LEX OR A NDI LEX CREDENDI THE CON F ESSION al INDI ff ERENCE TO AL TITUDE Robert D. Hawkins t astounds me that, in the twenty-two years I have shared Catholics, as the Ritualists were known, formed the Church Iresponsibility for the liturgical formation of seminarians, of England Protection Society (1859), renamed the English I have heard Lutherans invoke the terms “high church” Church Union (1860), to challenge the authority of English and “low church” 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 churchmanship” 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 Lutheranism. 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 laity. 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 Church of England. 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 VII of the Augsburg Confession, “Concerning the views expressed on Wikipedia!). They were political labels, Church” (satis est), 1530; 3) Article XXIV of the Augsburg rallying points for two ministerial parties, the Evangelicals Confession, “Concerning the Mass”; 4) Article XXVI 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 Adiaphora or Indifferent Matters,” 1577. many feared would be a “return to Rome”? The Anglo- Much of the acrimony in recent Lutheran worship wars 26 FALL 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- XXIV expects that whatever the choices Article VII 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 Formula of Concord assumption that the canon of the ture, to the church catholic, and to the a theological justification for viewing mass had reached apostolic perfection early church writers.9 careful liturgical grounding and prep- prompted the Interim to legislate the Article VII 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 XXIV 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 XXVI , 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 XXIV 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- XXIV ). Instead, following Luther, the tification. Even the closely connected cern was to reestablish a more lively reformers place the burden of proof doctrine of sanctification, understood engagement with the Word in wor- on the parishes and clergy 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 XXIV God’s gracious work “for us and for ing work in Christ Jesus 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