show there is nothing to be uptight or worried about.

The answer to their error does not lie in its polar opposite. The angels do tell the believers to not be afraid. We are to come to God as dear children to their dear Father, trusting that He will not despise us nor grow angry with us even at our selfish and childish requests, but rather that He loves to hear our prayers. Jesus tells the disciples that they are not merely His servants but also His friends. But at the same time He is the Lord and Ruler of the Universe and should at least be given the respect we reserve for polite company. Being respectful of God, listening while He is talking, wearing you finest clothing, being serious, quiet, and attentive while He expresses His love for you and presents you with His gifts, is a confession of who you believe He is and what you believe He is doing.

Joy need not always be mindless, fleshly pleasure. Joy can also be sober. In fact, the deepest joy is. There is time for trumpets and timpani, and there is a time to pray in silence. But there is never a time to forget who God is or that the Lion of Judah still has claws. Do not be scared. Do

7

not be terrified. For your heavenly Father loves you in Jesus Christ. You are precious to Him and in Him you are safe. At the same time do not dismiss fear altogether. For the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. You are not His equal. Those who know His love respond in reverence, even as did Isaiah in the Temple, Peter, James, and John at the Transfiguration, and St. Mary at the annunciation. The Lord has not given you a playmate out of the Virgin's womb. He has given you a Savior. (http://redeemer-fortwayne.org/blog.php?msg=1777)

Pastor Petersen would no doubt second the quip from CS Lewis' Narnia series: He's not a tame lion.

Reverence in general begins here: acknowledging the holiness of God and our own unworthiness to be

in his presence.

The Only Chancel Drama You Should Ever Use: The Story of the Liturgy

And make no mistake: in the Divine Service we are in the Real Presence of God. For by his

gracious invitation we are called to the Lord's altar to receive Him in his Body and Blood. Jesus is

really there. He really is. This is the point of departure for the entire traditional Divine Service (Mass):

the bodily and bloodily presence of Christ. How should I comport myself in his presence? How shall I

prepare to receive him? How shall I honor him? These are the questions the traditional liturgical form

of the Western Mass asks – hear how it answers.

First, like Isaiah you proclaim your unworthiness in a general confession. These are the pre-

Service prayers, the Asperges and Prayers at the Foot of the Altar. These have been condensed into The

Preparation of the Lutheran Common Service (more on the Common Service below). Before we even

dare to set foot in that area of the church (the chancel) where Christ will make his presence available

for us, we plead our unworthiness and beg forgiveness. Compare this to how the modern praise and

worship service begins: with warm up songs. Things to get you pumped up and excited about worship

today. After which you may or may not segue into a mellower riff on the keyboard for a time of

meditation on your sins.

Now that we have confessed our sin and begged forgiveness, what do we do now? We are here

to receive the Lord in his body and blood – how shall we prepare? We had better pray. But how shall

8

we pray? We had better use the prayers God gave us: the Psalms. So as we enter the chancel in the

person of the Celebrant we chant the Introit, a collection of Psalm verses that sum up the theme of the

day (and yes, we always sing the Psalms: that's what Psalm means!). God has given us the words to say

and we say them back to him. For prayer is the breath of the Christian. Just like with Adam in the

Garden, even now God breathes his word into us and we breath it back out: that is one reason why

there is not really a place in the Divine Service for ex corde prayers. I don't want prayers out of the

pastor's heart (I heard a Man once say some things about what come out of the heart of a man...), I want

prayers out of God's Word.

After the Introit, we are now in the chancel, in that sacred space where our Lord makes his

presence available to us in his Sacrament. It is awe-full and mysterious to be here. So once again we

plead the Lord's mercy in the Kyrie – threefold as a confession of the Trinity – Lord have mercy! Christ

have mercy! Lord have mercy! Again, note what is lacking in modern worship forms taken from the

Baptist and Pentecostal traditions: there is no sacredness of space, no sense of movement up to the

Presence of Christ, as in the Psalms of Ascent. In the Historic Liturgy of the West as approved in

Apology 24.1, we are constantly moving toward the climax of the Service in the Supper. We show this

in our architecture: the altar is centered and on a higher plane than the rest of the sanctuary. We

constantly move up toward it during the service. But in the Baptist and Pentecostal traditions there is no

sacred space precisely because there is no Real Presence of Christ. This is one of the occupants of the

Trojan Horse of neo-Evangelical worship forms: they come filled with a Zwinglian view of the

Sacraments. For them, the only reason to have a raised stage is so that the speaker can be seen by folks

in the back.

But let us return to the drama and story of the Liturgy. We have once again prayed God's mercy

down upon us. And now we praise him that he has heard us – for we know his mercy because it has

been revealed to us in Christ. And so we sing the Gloria – the song the Angels gave when Christ first

9

made known his bodily and bloodily presences among us at Bethlehem. And compare this hymn of

praise to what passes for praise in the praise music written today in the pop-Evangelical style. You will

be hard pressed to find one so studiously correct in its theology, eloquently Biblical in its diction, and

beautifully reposed in its poetry.

Having praised the Holy Trinity for his salvation, we are ready to again approach him in prayer

– this time a prayer for the things we desire, a prayer not strictly taken out of the Scriptures like a

Psalm verse but a prayer that is a collection of the desires of the people: the Collect. But who would

dare be audacious enough to approach God in prayer for the people of God? Only a man called by God

through his Church to do it. And so the Celebrant asks for a blessing from the people – a reaffirmation

of his ordination. But how to ask a blessing in the Church except by giving one: The Lord be with you

(or Peace be with you – Jesus' words to the disciples on Easter Eve), and then the people bless him in

response: And with thy spirit. And then the prayer: not ex corde, not the Celebrant's prayer, but the

collection of the people's desire for God's blessing on this festival, this feast, this Day of the Lord. And

so the collect is proper, fitting for this day.

So we have confessed, prayed God's Word, asked his mercy, received and asked his blessing,

and prayed our own desires. How next shall we prepare to receive him in his Supper – for that is the

question and purpose of the Liturgy - what should our thoughts be as we approach him? How shall we

know unless we hear his Word? And what Word shall we hear? Surely the Word of our Lord and his

Apostles – for as Acts 2:42 tells us that is the definition of the Church: the baptized who gather round

the breaking of the bread and the Apostles' fellowship and Word. This is the basis of the two historic

readings in the Divine Service: the Word of the Apostles (the Epistle) pushing us toward the Word of

Jesus (the Gospel).

And who shall pick these readings for us? Shall we open at random? Shall we read straight

through one book and then another? First question first: let us not leave this in the hands of the pastor!

10

He, like us, is a sinner! He will ride his hobby horses and pick readings he likes. No, that won't do. We

must be protected from him. He needs a list of readings that will force him to preach the whole counsel

of God: a lectionary, approved and filtered by the whole Church in the same way that the Liturgy is.

But how shall this lectionary be arranged? In the wisdom of God's people down throughout the

centuries it is not random, nor is it a mere plowing through the Bible. You can do that at home. At the

Divine Service we do something more focused on Christ: we trace through the Life of Christ from

Bethlehem to the Cross to the Empty tomb to Pentecost and to the life of the Spirit in the Church – and

we do it each year in a never-ending cycle – for we always forget and ever need to be reminded. The

beautiful words of the traditional Epiphany announcement of the Church's year of grace gracefully

make this point:

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

the glory of the Lord has shone upon us, and shall ever manifest itself among us until the day of His return. Through the rhythms and changes of time let us call to mind and live the mysteries of salvation.

The center of the whole liturgical year is the Paschal Triduum of the Lord, crucified, buried and risen, which will culminate in the solemn Vigil of Easter, during the holy night that will end with the dawn of the eighth day of April. Every Sunday, as in a weekly Easter, Christ's holy Church around the world makes present that great and saving deed by which Christ has forever conquered sin and death.

From Easter there comes forth and are reckoned all the days we keep holy: Ash Wednesday, the beginning of the Lenten spring, the twenty-first day of February; the Ascension of the Lord, the seventeenth day of May; and Pentecost, the twenty-seventh day of May; the first Sunday of Advent, the second day of December.

Likewise in the feasts of Mary, of the apostles, of all the saints, and in the commemoration of the faithful departed, the pilgrim Church on earth proclaims the resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord.

To Christ who was, who is, and who is to come, the Lord of time and history, be endless praise forever and ever!

Having heard the Words of Christ in the Gospel we now speak back to him what has been

11

spoken to us. He has told us who he is, so we now confess that we believe his Word in the Creed of

Nicea – that great confession of the New Testament faith given in defiance of all the enemies of the

Gospel, that great Creed that draws a line between what is Christian and what is not.

And now we have climbed quite high. We started on the floor level, confessing our sins and

begging mercy. We then climbed toward that place made sacred by the Lord's presence and cried for

his mercy again. We have prayed, praised, and given thanks; we have heard God's bracing Word of

Life in the midst of death which surrounds us and we have confessed that we believe it. The journey

thus far to the altar has been like climbing Everest at a brisk pace. We need a way station on the way to

the climax of the altar. We need time to reflect on the Word of God that we have heard – to slow down

and mark, learn, and inwardly digest this Word so that we can be prepared to receive our Lord. But like

the Ethiopian in Acts 8 we must wonder, “How can I understand what I have heard unless someone

explains it to me?” And so the Lord gave that Ethiopian St. Philip, and he has give us a man called and

ordained to preach his Word.

He preaches not himself, but Christ. He preaches not his own words, but the Word of Jesus: the

Gospel lesson. He preaches not on a topic of his choosing, but on the topic given him by the proper

Day of the Church. Thus he is kept faithful to his task. He preaches and proclaims God's scathing Law

and his healing balm of the Gospel. He preaches us toward the Lord, toward his altar where we are

about to receive him.

Thus his preaching is contextualized by the Liturgy. It is not a time out from worship and

reverence (which, by the way, is the purpose of the children's sermon: comic relief in case this is all

getting a little too serious). It is not a poor excuse for a stand-up comedy routine. Liturgical preaching

makes the preacher part of the liturgy – like an umpire in baseball he is technically part of the playing

field. He has a function defined not by his personality but by his calling, not by his skill set but by the

Word given him by the Lord. This is why he has been vested the whole time: like an umpire, a

12

policeman, a soldier he acts not on his own authority. So like these men, he wears not his own clothes.

He is hidden behind them. As soldiers salute the uniform, as a call at first base is as valid by that

umpire as a call at third base made by another, so pastors are interchangeable. We are not interested in

who he is but in Whom he represents. So as his dress gives this message, so also does his preaching.

When the apostolic preaching of the Dominical word by the man called by the Dominus to fill

the shoes of the Apostles is ended, we resume our journey toward the altar and the reception of our

Lord. The Service of the Word, the great preparation for the Supper is now ended. We are ready to

head out from base camp and make the final journey upward to the summit. First, the gifts must be

prepared. Our Lord instituted his bodily and bloodily presence under the appearances of bread and

wine. Whence shall these come? From the Lord blessing his people of course, from their generous

tithes and offerings back to the Lord. These are brought forward: the sweat of their brows, their bread

of death which they have scratched from the thorn infested ground. But behold! The Lord takes this

sign of the curse and returns a blessing: what comes up as bread from the people, the bread of death,

will be returned to them as a blessing: the Bread of Life who has come to save them from their sins.

The wine which the Lord made to gladden the hearts of men, the sign of joy, will now be fulfilled as it

will become the choicest wine of heaven, the blood of the covenant which Christ poured out for the joy

set before him. How different this is than the mere passing of the plate or the love offering of the non-

sacramental Protestant sects! The real presence of our Lord enlivens and illumines every part of our

worship – what shall we miss if we borrow worship forms created by those who lack this sacramental

reality?

The altar is now prepared, the bread and wine are laid before the Lord – now let the people

again ask the Lord's blessing in prayer. Let prayers be made for all men as we prepare to receive the

one who died for all men. Let these be deliberate and carefully crafted – let them again be prayers of

the Church and not merely the ramblings of the pastor. When these prayers have been spoken it is time

13

for the final push – it is time for the Mystery of Salvation – time for the servant of Christ to Do This in

remembrance of Christ as he commanded. Again: who is worthy? Who would dare speak Christ's

words to bread and wine and expect his Body and Blood to be there? Only a man called to do so by the

Lord through his Bride the Church – and so again, the giving and receiving of the blessing is enacted,

the ordination renewed: The Lord be with you. And with thy spirit. From the oldest liturgies we

possess, these words of the general preface are here – calling the people to lift up their hearts and hands

to the Lord that he might change and renew them – for it is right to give thanks to the Lord. Truly it is

meet, right and salutary to praise and thank God on this Day as well, in this time, in this portion of the

Church year. But how shall we thank and praise him? What is a fitting Eucharist, a fitting

thanksgiving? Our minds are once again filled with thoughts of Isaiah – we are nearing the presence of

the Lord, the very definition of heaven – well then, let us sing the song of heaven coming to earth:

Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of Sabaoth! Heaven and earth are full of your glory! But now, what is this?

The next words are not from Isaiah in the Temple – but the crowds on Palm Sunday: Hosanna in the

Highest! Blessed is He Who cometh in the Name of the Lord! Hosanna in the Highest! Heaven has met

earth! The Seraphim are in the same company as the smelly, teeming crowds of Jerusalem's narrow

streets. The Word is made flesh. The highest God is also the man on the donkey: and he is coming to

us, the same God in that same flesh and blood hidden under the appearance of bread and wine where

only the eyes of the faithful can see.

This is our Thanksgiving – completed now in that most Eucharistic of prayers: the one He gave

us. Hallowed be Thy Name: that is what we are hear to do, let it be done in us! Thy Kingdom Come:

the kingdom of God is among us when Christ is with us. Thy Will be done now on earth as in heaven:

we are here to do his Last Will and Testament, to Do This in his remembrance of him, to have heaven

on earth. Give us this day our daily bread! Oh yes, this bread of death: make it our daily Bread of Life!

Forgive us our trespasses: for you instituted this for the forgiveness of sins! Lead us not into temptation

14

but deliver us from evil: nothing could guard us from these things like your own Holy Body and

Precious Blood.

Do you begin to see what you are missing if you toss away the Historic Western Divine Service

for a form or worship created by sects that deny the Real Presence? Do you see what you have lost if

you cut out the Sanctus or replace it with a hymn or paraphrase (even Luther's paraphrase, which lops

off the Palm Sunday portion thereof!)? Do you see the difference between this progression exhibited by

the Historic Divine Service and the pattern formed by the neo-Evangelical praise and worship format?

One is a unified, intentional progression toward the Supper with everything aimed at that goal. The

other, when used in a Lutheran church, as often as not goes from a group of praise songs, to a time of

ex corde prayer (with optional background music on keyboard), to a reading chosen by the pastor and a

sermon, to a time of more ex corde prayer, maybe another song, and then suddenly the pastor walks

over to the altar in his suit and tie (or business casual khakis and polo shirt) and suddenly he's saying

the Words of Institution.

There is no progress or unity to the service leading to and preparing us for the Sacrament

preciously because this worship format was created by a group of folks who don't believe in the

Sacrament! The Sacrament has been tacked on by the Lutheran. It is foreign to the format. It has been

transplanted into a different climate. And I wonder, how long can the doctrine of the Real Presence

survive (and how healthily can it survive) in a worship climate created by and for those who don't

believe in it? Certainly the progression of the Historic Divine Service, the genuflections and the

bowings, the slow chanting of the Verba, etc., do not make the Sacrament – they are adiaphora: but it is

equally as certain that they better express the reality of the Sacrament than randomly wandering over to

the altar in suit and tie and rushing through the Word of Institution without bowing or kneeling.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves – right now I'm still telling the story of the Liturgy, the

words of the Divine Service, soon we will get to the ceremonies that attend it. After the Lord's Prayer

15

comes the Lord's Institution. By the command and in the stead of his Lord Jesus Christ, the man called

and ordained to fill the office of the apostles speaks his Lord's Words and Christian hearts believe what

they say to now be a reality. And so the faithful now sing and pray to the Present Christ: O Christ,

Thou Lamb of God, that takest away the sin of the world, have mercy on us. And now they come to the

altar to receive their Lord and his forgiveness. And when it is done, how shall they respond? What

words should come to their lips? Rather, what other words could come to their lips but those of

Simeon: Lord, now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace! I can die a happy man! For mine own

eyes have seen, my own tongue has tasted, the salvation you have prepared before the face of all

nations: the Christ in the flesh, the glory of your people Israel! As somebody said (maybe it was Nagel)

we sing the death song of Simeon at the Lord's Supper so that we might approach our own death as

going to the Lord's Supper.

And after that, the service ends as quickly as is decorous. The climax has been reached. We've

received the best heaven has to offer. So pray thanks for it, dear pastor, and give us a blessing and send

us on our way.

That is the Historic Liturgy: honed and perfected by all ages of Christians from the Apostles on

down. Did it fall from heaven? No – but it is soaked in the Words of Heaven as found in the Scriptures.

Is it unchanging and unchangeable? No – but it is no one man's to change willy nilly. It belongs to the

Church and she changes it over time, slowly at a snail's pace as befits a Woman who is several

thousand years old. It is self-contained and is its own culture. It does not adapt to cultures but absorbs

them, takes on what is best and spits out the rest. Resistance is futile: you will be assimilated. And the

only thing sadder than not knowing of this Historic Liturgy and its meaning is knowing of it and

rejecting it for what you made up on Monday afternoon (the latter would seem to contain not a small

measure of pride as well).

The Ceremonies: Pictures Worth a Thousands Words of Commentary on the Words

16

Along with the traditional liturgical forms, the Apology notes that we keep the traditional

ceremonies as well. In the Divine Service these ceremonies are numerous. The folding of the hands

with left thumb under right, bowing the head at the Name of Jesus, various places of making the sign of

the holy cross, genuflecting during the Creed and after each consecration, standing, sitting, kneeling,

etc. These ceremonies are prescribed in the rubrics that accompany the Historic Western Divine

Service. The Liturgy is the words that are spoken, the rubrics are the ceremonies performed.

Why these rubrics? Why ceremonial worship? Isn't it all just putting on a show? Making the

pastor look high and mighty? Just high church drama queens doing their chancel prancing? Now that

we have discussed the drama of the Liturgy I hope you begin to see that this is not the case. Rather, the

traditional ceremonies of the Mass are actions that fit the words and realities of the Mass. As such, they

support the words and teach the laity what the words mean. Or as the Confessions say,

“The purpose of observing ceremonies is that men may learn the Scriptures and that those who have

been touched by the Word may receive faith and fear and so may also pray.” (Ap. XXIV.2) “For after

all, all ceremonies should serve the purpose of teaching the people what they need to know about

Christ.” (AC XXIV.3)

And consider again that everything you do in worship teaches. Every action is a ceremony. You

cannot decide not to have ceremonies, but you can decide which ceremonies to have. Consider the

following.

Scene 1. A man clad in professional attire (suit and tie or business casual) walks over to a small

wooden table set off to the side of a large stage area to the left of a five piece band; the stage is adorned

with ferns and a tall wooden cross with a dove over it. In the audience people sit in theater seats. He

picks up a brass plate with little pieces of bread on it and says in a clear, loud voice in a normal

cadence “On the same night on which he was betrayed....” When he finishes those words he places the

plate down and touches a stack of aluminum trays containing plastic cups filled with wine and says in a

17

clear, loud voice in a normal cadence, “In the same way also he took the cup after supper...” When he

is done with these words he looks at the audience and says, smiling, “The Peace of the Lord be with

you always!” When the people are done receiving, they toss the used plastic cups in a wicker basket

lined with a plastic bag.

Scene 2. A man clad in bizarre attire – a black robe, then a white robe with a rope belt, then a

piece of colored cloth around his neck and another around his left wrist and over all a colored poncho

with a Y-shaped cross on it faces a table in the center of a smaller anteroom set above a larger room

where people are kneeling. The table is adorned with a large crucifix in its center and is draped with

several cloths. He lifts a golden plate with little pieces of bread on it, bends low, and chants in a slow

clear cadence “Our Lord Jesus Christ, on the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread...” When

he is done with these words, he lifts one of the pieces above his head and whispers, “My Lord, and my

God!” He then sets it down and genuflects on his right knee. Then he takes a golden cup full of wine,

lifts it slightly, bends low over it and chants in a slow clear voice, “In the same way also, he took the

cup after supper...” When he is done with these words, he lifts the golden cup above his head and

whispers, “My Lord and my God!” He then sets the cup down and genuflects on his right knee. He then

lifts one of the hosts over the cup and turns to the people and chants “The Peace of the Lord be with

you always!” When all have eaten, another man pours wine and water over his fingers into the plate

and cup, which he drinks, then wipes the cup and plate clean.

Now a few questions. Which of these men, the man in Scene 1 or Scene 2 believes in the real

presence? Assuming each scene takes place in a Lutheran Church, I am content to say that they both

believe in it. I confess that both are valid celebrations of the Lord's Supper and that the laity in both

congregations received the true body and blood of Christ. But which scene better confesses these

realities? Which scene's actions match the words? Which scene better teaches the people what is really

going on? If you were to turn off the sound and just watch the actions, would you guess they were

18

doing the same thing? Is there anything in Scene 1 that wouldn't be done in a church that denied the

Real Presence? Is there anything in Scene 2 that could be done in a church that denied the Real

Presence!

That is the power of ceremony. Everyone has ceremonies: will you use the traditional

ceremonies designed to confess Lutheran doctrine or will you use other ceremonies? That's the only

question. We will discuss these ceremonies in more detail in the afternoon session. Which brings us to

one other aside in the Confessions concerning ceremonies. Augsburg Confession VII notes, “It is not

necessary for the true unity of the Christian church that ceremonies, instituted by men, should be

observed uniformly in all places.” This quotation is much quoted by those who advocate the use of neo-

Evangelical worship forms. They protest that though the churches of the Augsburg Confession at the

time of that confession kept the traditional liturgical forms, that confession itself here gives them the

leeway to do what they want no matter what their sister congregations were or are doing. But they

rarely give thought as to why the AC had to say what it said – why does it have to point out that a basic

unity in form of worship is not what unites Christians?

Consider statements in the form “x is not necessary for y.” These statements tell us nothing of

the usefulness of x for y. For example, both of these statements in that form are true: A) “Green apples

are not necessary for a healthy marriage.” B) “Saying I love you each day to your spouse is not

necessary for a healthy marriage.” Both A and B are true. But certainly saying 'I love you' daily is more

useful for a healthy marriage than green apples. Indeed, it's so helpful that one might be tempted to

think that saying 'I love you' daily was necessary to a healthy marriage. Indeed, in the right

circumstance it might be necessary to confess that this isn't necessary. So it is with unity in ceremonies

and Church unity. Unity in the form of worship is so helpful for Church unity that we might mistakenly

think that that is what such unity consists of.1

1 It should also be noted that this statement from AC VII does not mean that the Church of the Augsburg Confession claims that it is unevangelical for the Church to legislate worship forms. This is exactly what AC XXVIII says is the

19

Furthermore, we should also mention this much quoted statement from the Solid Declaration X:

“We believe, teach, and confess that true adiaphora or things indifferent, as defined above, are in and of

themselves no worship of God or even a part of it, but that we should duly distinguish between the two,

as it is written, “In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the precepts of men” (Matt. 15:9).”

Amen. The ceremonies created by men – folded hands, kneeling at this place or that, chanting,

genuflecting etc. - are no part of worship. Worship, as the Apology notes, is the desire to receive God's

gifts. But as we have seen above, we cannot escape ceremonies. Simply because ceremonies are no part

of worship does not mean that we can choose any ceremonies we like and all things will be equal no

matter what we choose. Some ceremonies will support our worship and others will not. The

Declaration continues: “We further believe, teach, and confess that the community of God in every

place and at every time has the right, authority, and power to change, to reduce, or to increase

ceremonies according to its circumstances.”2 Does this perhaps open the door to neo-Evangelical forms

of worship? We should keep reading, “as long as it does so without frivolity and offense but in an

orderly and appropriate way, as at any time may seem to be most profitable, beneficial, and salutary for

good order, Christian discipline, evangelical decorum, and the edification of the church.” I would

contend that neo-Evangelical worship forms and ceremonies are not appropriate, profitable, beneficial

or salutary to the edification of the Church of the Augsburg Confession. I do think that using the

chancel of the church for a puppet show in the midst of the Divine Service is frivolous. I do think that

selling coffee in the Lord's sanctuary is offensive (see John 2). Others may disagree, of course, and we

can have profitable, brotherly discussions about this. But certainly what Solid Declaration X does not

power of the bishops. Furthermore, even a cursory glance at Reformation history will show that from Bugenhagen to Chemnitz and on down, Church Orders were prescribed and pastors were to follow them or be removed from office. The Confession condemn creating and enforcing ceremonies as saving acts, attaching a promise of grace to them, etc. – but they endorse enforcing an order of worship for the sake of fostering Church unity, edification, and good order (AC XXXVIII).

2 It should be noted here that the history of the Reformation and the Church of the Augsburg Confession makes it clear that SD X refers to Landeskirchen – whole ecclesiastical jurisdictions – not individual parishes when it says “the community of God in each place.”

20

do is present a blank check – rather it presents an invitation to serious, responsible consideration of

what ceremonies we choose.

A Word in Defense of the Common Service

The Historic Western Divine Service comes into the Lutheran tradition through Luther's

revision of the Latin Mass. Those portions of the Liturgy of the Mass that expressed papistic doctrine

and those ceremonies which supported it were excised. An example of the latter: kissing the altar to

beseech the prayers of the saints. An example of the former: cutting down the canon of the Mass to just

the Sanctus, Lord's Prayer, and Verba. These changes to the Mass are not accepted on Luther's

authority – but rather because the Churches of the Augsburg Confession accepted them as better

proclaiming their doctrine. They are conservative changes which still allow the Confessions to boast

that we have not abolished the Mass, that we keep it more reverently than our opponents, and that we

keep the traditional liturgical forms and ceremonies.

As the Liturgy always does, this Latin Mass of Luther found slightly different incarnations in

each territory. But in each of these, the traditional liturgical forms and ceremonies were kept. One

parish might use incense and another not. One might keep the elevation and another only the

genuflection. And another might use deep bowing instead of genuflection. While this one put the Creed

before the sermon, that one put it after. But in each of these the traditional liturgical forms and

ceremonies were kept within historic norms while still existing in accord with local custom. A fuller

treatment would allow us to see how very normal this was: as in the middle ages there was one custom

in the Gallic Liturgy, another in the Mozarabic, another at Milan, another at Rome, another at Syria.

But in each, the traditional liturgical forms and ceremonies were retained. The differences between the

Mass in each place were not like speaking a different language but rather like English spoken in Texas

and Massachusetts and Minnesota: it's all English, yet delightfully accented in each place. This is the

true diversity of the Liturgy – as opposed to the Babel of cacophonous noise in our current situation

21

where one place observes the traditional liturgical forms and ceremonies and another throws them off

in favor of the revivalistic forms of worship created by Baptists and Pentecostal on the American

frontier.

In English speaking North America the traditional liturgical forms of the Lutheran revision of

the Historic Western Mass come down to us as the Common Service (TLH p. 15, LSB Setting Three).

Space here does not permit a full discussion of the careful and ecumenical work that went into this

faithful repetition of the traditional liturgical form of the Mass – I would recommend picking up a copy

of Emmanuel Press' edition of An Explanation of the Common Service for this history. But I do want to

point out the distinction between this Common Service, which does fully embody the dictum of

Apology 24.1, and those services created after Vatican II that do so less adequately.

The services that are new to Lutheran Worship and Hymnal Supplement '98, and which are

included in LSB as Settings 1, 2, 4 and 5, do not share a Reformation era relationship to the “traditional

liturgical forms” mentioned in Apology 24.1. The Common Service is based on the Historic Western

Mass – these new 20th century “settings” are based on the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. I

would argue that they are, in many respects, simple weaker than the Common Service's faithful

rendition of the Lutheran Divine Service. For example, in the Common Service's Sanctus we have,

“Lord of Sabaoth” - that is Lord of Hosts, Lord of Armies. In the post-Vatican II revision (Setting One

in LSB, Divine Service II in LW) this is changed to “God of power and might.” Something has been

lost in this is anemic interpretation (it is certainly not a translation of the Latin original). The Gloria in

Excelsis – the song of the Angels - is replaced with a modern versification of the Dignus (“This is the

Feast”). This is a fine piece of music and a Biblical canticle. But by using this in place of the Greater

Gloria, something of the traditional liturgical form has been lost, and with it a specific hymn of praise

to the Trinity which highlights the story of salvation. “This is the Feast” would better be used as a

hymn or sequence – as the Dignus has traditionally been used. In addition the Offertory replaces Psalm

22

51 with a hymn that sounds as if it were composed by a committee that included Nancy Pelosi: “Gather

the hopes and the dreams of all – unite them with the prayers we offer now.” All that's missing is a line

about “the children.”

Needless to say, in conformity with Apology 24.1, I advocate the use of the traditional liturgical

form of the Mass as received in the Church of the Augsburg Confession on this continent: the Common

Service. (It should also be noted that the Divine Service proper starts with the Introit. The Preparation

is just that – a Preparation for the Divine Service. More on this in the afternoon session.)

A Word in Defense of the Historic Lectionary

The same goes for the Historic Western Lectionary as received and edited by the Church of the

Augsburg Confession as opposed to the Vatican II lectionaries. The Historic Lectionary is a one-year

cycle of readings that includes Epistles and Gospels appointed for each Sunday and major festival of

the year. This two-reading format developed straight out of the Synagogue where each week a portion

of the Law (Gospel) and the Prophets (Epistle) was read. As with the Liturgy itself and the ceremonies

attending it, there is a history of slight variation from place to place in the Lectionary – all the while,

still being recognizable as the same Lectionary in each and every place. Adding a third reading from

the Old Testament, for example, has long been a part of the Lutheran tradition. But strictly speaking,

these are not part of the historic lectionary – rather they serve almost as suggested preaching aids,

giving a clue to the Preacher as to the theme of the Gospel. The LSB OT lessons for the Historic

Lectionary are particularly good in this regard.

In contrast, in accord with the irenic and über-ecumenical spirit of the age, the Vatican II 3-year

lectionary specifically includes OT narratives intended to be read “on their own” or “in their own

context.” That is – apart from Christ. The Lutheran revisions of the 3-year cycle thankfully remedy this

for the most part – and the LSB revision is much better than the LW revision in this regard. However,

there are other weaknesses in this 3-year cycle. First, it is a creation of the modern Roman church

23

almost out of whole cloth. When Melanchthon says in the Apology that we keep the traditional series

of lessons, he is speaking of the Historic Western lectionary, not the creation of the Second Vatican

Council and a committee in St. Louis.

Second, the 3-year cycle is infected with post-Enlightenment notions of the Bible. For the

Historic Lectionary, the Gospel is the Gospel of the Lord. So each week, that Gospel which best

captures the story is chosen to speak to that story – and the preacher is assumed to be keeping in mind

details from the other Gospels' accounts of the same story. The Historic Lectionary thus points us to

preaching Jesus. The 3-year lectionary specifically divides the voices of Matthew, Mark, and Luke –

giving each his own year, forbidding their voices from overlapping and being heard on successive

weeks. The idea behind this is the historical-critical, post-Enlightenment notion that each Gospel is

more important as the Gospel of Matthew, of Mark, or of Luke, rather than as the Gospel of Jesus. I

wonder: what would Matthew, Mark, and Luke think of this? Also, isn't it conspicuous that John does

not have his year? John is seen as a-historical by historical-critics. In the post-Enlightenment rush of

Rome to be acceptable to the modern world (consider also their embrace of evolution), John goes by

the wayside, relegated to purely “academic” topics like the Incarnation. It is a shame that the three year

Lutheran lectionary has largely followed this.

Third, the Historic Lectionary is more practical for the people. No one can keep a cycle of three

years in his head. (Quick: what's the reading for Proper 22 in Years A, B, and C?) The Lectionary is

there to teach us the Scriptures, the basic stories. Without the uniform repetition year after year, the

people loose track of the narrative. In the Historic Lectionary they begin to get the rhythm, they begin

to look forward to Laetare Sunday, they know that the wedding at Cana comes quick on the heels of

Epiphany and so forth.

Fourth, the 3-year lectionary and the History Lectionary teach pastors different lessons about

preaching. I am convinced that the 3-year lectionary has been so widely embraced for one reason: it's

24

easier on the preacher. Getting the same text on the same Sunday year after year is difficult. Those 52

weeks fly by too quickly and you're back to the Good Samaritan (didn't I just preach on this?). The

Historic Lectionary presents the preacher with this challenge: find something fresh to preach about in

this same text. Thus the Historic Lectionary teaches the pastor that the Scriptures are inexhaustible in

their teaching. You cannot plumb these depths enough. Rather you should keep meditating on a piece

of Scripture and always find it new. The 3-year lectionary relieves this burden and encourages a

quicker reading – after all, the texts only have to be thought about 1/3 as often – and the people will

never remember a sermon from three years ago, so merely repeating becomes a greater temptation as

well.

Fifth, a very specific criticism. A) the 3-year lectionary cuts out the Pre-Lenten Sundays of

Septuagesima, Sexagesima, and Quinquagesima. I don't think it was a coincidence that the papal

revisionists excised these weeks. These three Sundays in the Historic Lectionary, right before Lent,

beautifully teach the three Solas of the Reformation. Just look at the readings and think of the themes

Grace Alone, Scripture Alone, and Faith Alone. No wonder the pope wanted them out of there!

Heaven on Earth

Finally, let me say a brief word about the culture of the historic liturgy. The historic liturgy, the

liturgy endorsed by Apology 24.1, carries with it its own culture. As was noted above, the first great

strength of the liturgy is that it protects us from our own age. It does this by presenting us not with a

baptized version of own culture – complete with power suits, polo shirts, trap sets, and imitations of the

modern love song format with a capital Y you replacing the lower case version (watchers of South Park

will understand...) - but with a culture counter to our own. And like all cultures this must be learned

and incorporated – thus the liturgy is memorized, internalized. For how can words which I read off a

screen or in a bulletin be my words? To come from my heart, they must come to my lips with the same

ease as the Lord's Prayer. Thus the great strengths of the traditional liturgical forms are precisely what

25

its enemies regard as weaknesses: its dissonance with our own culture and unchanging nature. I call

people out of their culture when I call them to worship. So I want everything to be different from the

rest of their week. We don't wear suits or business casual here: we wear vestments. We don't just speak

here, we chant. God forbid that we ever use Power Point! Surely people are sick of business meetings

and marketing presentations and the damned TV- why would I imitate those things and welcome them

into the Church? We don't talk over soft piano music like John Tesch on Prozac. We don't wail on the

guitar like Eric Clapton on speed. When you step into the sanctuary of Trinity Lutheran Church, I want

you to know that you have stepped out of your life. You are no longer a student, a middle manager, a

nobody secretary who has to listen to another boss on his soap box. Here you are a child of God, a son

or daughter of the King, the one-flesh Bride of Christ united in his Body. You are here to receive

heaven on earth so everything is different.

That is my Apology for the Liturgical Parish Life. If you want to lead people in this life as well,

stick around after lunch and we'll do some very hands on stuff. After the Divine Service we'll sit around

and drink Lutheran beverages and haggle and argue over particulars. If this isn't appealing to you, just

not your cup of tea, if you think you can do better on your own resources – that's fine. So long as you

accept the doctrinal content of the Confessions, we are brothers. But I hope that this has at least been

intriguing to you – I hope you'll stick around too, to hear a little more, ask questions and just keep an

open mind. More than one man has started where you are and been won over by the colossal beauty of

it all. You just might be surprised.

26