TheMissouri Synod and theInter-Lutheran Commission 0nWorship
D. RichardSfuckwisch
or the Luthcran Church-Missouri Synod, the birth of gressed,the relationshipwas constantlytroubled by iro- the Lutheran Book of Wor.shiptwenty-five years ago niesand disappointmcnts, by frustratingobstaclcs and set- was somethingof a miscarriage.The harsherinterpre- backs.It is a wonder that anythinggood came out of the tation has beenthat it was really more of an abortion: that venture at all; though one must acknowledgethat both the Synod intcntionallykilled the off.springof its own de- Lutheran Book of Worship and Lutheron Worship have cisionsand actions.Either way, the silver anniversaryof contributed to the liturgical life and worship of North the book inevitablyrecalls the decisionto declineaccep- Amcrican Lutherans.Thc most compelling qucstion is, tanceof it as an official service book and hymnal and, in- Why did thereend up being two booksinstcad of one? stead,to embark upon a revision that was publishedas Lutheran Worship in l 982. The linesol'the storyare relativcly clear and simple.In The End of Missouri'sInvolvement 1965,the Missouri Synod had invited the other Lutheran When the Missouri Synod withdrew itself from the con- churchesof North America to coopcratein the develop- certed effort of the Inter-Lutheran Conrmission on Wor- mcntof liturgicaland hymnological resources, in the hopc ship,it was thultedespecially fbr abandoninga projcctthat thatsuch resources might thenbe sharedand usedin com- it had ostcnsiblyinitiated. There wgrc at leasta few indi- mon by all of the participatingchurches. This invitation viduals, however,who knew somewhatbetter thc more led to the formation of the Inter-LutherirnCommission on complex origins of thc Commission.Edgar Brown and Worshipin 1966-67.Along with the Missouri Synod,mem- Henry Horn hinted on occasionthat othersfrom outsideof ber churchesof the Commissionincluded most prominently the Synod (includingBrown and Horn, both of the LCA) the Amcrican Lutheran Church and the Luthcran Church had been a n.rajorimpetus toward what becamethe Inter- in Arnerica.A decadeafter its lbrmation.the Commission LutheranCommission on Worship.These suggestions werc- submitted its finalized proposal fbr the LLttlrcranBook of taken up and explored by Timothy Quill in his book ?"he Worship to each of the member churcheslbr oflicial ap- Impact of the Liturgical Movement on Americun Luther- provaland publication.By thattime, however, theological anism (1997). Quill uncoveredsome archival evidence andpolitical upheavals within the MissouriSynod had led suggestingthat Missouri's worship commissionhad co- that church to question its relationship with the other vertly negotiatedan arrangementwith worship leadersof Lutheranchurches in general,including its involvenrentin the ALC and LCA, and then orchestratedthe synodical the Inter-LutheranCommission on Worship in particular. rcsolution(13-01) at the Conventionin 1965 that called As a result,in l91l the Synod chosenot to approvethe for a cooperativeeffbrt with the other Lutheran churches. worship book until a closer examinationof its contents I have had opportunity to pursue the leads off-eredby could be undertaken.By the time the book was published Brown, Horn, and Quill in the courseof doing researchfor in the fall of 1978,the Synod had eff'ectivelyremoved it- my doctoral dissertationat the University of Notre Dame. self from the processand had already begun the prepara- With extensivearchival research, and with accessto mul- tion and development of a "revised" Lutheran Book of tiple sourcesof additional evidence,the story of the begin- Worshipfor the use of its congregations. ning of the Inter-Lutheran Commission on Worship has Belying this fairly straightforwardhistory, the Missouri becomeclearer. It is also clear that the role of the Missouri Synodinvolvement in the Inter-LutheranCommission on Synod in those early developmentswas more ambiguous Worship was actually a tragicomedy of errors. From the than anyone has heretoforesupposed. The ambiguity per- way it began, to the way it ended, and in the waryit pro- sistedthroughout the ensuing decadc of the Comrnission's
LUTHTRANI-ORUM 43 work; so that, in retrospect,the unfortunateparting of the that time, but the Synod voted nonethelessto go that route. Missouri Synod from the Commissionappears to be a logi- ln l9l7 the worshipcommission expressed its strongand cal consequenceof a tenuousrelationship. unanimousendorsement of the Lutheran Bookof Worship, Therehas neverbeen any lack of opinionsconcerning but the Synod said,No. we're not ready to acceptthe book, Missouri'swithdrawal from the Inter-LutheranCommis- becausethere are still unresolvedquestions and concerns sion on Worship and its rejcction of the Lutheran Book of aboutit. In eachcase, the Synod in Conventionexcrcised Wor.ship.There were many people who were pleasedto its prerogativenot to follow the recommendationof its seean end to its involvementin the pan-Lutheranenter- worshipcommission. One cannotapplaud the decisionof prise.Most of thesepeople, apparently, had no qualmsabout the 196-5Convention and at the sametime criticize the 1917 theway in which thatoutcome was achieved. On theother Conventionfbr wielding suchauthority. side,those who were committedin principleand practice It must also be said that in spiteof thc obviousdiffer- to the goalsand contributionsof the C-'onrnrissionwere little encesbetween the synodicalactions of 1965 and 1977, intcrcstedin any of the criticisms that had been raised concernsfbr f-ellowshipwere an overriding fhctor in each againstthe LuthercmBookof Worship.Therewas aclearly case-as they werc, in lact, throughout the history of the partisanspirit on both sides,each convincedof its own Inter-LutheranCommission on Worship! It is disingenu- wisdom and integrity.It was not a situationconducive to ousto decrythose concerns of Missouri in l9ll asthough opendiscussion and objective debate. The MissouriSynod they werc irrelevantor out of placc with respectto the in- was deeply and emotionallydivided on this issue,as on tentionsand ef'fortsof the Commission.In fact. "fcllow- otherissues pcrtaining to thc Synod'srelationship with the ship concerns"(of a difl'crentmind. to be surc) were a otherchurches. primary motivation for the fbrmation of the Commission On the part of those who supportedthc Inter-Lutheran in the first place. Some have gone so far as to hold that Commission on Worship and advocatedthe adoption o1' there is no other reason for such a cooperative hymnal the Lutheran Book 44 UNA SANCTA,/FALL 2OO3 and sharea common book with thosewho do not yet share nal, which was responsiblefor the Sen'iceBook artclHym- a commonconfession. (It bearsmention that the Missouri nal (1958'),began in a deliberateway as early as 1962. Synod was formed in largepart by Gennan Lutheranswho Afier Henry Horn succcededhis brother,Edward T. Horn came to North America in order to escapc the Prussian lII, as the chairmanof that joint commission,he was in Union and its Lutheran-Reformedservice books.) Others regularconmunication with WalterBuszin, the chairman may well disagreewith Missouri's principlesof fellow- of Missouri worshipcommission. These two mcn. in par- ship,but it wor.rldhardly be fair to deny it the right to hold ticular,were instrumental in establishinga relationship be- to its own principlesand to conductitself accordingly. tween their respectivecommissions and dcveloping an It is true that the Missouri Synodshified in its position arr.rngementfbr mutual cooperation.From mid-1962 andpractice from I 965 to 1917in relationto otherchurches, through1965, Horn andBuszin made steady progress with and one may debateat which point it was acting more in their plans,which, by the tinte ol-the 196-5Convention. accordwith its principles.The fact, however,remains that promisedto fosterserious liturgical scholarship, theologi- the Inter-LutheranCommission on Worship, as it emerged cal discussion,the developntentof sharedLutheran re- and went about its work. was nol what the Conventionin sourcesfor worship,and an optimistic hopc for evengreater 1965had called tbr. That is to say,the work andthe results unity in the future.Theoretically, thc Inter-LutheranCom- of the Commission were no lessa shift from 1965to 1977 missionon Worshipcould havcnrovsd fbrward within this than were the attitudeand actionsof the Missouri Synod trajectoryand built on this foundation.Instead, it started over that sameperiod. It remainsto be spelledout the ways liom scratchwith difl-ercntpeople and different plans. in which the Commissiondeviated from the intentionsof In order to undcrstandthe divergencc of the lntcr- thc Synod,as voiced in 1965.Suffice it to say that it was LutheranCommission on Worship fiom what had previ- not only concernsabout fellowship that raisedrcd flags ously been plannedand acconrpli.shed,it is necessaryto andreservations for Missouri:it was alsoa reactionto the understandthe circumstzrncesin which all ol'this washap- discontinuitybetween the Comrnission's proposals and thc pening.Simply stated,there were differing goals and agen- Synod'sheritage of liturgy and hymnody. das at work and diff-erencesof opinion, both within Missouri'sworship comrnission and in relationto theother churches,which led to tcnsionsand conllicting plansgo- The Beginningsof the ILCW ing into 1965.Where Buszin and Horn haddone their best Popularwisdom has held that the Intcr-LutheranCommis- to accommodatediverse interestsand concerns.the Corn- sion on Worship marked the beginningof cooperativepan- missionattemptcd to pursuea narrowcourse. Lutheran etlbrts arnong the Lutheran Church-Missouri Since the late-1950s,Missouri's worship cclmmission Synod,the ArnericanLutheran Church and the Lutheran had beenplanning for and working toward a revisionof Churchin America in mattersof liturgy and worship.The The LtrtheranHymnal ( l94l ). To that end, severalstand- impetusbehind the Conrmissionhas long beenheld to bc ing cornmittceshad beenformed to deal with such l'natters Resolutionl3-01 at the 1965Convention. In fact.the Conr- asthe liturgy and hymn textsand tuncs.Thc hynrnodycorn- mission was neitlrcr a Missouri Synod initiative nor the mittees,howevcr, were really pushingfbr rlorc extrelva- beginning of coopcration among the three churches. gant improvements and developmentsthan "revision" Thc Commissionactually diffcred in somestriking ways would normallysLrggest or imply.In particularPaul Bunjes, liom that which the Missouri Synod had proposedand in- a memberof the worshipcommission and thc chairmanof tendedin I96-5.What is nrore,inasmuch as the Commis- the hymn tunescommitlee, was deterrninedto advancean sion was the beginning of something new. it was likewise elaboratemulti-volume plan involving a numberof hyrn- the abandonment of prior concerted eflbrts that had bcen nal editionsfbr a variety of purposes(for organ,piano, undertakenand pursued for several years by the worship and choir, in addition to a pew edition). In fact, Bunjes ctlmmissionersof the threechurches. Those efft>rt.s had laid pursuedthese plans in oppositionto the sintplerand more the groundwork and prepared the way for what became straightfbrward efforts of Walter Buszin, his friend and the Inter-LutheranConrmission on Worship,but they were colleague.Buszin was therebydriven to f-rustrationand swept aside and forgotten with the beginning of the new eventually compelled to seekalternative approaches to thc inter-Lutherancommission. work of thc rvorshipcomrnission. Contactsbetween Missouri's worship commission and Meanwhile, the liturgy committee under the leadership thejointALC-LCA Cornmissionon the Liturgy and Hym- of HerbertLindemann was eaqerto learnfrom and follow LUTH ERAN FORLINl 45 the exampleof LCA liturgicalscholars, especially as rep- Missouri Synodcould learnsomething liturgical from the resentedin the highly-regardedService Book and Hymnal. LCA, which would benetltthe Synod'sworship commis- In harmonywith that liturgicalinfluence, Lindemann and sionin its work, while theALC andLCAcould surelylearn his committee were also enamoredof the pan-Lutheran somethingmusical from the MissouriSynod. Buszin's de- idealsrepresented by that book, which stoodat the leading sire and goirl were for mutual study, sharing of research edgeof the "Muhlenbergtradition." In theeighteenth cen- and resources,growth in understanding,and increasedunity tury Henry Melchior Muhlenberghad advocateda vision of faith and confession,doctrine and practice. of one Lutheranservice book and hymnal fbr one united Buszin was ce'rtainlynot opposedto the idea of "one Lutheranchurch in America. With theseperspectlves, the book for one church," but he did not believethat such a liturgycomn.rittee of Missouri'sworship colnnrission urged goal could or shouldbe the plnceto start.Instead, the de- that the Synod should abandonits plans for revision of velopmentof a sharedtheology of liturgy and hymnody T'heLutheran Hymnal and requestthe assistanceand co- must comc flrst; and only then, on that common founda- operation of the I-CA and ALC in the development of a tion, could sharedresources for worshipbe developedand common liturgy.ln light of the extravagantpursuits of the produced.Buszin was not reticentbut willing and increas- hymncldycommittees, and nrildly awareof Buszin'sf'rus- ingly eagerto beginworking towardthose long-rangc goals. trationson that front, the liturgy committec lbrmally re- But he remainedcautious and always very carc-lulabout questedthat a pan-Lutheranproject be commendedto the the way in which the hymnody in particularought to be upcomingConvention ( 1965).It was f'eltthat such a move, handled.That concern would be a key to what happenedin instcad crf revising I'he Lutlrcrun Hymnul, would resolve the summcrol' ltl6-5. thedeveloping dissension within thc worshipcommission. Buszin'ssounterpart, Henry lJorn, did not at all share The proposalfrom thc liturgy committeen.ret with re- the Missouri perspectiveon hynrnr>dy,but he was syrnpa- sistanceand was not adoptedby thc worshipcourmission. thetic to the dili'icultiesand frustrationsinvolved. (Horn There were particular concerns on the part of individual appreciatedAngl 46 UNA SANCTA,/ FAt-L2OO3 of resourcesand expertisein order to achieveand articu- to make its contribution to the broad field of Lutheran lit- late a conrmon theologicalperspective and position,and urgy and hymnody.More pointedly,the worshipconrmis- on that basisto infbrm the developmentof common rites sion insistedthat it would not be f'easibleor advisableto andceremonies, texts and tunes. Early in 1965,joint study attempta pan-Lutherancollection of hymns eiven the di- groupsin the areasof liturgical textsand liturgicalmusic versity amongthe churchesin that area.In the main, this had been establishedand were set to begin working. By wasthe official positionof the worshipcomnrission going intention, there had not yet been any attempt to form a into the 1965 Convention.Within a few months of the joint study group in the areaof hynrnody.ln spiteof that Convention,however. Buszin arrived at a new conclusion, remaining disappointmentand frustration,the liturgical which he advocatedbefore the pertinentfloor committce. study groups rcpresentedsolid stepsof progressin pan- Buszin proposedthat the Luthcranchurches work to- Lutherancooperation. gether in the developmentof a "core hymnal" (Stunm- Notwithstandingthe progress achicved with thefbrrna- ctusgabe)--abasic collection of essentialLuthcran hyrnns tion of thejoint studygroups, there were increasingpres- (perhaps 200-300). Togcther, the churches would reach suresmounting for more extensivecooperation. The agreementon common textsand tunesfor thcsecore hymns, executivcsof the ALC and LCA worship comnrissions, so thatall the Lutheransin North Americanwould be ablc Mandus Egge and Edgar Brown, agitatedfor a morc com- to sing their hymns with one voice. Then, in additionto prchensiveand direct effbrt to achievc the Muhlenberg this cornnroncore. each ol-the churcheswould havc its dreamofone book fbr one church. On both a personaland own particularcollcction of hymns reflectingits heritage prol'essionallevel, Egge and Brown promotedthe possi- andideals. In thisway, the MissouriSynod could preserve. bility of a fuller pan-Lutheran project that would go be- protect,and continue to sing its Gennan-Lutheranchorales yond the comparativelynrodest aspirations ol'the study while thc ALC and LCA could pressrvethcir respr-ctive groups.These mcn worked especiallyhard to encourage traditionsof Scandinavianand Anglo-Americanhymns. Buszinand Lindenrannto bring a completchalt to the re- This Stammaus.gobeapproach was basically that of vari- vision of Thc LutheranHymnul, and to advocatean inter- ousGcnnan territorial churches. As far asBusztn was con- Lutheranproject. Lindenrann was easilyconvinced, as he cerned,it offered not only a conrpronrisebut the ideal sharedthe samevision and goalsfbr "pan-Lutheranisrn." solution.Thus, he seemsto have had in rnind the forma- Buszinremained nrorc cautious and hesitant to pushthings tion of a thirdjoint studygroup with thc ALC and LCA- too far or too fast. one that would begin work on the common core of hymn On a larger scale,there were other factors contributing textsand tunes.Such was the approachthat he advocated to the push fbr a pan-Lutheranproject. Two publications, on thecve ol'thcConvention. Unu Suncta and The Americun Lutherttn, lobbied hard Of course,Buszin's voice was notthe only decisivefac- againstrevision and tor a coopcrative effort by the three tor in the rcsolutiondratted fbr the 19(r5Convcntion by Lutheranchurches. Propaganda ofthis sor-tno doubt con- the floor committee.That committeehad in hand numer- tributedto the nunrberof ovcrturessubmitled fbr the 1965 ous overluresfrom acrossthe Synod, seekingconlnon Conventionthat calledfor the sameor similar actions:aban- causewith theother Lutheran churches in thc development don thc unilateralMissouri project and resolveto work of a new servicebook and hyrnnal.In addition,the f1oor with other Lutherans in cornmon cause. committeeheard fiom many individuals.especially tiorn ln responseto thcseincreasing pressurcs, couplcd with military arrdinstitutional chaplains, who pleadedfor pan- growing frustrationwith Paul Bunjes(and with other as- Lutheran liturgical resourcesand hymnody. In conjttnc- pectsof the hymnal revision),Walter Buszin proposeda tion with theseother pleas, Buszin's suggestion of a core compromisesolution. Missouri's worship commission had hyrnnal oftered a specific way of respondingto the ur-qent alreadyadopted and set fbrth a compromiseposition of its requestsof the church.Given his positionas the chairman own in its official report to the Convention.It had stated of the worship commissionand his personalrelationship suppofi for future pan-Lutheran effbrts and goals, but it as a close fiiend and senior colleaguewith Robert Bergt, had alsoexpressed the opinion that it was not yet time to who servedon the floor committee,Buszin's q'as "'oice move too quickly in that direction. Work on the revision of indeedquite influential.In any case,the resolutionput lbrth The Lutherun Hymnal had already been in progressfor a beforethe Convention.and adoptedthereby, clearly reflects number of years and was reportedly approachingcomple- thewisdom and input of Buszin.At least,that much is clear tion; hence,that work shouldnot be abandonedbut allowed when it is viewedin the light of prior developments.If thc LUTHERANFORUM 47 resolution is viewed only in hindsight, from the perspec- cially invited the other Lutheran churchesto cooperatein tive of what developedin and with the Inter-LutheranCom- the developmentof common resourcesfor worship, Brown mission on Worship, then it is far too easily misread and suppliedunsolicited recommendations and advice,and he misunderstood(as it almostalways has been since the be- worked especiallyhard to enlist the supportof Herbcrt ginningof theCommission). Lindemannfor his ideas.It was clearfrom the outsetthat When readcarefully in its propercontext, Resolution Brown was intenton somethingmore progressive than any l3-01 doesnot decreethc end of hymnal revisionor man- gradualbuilding uponthe previouslylaid groundwork.He date the creationof a single pan-Lutheranservice book was likewise interestedin moving beyond the already- and hymnal. Neitherdoes the resolutionspecily or imply shared heritage of the Lutheran past into a modern ecu- thc creationof a pan-Lutherancommission. Rather, it calls rnenical future. With his aggressivepersonality and fbr the Missouri Synod (throughits Presidentand his ap- approach,and possessingthe confldenceof Lindemann pointed representatives)to invite the other Lutheran within Missouri'sworship comnrission, Brown wasinstru- churchesto cooperatein the developmcnt of sharedlitur- mentalin shapingthe initial vision and agendaof the In- gical resourcesand a common core of hymns.These shared ter-l-utheranCommission on Worship. resourcesand common hymns would bc intendedfbr the In contrastto the apprehensionsinvolved in the pros- use of each of the participatingchurches within its own pect of pan-Lutheranhymnody, it was assumedthat a com- publications.Thus, lbr example,the Missouri Synod would mon orderand form of theHoly Communioncould readily publish,"under a singlecover," the commonorders of ser- be developedand agreed upon. In fact,the Missouri Synod vice,the common core of hymns, und "if necessary"a col- alreadyshared a common liturgicalheritage with theALC lcction of its own additionalhymns. (The "if necessary" andLCA in the Common Service,represented in both'lfte clausedoes qualify thc point in deferenceto those who Ltttheran Hymrul and thc Sen,iceBtxtk and Hymnal.The would have pref'erredto have everything in common. As single most important clifl-erencebctwccn thosetwo books theresolution stands, however, the provision is specifically and thcir respectiveorders of servicewas the inclusionof l-ora Missouri Synod book that would include hoth pan- a classicalEucharistic Prayer in lhe Servicellook and Hym- Lutheranmaterials andits own particularhymnody.) nul. For severalyears prior to the lnter-LutheranCommis- Resolution l3-01 can easily be understoodas little more sion on Worship,howcvcr, the Missouri Synod had been than a synodical endorsementof the very goals already moving towardthe introductionof similarprayers. By the establishedwith thc joint liturgical studygroups, but also time the Inter-LutheranComnrission on Worshipbegan irr including the important addition of similar eflbrts (and 1967,as many as five such prayers-including a modest perhapssirnilar study groups)in the areasof hymn texts revision of the Eucharistic Praycr in thc ScruiceBook uul and tunes.Indications are that Buszin himself,and possi- H,vmnal-had already been approved in principle and bly Henry Horn, interpretedthe resolution in mclreor less would subscqucntlybc publishedby the Synodin its Wor- this way. Yet, neitherBuszin nor Horn were ableto guide ship Supplementof 1969.Thus there was every reasonto the lbrmationor directionof the lnter-LutheranCommis- believethat a commonorder of service,including a shared sion on Worshipin the yearsthat fbllowed thc 1965Con- Eucharistic liturgy, would come out of the cooperativeel'- vention.Buszin was involved in a limited way at first, but fbrts of the Inter-LutheranCommission on Worship. his waning healthprevented him frorn takingan activeor For a varietyof reasons,the liturgicalwork and devel- lasting part. He was also disillusionedtairly quickly by opmentsof the Inter-LutheranCommission on Worship did the attitudethat he observedin EdgarBrown and Mandus not progressas initially expected.Its LiturgicalText Com- Egge, once they had what they wanted and plans fbr the mitteedid not beginwith nor build uponthe Common Ser- Commissionhad begun to take shape.Horn was simply vice tradition,but with the new insightsand developnrents bypassedfiom the start and left out of the Commission of the modernliturgical movements. Those outside influ- altogether(as was the joint Commissionon the Liturgy ences,however meet, right, and salutarythey may have and Hymnal). The newly-formed joint study groups were been in many cases.were bound to meet with resistance abandonedbefbre they had even begun to work. and opposition-as indeed they did. What is more, that Within a month of the Missouri Synod Convention, approachmeant building somethingnew from the ground Edgar Brown beganto insert himself into the processand up insteadof growing togetherout of the sharedLutheran plans involved in carrying out the synodical resolution. heritage.In theseaspects of the Commission'swork, one Although it was Missouri'sworship commission that offi- may seein part, the early influence of Edgar Brown on the 48 UNA SANCTA/ FALL)OO3 project, though he did not remain a major player in the worship.In preparationfor the 1977Convention, the per- inter-Lutheranventure beyond its flrst t-ewyears. tinent floor committee made its own assessmentof the pro- Once begun,the Inter-LutheranCommission on Wor- posed Lutheran Book of Worship and agreed with the ship assumeda political life of its own and proceededto recommendationsof the Commission on Theology and chart its own course,which took it well beyondnot only ChurchRelations. By thatpoint Preushad weighed in with theoriginal proposal and resolution of theMissouri Synod, his presidentialopinion, which echoedthat of the theol- but alsowell beyondthe goalsof Brown and Lindemann. ogy commission.The Convention itself, though deeply In fact, as Walter Buszin and Henry Horn had pavedthe divided on the issue,finally resolvedto have a "blue rib- way fbr what becamethe Inter-LutheranCommission on bon" committee appointed for yct anotherofficial review Worship,but then were left behind when it began,so did LUTHERANFORUM 49 dus of thosecongregations that formed the Association of ing, neither Missouri's review committeenor the Inter- EvangelicalLutheran Churches and with its degenerating LutheranCommission on Worship were of a mind to ne- church-f-ellowshipwith the ALC, that the Synod was not gotiatewith eachother, especially given the highly-charged much interestedin the dcvelopment of liturgical rites and climateof the times.So the secondoption as it was at first ceremonies.In 1975,a synodicalresolution dealing with understoodwas neverall that feasibleeither. thc Inter-LutheranCommission on Worship never even By Dccemberl9J7-several monthsprior to the offi- made it to the convention floor becausethe time was used cial Reportand Recommendationsof the SpecialHyrnnal up with issuesrelated to Seminex. Sadly, the Missouri Review Committee,and more thana yearand a half away Synod was largely under the impressionthat mattersof tiom the next synodicalconvention-it was alreadyclear worship aremore or lesstangential to the lif'eof the Church, that the Inter-LutheranComrnission on Worship would and that the liturgy is simply not by any meansas inher- proceedwith publication of the Lutheran Book of Wnrship ently importantas dogmatic theology. That view andopin- without the Missouri Synod,and that the Missouri Synod ion were exacerbatedfiom the top down by the example would revise the Lutherttn Book of Worship fbr its own of the synodicalpresidcnt, J. A. O. Preus,a capablesys- purposes.As of August I 978, a new worshipcomnrission tematic theologian who was regrettably apatheticto litur- had been appointedby the synodicalpresident (since all gicaltheology and practicc. That sort ol'Norwegian pictism but one of the memberso1 the previouscommission had in Missouri'sadn.rinistration thcilitated a pervasiveinflu- resigned),and it beganthe difflcult taskol-trying to recon- ence of the Norwegianpietism of the ALC (itself under cile two diff'erentgoals: to correct lhe l.utheron Book of anotherPreus administration). Ironically, at a time when Wtrship while retainingas much of it as possible. conservativetheology was pulling the Synod away from What the Missouri Synod endedup with in Lutheran l-cllowshipwith theALC, it was neverthelesswide opento Worshipis indeeda revision of the Lutherun Book oJ'Wtr- the "liturgical theology"of the ALC. ship, bul thcrc arc dif'fcrcncesas well-too many to de- scribehere. If one considersonly the ordcrsof the Holy Comnrunion,Lutheron Wrship docsinclude a forrnof the Missouri Apart from the ILCW Common Service(a revisiono1'the fbrm in The Lulheran With Resolution3-01A. the 1917 Conventioncalled fbr Hymnal), which is altogethermissing in theLtttheron B 50 UNA SANCTA/ FALL2Oo3 In sum, Lutheron Worship includes an order of service As the Lutheran churcheslook to the future, there are liom the Lutheron Book ofWorsftrp, which (though some- other questionsto be asked and more to be learnedalong what revised)is sharedin contntonwith the vastmujority theway. With thatin mind,I oll'erone final comment.While of NorthAmerican Lutherans. Alongside this pan-Lutheran the Inter-LutheranCommission on Worship u'as heavily order,Lrrtheran Worshipincludes its fbrnt of the Common influencedby the developmentsof the modernliturgical Service,thus preservinga Lutheranheritage that is both movernent,the Missouri Synod has usually prefen'eda historicand "American" in pedigree.With this combina- Lutheranconfessional approach. What has not yet been tion, Lutlteran Wrship is not fhr from the intentionsof the resolvedis how a confessionalapproach rnight also lclrn 1965Convention, which envisioneda MissouriSynod ser- from and incorporatethe historicaland exegeticalinsights vice book incorporatingpan-Lutheran worship fbrms. of thc modernliturgical nloventent while retainingits own Likewise, with respectto its collection of hyrnns, particularidentity and integrity.It shouldnot bc necessary Lutheran Wrship may be understoodas the combination to choosebetween conf'essional integrity and broader schol- of a "core hymnal" in cornnronwith the LutlrcremBook of arship.At leasthistorically. Luthcran theologians havc been Worship and a selection of r>therhyntns important to willing and ableto learnlionr and to cttntributeto thebest Missouri'sown interests.If that soundslike an echoof the of scholarshipin all aspectsof theology. Stammausgttbethat Walter Buszin had proposedand rcc- ommendedin 196-5,pcrhaps that realizationought to give l). RtcttnHo S'rucxwtscH i.s Pustor of Ennnus EvanT4eliculLutherun somepause for thought.Buszin would likely not havcbeen Church in South Rt'nl, Indiana. He rtc<'ntly rct:eiyt,d a dtx'tonttt in litur- plcasedat the way in which the Missor.rriSynod and the gicul studie.sfronr tht Llniversityof N LUTHERAN FORLI,\,I 51