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 <l' Wrshilt, it seemedobvious that the project than for the purpose of bringing the churchcs in- contrarydecisions ol' the 19'11Convention rvere an ille- volved into closerfcllowship with cach other,if not into gitinratetermination of the Synod'sown project.It seemed union or mcrger. (Consider the conrmentsof Philip erquallyclear and offensivc,that suchdecisions had been Pfatteichcr,"Still To Be Tried" in LursrnnN Fonult (Nov. achievedby political nrachinations.Furthennore, and much 1993)on the fifteenth anniversaryol'the Lutheran Book of to the consternationof those who were eager firr closer Worship.')The history of Lutheran servicebooks and hym- tieswith theALC and LCA, it was apparentthat thesede- nals in this country demonstratesthc plausibilityof such cisions and actions were driven more by concernsfor f'cl- expcctations,in light of the f'actthat suchbooks have pre- lowship than by -eenuineconcerns for liturgy andhymnody. ccded every major church merger among Luthcrans in It is interestinghow similar were the circumstancesof North America. (The ComrnonSen,ice Book of l9l8 pre- Missouri's separationliom the Inter-LutheranCommission ceded the formation of the United Lutheran Church in on Worship(1917) to the origins of its resolution(1965) Americzr;the ServiceBook and Hymnal of l95ti preceded that led to the formationof the Commission.In eachcase, the formation of both the ALC and thc LCA; and thc actionwas takenby the Synod in Convention,by way of Lutlteron Book of Worshippreceded the tbrmation of the its normal political processes.Sr.rch political action was EvangclicalLutheran Church in America.) precededby a good deal of politicking and propaganda, For theLutheran Church-Missouri Synod, thc implica- both public and private-probably less so in 1917 than in tions of a shared service book and hynrnal with other 1965. The politicking and propagandaachieved its de- Lutheran churches,including the possibilitythat such a sired results in the fbrrn of numerous overturesfrom thc book might fosteroutward fellowship amongthe churches, constituencyof the Synod, which could not be ignored. did give pause for thought. As a matter o1 principle for The pertinentfloor committeeof the Conventionin each Missouri, church fcllowship properly derivesfiom theo- casewas inclined to follow the direction indicated by the logical agreementand a common conf-essionof the faith in many overtures.As it so happened,the rnajority opinion all its articles.Outward expressionsof such fellowship of the Synod as expressedby the vote of the Convention therefore ought not precedebut follow unity in doctrine. went againstthe positionof its worshipcommission. Civen the historic precedentsof common servicebooks in In 1965Missouri's worship commission had voicedits relation to church f'ellowship,it is a pertinent question of reluctanceto enter into a pan-Lutheranhymnal project at concernwhether it may or mzrynot be permissibleto adopt 44 UNA SANCTA,/FALL 2OO3 and sharea common book