sign in sign up
<<
Home , Augsburg Interim, Churchmanship, Formula of Concord, Responsory

Le x Or a n d i Le x Cr e d e n d i

Th e Co n f e s s i o n al In d i ff e r e n c e t o Al t i t u d e

Robert D. Hawkins

t astounds me that, in the twenty-two years I have shared Catholics, as the Ritualists were known, formed the Iresponsibility for the liturgical formation of seminarians, of England Protection Society (1859), renamed the English I have heard Lutherans invoke the terms “” Church Union (1860), to challenge the authority of English and “” as if they actually describe with clar- civil law to determine ecclesiastical and liturgical practice.1 ity ministerial positions regarding worship. It is assumed The Church Association (1865) was formed to prosecute in that I am “high church” because I teach worship and know civil court the “catholic innovations.” Five Anglo-Catholic how to fire up a censer. On occasion I hear acquaintances priests were jailed following the 1874 enactment of the mutter vituperatively about “low church” types, apparently Public Worship Regulation Act for refusing to abide by civil ecclesiological life forms not far removed from amoebae. court injunctions regarding liturgical practices. Such prac- On the other hand, a history of the South Carolina Synod tices included the use of altar crosses, candlesticks, stoles included a passing remark about liturgical matters which with embroidered crosses, bowing, genuflecting, or the use historically had been looked upon in the region with no lit- of the sign of the cross in blessing their congregations.2 tle suspicion. It was feared upon my appointment, I sense, For readers whose ecclesiological sense is formed by that my supposed “high ” would distract notions about the separation of church and state, such the seminarians from the rigors of pastoral ministry into prosecution seems mind-boggling, if not ludicrous. And mindless “chancel prancing.” My experience, I assume, is it should be noted that all contemporary Lutheran posi- not much different from many others, no matter what the tions on liturgical altitude, high and low alike, embrace the liturgical altitude thought godly or sinful. ubiquitous brass altar cross, stoles, candlesticks, blessing of “High church” and “low church” are thought to serve congregations, and kneeling, which further reveals the on- as comprehensive and dependable descriptors of very spe- going confusion about the terms within . Nev- cific ways of doing church. This includes the relationship ertheless, the high church/low church crisis was dependent of preaching and the sacraments, questions regarding for- upon a formalizing of theologically conflicting interpreta- mal and casual bearing, vestments, “smells and bells,” a tions of prayerbook rubrics into political positions, virulent sense of the interconnectedness of the church, the ministe- because of the moral certitude of each party. Each party rial office, and the ministry of the . While the terms sought juridically to impose its position as the authentic are invoked as if they are self-evident in meaning, from the position of the . standpoint of the Lutheran Confessions they are at best For Lutherans versed in confessional history, the attempt “indifferent,” but more probably misleading and divisive. to claim one liturgical style as the authentic one should Properly understood, they have absolutely no place in invoke memories of the Augsburg Interim, one of the most Lutheran theological and liturgical discourse. significant confessional crises of the sixteenth century. To “High church” and “low church” designations emerged understand fully the Lutheran confessional position regard- during the bitter ecclesiological struggles of the Church ing the liturgy, five documents are crucial: 1) the explanation of England culminating in the mid-nineteenth century of the third commandment in the Large Catechism, 1529; and have little meaning outside those disputes (despite the 2) Article v i i of the , “Concerning the views expressed on Wikipedia!). They were political labels, Church” (satis est), 1530; 3) Article x x i v of the Augsburg rallying points for two ministerial parties, the Evangelicals Confession, “Concerning the Mass”; 4) Article x x v i of the and the Ritualists, who engaged in lengthy and rancour- Augsburg Interim, “On the Ceremonies and the Use of ous disputes about prayerbook reforms. Was the Book of the Sacraments,” 1548; and 5) Article x of the Formula of Common Prayer an evangelical “Protestant Book” or did it Concord, “Concerning Ecclesiastical Practices: Which Are allow for more “catholic” ritual which would result in what Called or Indifferent Matters,” 1577. many feared would be a “return to Rome”? The Anglo- Much of the acrimony in recent Lutheran worship wars

26 Fa l l 2008 actually is reminiscent of the Anglican ments.” At first glance the document So it does not appear that the Mass is disputes of the nineteenth century. seems fairly irenic: solid preaching, held with greater devotion among our Lutherans claiming “low church” alle- careful teaching, and frequent com- adversaries than among us.”8 Article giance discover in the “it is enough” of munion of the assembly are encour- x x i v expects that whatever the choices Article v i i of the Augsburg Confession aged, issues enthusiastically embraced made, they are to demonstrate fidelity and in the adiaphora discussion of by the reformers. Nevertheless, the to the liturgical witness of Holy Scrip- Article x of the assumption that the canon of the ture, to the church catholic, and to the a theological for viewing mass had reached apostolic perfection early church writers.9 careful liturgical grounding and prep- prompted the Interim to legislate the Article v i i of the Augsburg Con- aration as incidental, perhaps even following: “The canon, in which noth- fession, “Concerning the Church,” a distraction from a proper focus on ing is to be changed... The ceremo- includes “it is enough,” a phrase often the Word—or a stifling of the Spirit. nies of the other sacraments should used to justify a minimalist under- So-called “high church” Lutherans be conducted according to the direc- standing of worship as the evangelical invoke Article x x i v of the Augsburg tions of the ancient agendas.”5 Juridi- ideal. Confession as proof that “catholic” cal imposition of specific ceremonial [I]t is enough [satis est] for the substance and ceremony is appropri- or liturgical texts by imperial decree true unity of the Church to ate, since “the Mass is retained among seemed to the reformers a betrayal agree concerning the teaching us and is celebrated with the greatest of evangelical freedom “as if their of the gospel and the adminis- reverence. Almost all the customary omission were wrong and sinful”—a tration of the sacraments. It is ceremonies are also retained.”3 betrayal no less true with latter-day not necessary that human tradi- Rather than lobbing confessional Lutheran defense of either “high tions, rites, or ceremonies insti- terms out of context, it is helpful to church” or “low church” positions to tuted by human beings be alike describe the Confessions’ somewhat the exclusion of the other.6 Again, the everywhere.10 complex embrace of the liturgy, begin- context for the reformers’ rejection of ning with the oft-quoted Article x of the Interim, particularly Article x x v i , One must take care to determine spe- the Formula of Concord. It must be rests on defining a liturgical style as cifically what the reformers understand remembered that the general thrust the hallmark of orthodoxy, whatever to be “enough.” Absolute uniformity of all the confessional documents is the altitude. is rejected because congregations to defend the evangelical doctrine of Article x x i v of the Augsburg Con- themselves are not uniform in abili- justification, the “article on which the fession reveals that the reformers were ties or resources.11 However, the tra- church stands or falls.” While other liturgical conservationists, although ditions, rites, or ceremonies in and of issues are indeed addressed, they are flexible in what ceremonies might themselves are not rejected (cf. Article discussed insofar as they relate to jus- be retained. While their chief con- x x i v ). Instead, following Luther, the tification. Even the closely connected cern was to reestablish a more lively reformers place the burden of proof doctrine of , understood engagement with the Word in wor- on the parishes and to dem- as the manner in which justification is ship, the numerous Agenden (liturgical onstrate that their worship reflects “a appropriated and embodied in the life orders) printed in Emil Sehling’s mon- true and complete sign” of God’s sav- of the church, is mentioned only in umental collection7 demonstrate that ing presence in their midst.12 What is passing.4 Thus, the Confessions frame “almost all the customary ceremonies at stake is neither uniformity nor ram- all issues in terms of the one ultimate are also retained,” despite regional pant freedom from liturgical order, question: how does God effect salva- and municipal variants. Rather than but full and faithful embodiment of tion? Anything other than God’s sav- juridical imposition, Article x x i v God’s gracious work “for us and for ing work in by the Spirit’s places the burden of proof for the our salvation.” The Word, proclaimed power is deemed “indifferent” when liturgical choices on the parishes and and sacramental, is always an embod- salvation is the focus. It is in this sense their clergy. Anticipating Article x of ied Word. “It is enough” is therefore alone that all aspects of the liturgy are the 1577 Formula, any ex opere operato, not a minimalist reduction but rather “indifferent matters” since they are i.e. mechanistic understanding of the theological code language for careful not the agents of God’s saving work. liturgy as the meritorious agent of and fervent liturgical consideration Only God is. God’s saving action is rejected. Rather, of “the whole Christ” present as the The 1548 Augsburg Interim, an the liturgy and its ceremonial is for proclaimed and sacramental Word, abortive attempt to repair the rift the “instruction of the people” and employing the best resources and abili- between Rome and the reformers, was “increases reverence and respect for ties of any given “assembly of saints.” rejected by the Lutheran movement in public ceremonies.” “Such worship Finally, Luther’s Large Catechism’s part because of Article x x v i , “On the pleases God, and the use of the sac- explanation of the third command- Ceremonies and the Use of the Sacra- rament cultivates piety toward God. ment, “You are to hallow the day of

Lu t h e r a n Fo r u m 27 rest,” rounds out the Lutheran under- entertaining addition to the Word, the sionally, to choose, for example, not to standing of the liturgy. As with all his liturgy, rightly and evangelically per- make the sign of the cross is no more reforming pamphlets regarding the ceived, serves as the very embodiment virtuous than signing oneself or bless- liturgy, Luther’s chief concern is to of the living Word calling and sancti- ing the congregation. Whatever is reestablish a lively engagement with fying God’s holy people as proclama- done (or not done) is to be weighed the living Word in public worship for tion, sacrament, prayer, and praise. carefully, always with the hope “that laity and clergy alike. The “day of These confessional principles for God’s Word may exert its power pub- rest” is not an invitation to spiritual liturgy therefore suggest several things licly” through such choices. or liturgical bone-idleness. Sundays, for our worship practices today. Third: confessionally, there is no and by extension, festival days are First, the liturgy, properly under- universally ideal pattern of liturgical observed “so that [the faithful] may stood, is the carefully considered, and ceremonial embodiment—thus assemble to hear and discuss God’s prepared, and enacted embodiment there is neither “high church” nor Word and then to offer praise, song, of the living Word as proclamation, “low.” Rather, the Confessions adopt and prayer to God.”13 To “hallow the sacrament, prayer, and praise—the Paul’s understanding developed in his day” is to do holy things. For Luther, meeting place of God and the faith- letter to the Colossians: that means the stuff of the liturgy, ful. Unlike recent bitter disputes As you therefore received “the ten commandments, the , concerning , the bibli- Christ Jesus the Lord, con- and the Lord’s Prayer,” even crossing cal Word cannot simply be reduced tinue to live your lives in him, oneself, and, as he discusses elsewhere, to normative text while its ecclesial rooted and built up in him and a lively celebration of the means of embodiment is ignored. We discover, established in the faith, just grace. Remembrance of holy for example, in Paul’s first letter to the as you were taught, abound- is “the daily garment”; the baptized Corinthians, chapters ten to sixteen, ing in thanksgiving... There- “should receive [holy communion] that the patterns of baptizing, com- fore do not let anyone condemn frequently.”14 He dismisses mindless muning, and gathering as church are you in matters of food and “chancel prancing” and questionable normative and, in fact, pre-date this drink or of observing festivals, devotional practices based on legend particular biblical text. Paul assumes new moons, or sabbaths. These and myth because they are innovations that the Corinthian community, frac- are only a shadow of what is to and not part of the great sweep of the tious though it be, is nonetheless fully come, but the substance belongs liturgical tradition. The innovations conversant with and able to enact to Christ. (2:6; 16–17) are not substitutes for preaching and baptism, the , preaching, and practicing God’s Word. Conversely, evangelism as self-evident expressions The goal of the Church’s liturgi- the liturgical core of the western rite of what it means to be the church. cal observances is to embody what is indeed accepted as the evangelical Chapters ten and eleven do not estab- Luther would on occasion call “the embodiment of faith—thus Luther’s lish practice; they are reminders of whole Christ.” Such embodiment and the Confessions’ many comments already faithful praxis. is contextual, dependent upon the about “retaining” this and that. Second, the liturgy embodies who resources and best insights and plan- Far from being targeted as “matters and what the Christian community is, ning of a given people for a particular of indifference” or seeking supposed not what it is not. Liturgical embodi- occasion at a particular time. The lit- evangelical refuge in minimalism, ment includes both the embracing or urgy may be “only a shadow of what Luther summarizes for the church the choosing not to embrace various litur- is to come,” only “a foretaste,” but purpose and value of the liturgy: gical actions and ceremonial customs. nevertheless it is the faithful embodi- The sixteenth century liturgical strug- ment of the living Word for a people In this case, however, a work gles were complex exactly because eschatologically oriented to the lavish must take place through which a much of the liturgical embodiment of banquet of heaven. Thus the Confes- person becomes holy. This work, the reformers remained (and remains) sions insist that fidelity to the liturgical as we have heard, takes place identical to that of the western Roman tradition is not a matter of indiffer- through God’s Word. Places, Catholic practice. “But that’s cath- ence, but the sign that Christ’s peace times, persons, and the entire lick!” or “That’s Baptist!” are specious does “rule in your hearts, to which outward order of worship have arguments as far as the Confessions indeed you were called in one body” therefore been instituted and are concerned, besides being rude (Colossians 3:15). That gracious rule is appointed in order that God’s and divisive chatter ecumenically. The established in God’s baptismal act of Word may exert its power pub- tendency to universalize one’s own in-gathering, by which the formative licly.15 liturgical comfort zone while vilifying process into the image and likeness of Neither rejected as “incidental” to other practices is simply a glib attempt Christ is formally accomplished. So the Word nor embraced as simply an to impose one’s own position. Confes- formed, such an assembly hungers for

28 Fa l l 2008 the Word proclaimed and embodied for St. Stephen, King of Hungary Liturgy (London: MacMillan, 1969), 197. The eucharistically. These, if the New Tes- in South Bend, Indi- Evangelical Succession in the Church of England, ed. tament canon is to be trusted, remain ana. Established to serve Hungarian D. N. Samuel, (London: James Clarke & Co., Ltd., 1979) provides an overview of Anglican the clearest, most reliable ways God is automobile workers, it was largely Evangelicals and the Ritualist Controversy encountered. populated by retired people who con- seen from their perspective. Fourth, the Christian community tinued many of their ethnic customs. 2. Dom Anselm Hughes, The Rivers of the gathered and formed by the living St. Stephen’s also enjoyed a ministry Flood (London: Faith Press, 1961), 21f. Dom Word will, because of the Spirit’s myr- among young Latino migrant work- Hughes offers a personal account of his par- ticipation in the catholic movement of the iad gifts and the creator’s manifold ers, resulting in rather unusual juxta- twentieth century in the aftermath of the nine- diversity so evident in any assembly, positions of lively Hispanic folk music, teenth century controversy. celebrate differently at different times including native dance and vesture, 3. “The Augsburg Confession,” Article and in different places. However, with a more reserved Hungarian piety x x i v , in The : The Confessions of diversity is our present reality, not our serenaded by a small choir of grand- the Evangelical Lutheran Church, eds. Robert Kolb Christian calling. The much maligned mothers. However, ask anyone in the and Timothy J. Wengert (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 69.1–2. “unity in diversity” slogan is often an parish about the diversity within the 4. My dissertation, The Liturgical Expression excuse to justify entrenched positions rite, and they would answer that it of Sanctification: The Hymnic Complement to the and relativism regarding far more than was simply “the mass.” Mariachi-style Lutheran Concordia (South Bend: Notre Dame, the liturgy. Another sign of the Spirit’s band members and quietly kneeling 1988) explores the liturgical and specifically work is the community’s openness to retired auto workers gathered together hymnic language commended by The Book of Concord. learn and to strive for a fuller unfold- as one body in the Lord. Their pieties 5. Article x x v i , “On the Ceremonies and ing of the Word. The Confessions’ and preferred ceremonial became the Use of the Sacraments,” The Augsburg utter rejection of one authentic litur- transparent to each other. Various Interim, 1548, Sources and Contexts of The Book of gical embodiment, along with juridi- languages, dance, and repeated genu- Concord, eds. Robert Kolb and James A. Nestin- cal canons to impose such ceremonial flections did not serve to block sight of gen (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 179. 6. Article x or lack of the same, is ultimately an brothers and sisters in faith nor their , “Formula of Concord: Solid Declaration,” in The Book of Concord, 638.15. evangelical act. Lord. So it should be—and Lutherans 7. Emil Sehling, Evangelische Kirchenordnungen Fifth and finally, far from being in have much to learn from such gra- des x v i . Jahrhunderts (Aalen: Scientia, 1902ff.). general “matters of indifference,” the cious humility. 8. Article x x i v , in The Book of Concord, Confessions’ list of adiaphora offers The Palestrina Matin Responsory, 69.9. the church both a vocabulary and made popular by the King’s College 9. Ibid., 70.34–38. 10. Article v i i , in The Book of Concord, 43.2– patterns of embodiment which pro- Choir in Cambridge, England, offers 3. vide the narrative for this journey of a final word of guidance, correction, 11. Luther’s discussion in “The German faith. Contextual, they demand both and hope to liturgical factions. Mass,” 1526, regarding diversity among con- humility and careful consideration so gregational types and the necessity of liturgi- High and low, rich and poor, that they can communicate as clearly cal alternatives, informs the Augustana’s later one with another, discussion. as possible the church’s worshipful Go ye out to meet him and say: 12. , “The Holy and Blessed encounter with the risen Lord. For ...Stir up thy strength, Sacrament of Baptism,” Luther’s Works, Ameri- some, the narrative will be detailed O Lord, and come!17 can Edition, 55 vols., eds. J. Pelikan and H. and exuberant since God has crafted Lehmann (St. Louis and Philadelphia: Con- them so. For others, the narrative will Whether “high” or “low,” “rich” or cordia and Fortress, 1955ff.), 35:29. remain simple, reserved, and cau- “poor,” God’s insistent call is to ven- 13. Martin Luther, “The Third Command- ment,” The Large Catechism, in The Book of tious so that they too might inhabit ture beyond our carefully defended Concord, 397.84. 16 the journey with authenticity. Lav- diversity, to go out “one with another” 14. Martin Luther, “Baptism,” 466.84, and ish or simple, liturgical embodiment is to plead for the Lord’s . What- “The Sacrament of the Altar,” 470.39–40, authentic if it serves to open the Word ever our choices or presumed altitude, The Large Catechism, in The Book of Concord. 15. “The Ten Commandments,” The Large ever more clearly and fully to a par- this is the goal of the liturgy. LF ticular people at a particular time in a Catechism, in The Book of Concord, 399.94. 16. Martin Marty, A Cry of Absence: Reflections particular place. This does mean that Ro b e r t D. Ha w k i n s is the Leonora for the Winter of the Heart (San Francisco: Harper, the liturgy focuses us on the entirety G. McClurg Professor of Worship 1993) reflects on piety which can sustain the of life and human experience lived and Music at the Lutheran Theologi- practitioner but inadvertently oppresses or dis- in God’s presence, not on a sanitized cal Southern Seminary in Columbia, tracts the other if imposed exclusively. “Sunday School” approach to faith South Carolina. 17. “Matin Responsory,” 2, eds. and John Rutter (Oxford: which keeps the world and God at a Oxford, 1970), 68ff. safe distance. Notes On occasion I served as organist 1. Geoffrey J. Cuming, A History of Anglican

Lu t h e r a n Fo r u m 29