As with every other vocation, the pastor has many “jobs.” He is, of course, a preacher and teacher, a Seelsorger (provider of soul care), he administers sacraments, he is to set an example for his flock, and depending upon his particular call, may have other “jobs,” such as administration, chaplaincy, classroom teaching, serving as a missionary, etc.

But when it comes to consecrating the elements of Holy Communion, pastors have one job. That job is to unite Word to element. It is our one job. The problem is with innovation. Some guys feel like they have to do object lessons, change the words around to make them more “special,” or move the elements for the sake of convenience.

Guys, as celebrants, you have one job!

Of course, there is variation, but between pretty narrow guardrails. This is, after all, very important. We don’t want something so important to be subject to errors of commission or omission. So there is a checklist for the celebrant, and it is actually very easy. It appears under the heading “The Words of Our Lord,” and appears on five pages in LSB: 162, 179, 197, 209, and 217. The checklist is easy to follow. It includes a minimalistic script of the exact words, and two red rubrics indicating where the sign of the cross is to be made.

It really is that simple.

If you want to add ceremony to the bare minimum, you have the freedom to do so. But not all ceremonies are equal. Does your ceremony confess the miracle of the Mass, that is, the supernatural Presence of God incarnate in the body and blood, in the mystery of the sacramental union? Are you being reverent, and confessing, by your conduct and actions, that heaven has literally come down to earth? Are you trying to do something new and innovative and entertaining, or are you following a well-trod path of our fathers in the faith who have gone before us? Are you just trying to get the Sacrament over with, or are you drinking in this miracle and rejoicing in the gifts? And what are your actions teaching? What does your body language catechize about what is going on? Are you sending a mixed message between your words and your actions?

Now, concerning the celebration of the Service of the Sacrament, there are common sense things that are not spelled out, and shouldn’t have to be. But maybe they do. You need bread and wine (not grape juice). You need a receptacle for each of them. The bread may be put into a ciborium or on a paten. But it has to be somewhere where the pastor will speak the verba and make the sign of the cross over them. That requirement is built into the “checklist.” The wine also has to be in some kind of vessel, whether already poured into a chalice or being held in a flagon. The use of individual cups is an issue for another day. But at bare minimum, you need a container for bread and a container for wine. And you need a surface (a table?) to place these receptacles on for consecration. They need to be in close proximity to the celebrant. For just as “is” means “is,” so too does “this” mean “this.”

And you need a celebrant. Per Scripture and our confessions, according to the divine example of how God calls and sends (“apostello”) certain men (apostles) into the holy office, certain men are today set apart and put into order for this ministry of Word and Sacrament. They are ordained ministers. The celebrant is a pastor. He cannot delegate these words to a layman (male or female) in the choir, to the school principal, to a lay assistant, or to the congregation to speak together. One job, guys. Do your job! Don’t pawn it off on others who are not authorized to do it. You’re not smarter, more innovative, or more leadershippy than Jesus. You have one job. You are not in charge. Maybe we need an organization called the Pastoral Followership Institute. Our Lord called the apostles with the invitation: “Follow Me.” So do your job and follow and respect your Boss.

The celebrant may be vested elaborately, or simply, but per our confessions to which we all voluntarily adhere out of love and submission to one another (at least most of us), barring some extraordinary circumstance, he is vested. After all, he is standing in the place of Christ. He is offering a sacrifice of praise (not a bloody, propitious sacrifice) in the Holy of Holies. Our confessions refer to this sacrifice as “eucharistic” (meaning, a thank-offering). Vestments for ministers leading worship in the Presence of the Lord is not a human invention, but rather a divine preference. God likes vestments, and even mandated their use when it was completely unreasonable - while the Israelites were wandering in the desert. So vest. But once again, there is plenty of leeway within the guardrails. Not all vestments will be identical, just as there is Christian freedom regarding the level of ceremony in different congregations. To just trash all ceremony and all vestments is an abuse of that Christian liberty, and indicates a lack of love and unity in our synod.

The celebrant must intone the Words of Institution clearly. That is not an option. That is not an adiaphoron. He may sing them (as Luther did, writing the Gospel-based chant tone that is found in LSB DS3, page 197), or he may speak them. But don’t mumble them. Don’t rush through them like an auctioneer. Don’t monkey with the words. Don’t personalize them. They are to be recited. They are not your words. They are “the Words of our Lord.” The celebrant is only the King’s minister - he is not the King. So read the King’s proclamation. It doesn’t need your help. It’s not about you.

The celebrant is consecrating only those elements in his proximity, and he indicates which ones these are. Gestures such as motioning with the hand, making the sign of the cross, opening and closing containers, and the use of linens on the altar help to clearly communicate which elements are being consecrated. And unclear communication is no communication.

The celebrant is the steward of the mysteries. Once the elements are consecrated, he is to oversee what happens to all of them. He is responsible. He is to distribute the sacred body and blood. If an accident happens, he is to reverently address it. If there are reliquiae left over, he is to either consume them, or reserve them. He may not simply abandon them. For once again, what does that teach? And what kind of respect does that show our Lord. The elements of Holy Communion are sacred. They are not props for your show. It’s not a show. It’s a miracle that happens by God’s grace and mercy.

So there are things not to do:

Don’t introduce elements other than bread and wine. Don’t separate the elements to be consecrated on multiple tables or in the hands of the parishioners. Don’t consecrate elements only to leave them behind. Don’t introduce confusing additional ceremony to the consecration, like an object lesson - especially something that hints at Old Testament sacrifice like a slab of meat on the altar. Don’t monkey with the words, altering them, making them sound spontaneous, or being folksy.

And there are things to do:

Above all, be reverent. It is a confession that God has miraculously met you where you are, and you confess His Presence. Be mindful. Avoid the temptation to go on autopilot. Speak or chant clearly and with volume. Be aware of the spiritual warfare that is happening around you, and be cognizant of the saints and angels in heaven who are with Jesus, and thus with you. Don’t hurry. Feel free to show reverence by genuflecting, elevating, and ringing bells - though these are not necessary ceremonies. Nevertheless, they point to the miracle of Christ’s Presence. If you flub the words, start over.

You should commune yourself first, then any other clergy or assistants, and then the people who come to the rail, “Let the deacons, according to their order, receive the Holy Communion after the presbyters, from the bishop or from a presbyter” (AC 24:38). I realize that’s not a law, but what makes you think you know better than the church fathers, hundreds of years of Best Practices in the church, and our confessions (that we all supposedly subscribe and submit to)? How about a little humility? Distribute the elements reverently. Don’t rush. Once again, the first principle is to be reverent. Above all, be mindful of the Divine Presence - and the rest should follow. Reverently account for all of the consecrated elements, whether you consume them or reserve them. Cleanse the vessels (reverently!) of any consecrated elements. When it is appropriate to do so, reverently re-set the vessels on the altar and make sure it looks as close to perfection as possible. Isn’t that the least you can do for Jesus in light of what He has done for us? If our Lord could neatly fold his own linens after the resurrection (John 20:7), we can be respectful concerning what goes on at our altars - before, during, and after the miracle.

Give thanks to our God and King who comes under our roof though we are not worthy (Matt 8:8). But we are made worthy, because the Lamb is worthy (Rev 5:12)! Rejoice in the vocation that God permits you to do. Never take it for granted.

You have one job, guys. And how glorious it is! There is no greater privilege.

By Michael A Kiener

Note: Michael Kiener put together an outstanding downloadable PDF called Reverent Worship: What It Is and Why It Matters, “an educational resource for congregations and those exploring Lutheran liturgical worship.” What follows is his introduction to it. — Ed.

I am a layman—an elder in a confessional Lutheran congregation—and what follows is the story of how a few questions in the pew grew into a small resource.

For a season our congregation was served by a vacancy pastor, Rev. Dr. Mark Nuckols, and his conduct in the Divine Service was unlike anything I had seen before. He genuflected at the confession of sins. During the Nicene Creed, at the Incarnatus—at the words “came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit”—he genuflected, and then at the words “and was made man,” he lowered himself further still, placing his right hand upon the floor and bowing his head toward the ground; and at “And the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures,” he rose. At the Pax Domini he made the sign of the cross with the host and the chalice; never a drop was spilled.

It was not the beauty of performance, but the beauty of confession. Here was the whole Gospel of the Incarnation preached without a single word—the eternal Son of God humbling Himself, descending, taking on our flesh, and rising again for us. I remember thinking that a man who could not hear one syllable of the Nicene Creed would still have known precisely what was being confessed. The body was saying what the mouth was saying. Every movement pointed away from the man and toward Christ.

Not everyone received these practices the same way. The questions that arose were, in fact, the very ones this document later takes up—whether such reverence is “just for show,” whether the movements distract from the Word, and whether any of it is required or simply a matter of taste. What was new to the congregation was not so much the liturgy itself as the manner in which it was offered. That is, the reverent movements that accompanied it. I believe—and I say it with all charity, and, I hope, with the best construction—that the unease was born not of ill will but of unfamiliarity. These were things many had simply never been taught to understand or never saw before, including myself. Where a thing has never been explained, it is no fault to wonder about it.

Luther’s explanation of the Eighth Commandment teaches us to “defend [our neighbor], speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything.” I wanted to keep that commandment in two directions at once. Toward our vacancy pastor, it meant defending his reverent conduct: his gestures were not showmanship but confession, and I only wish that more pastors carried themselves with such reverence during the Divine Service. Toward members, it meant that their questions were sincere and deserved a patient answer rather than a rebuke. It seemed to me that the kindest and most faithful response to those questions was not defensiveness, but instruction.

So I began to gather the “why.” I started where the Church always starts—with Holy Scripture, which does not leave reverence to taste but commands it:

“... let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:28–29).

From there I followed the thread to the bowing and kneeling of the Psalms, to the Lutheran Confessions, and to the fathers in the faith. What began as notes for a conversation or two became “Reverent Worship — Why It Matters.”

The document is meant to be a resource for laymen and, where a pastor finds it useful, a teaching aid for his flock. It simply explains: what the body is doing in the liturgy and why; the difference between the Sacraments our Lord has instituted and commanded (though not exhaustive) and the salutary ceremonies the Church has developed to surround and adorn them; and, above all, that reverence is confession—not decoration, and never a show. When we bow, kneel, or sign ourselves with the cross, we are not performing. We are confessing with our bodies what we believe in our hearts: that the living God is truly present among us to serve us with the forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation.

I shared the finished piece with Rev. Larry Beane, whose writing on reverent worship had been a huge help to me from the beginning. To my surprise, he thought it worth passing along, and the editors have kindly agreed to make it available here for any who might find it useful. I am thankful for that kindness, and for the invitation to set down this backstory.

My hope is a simple one, and I offer it for those who love reverent worship and those who question it alike. May those who treasure the historic liturgy hold it out to others with patience and love, never with contempt for the one still learning to see it. And may those for whom these practices are new receive them as what they are: not the preference of any party or person, but the Church’s long confession of Christ, offered with reverence and awe before the God who comes to save us. If the pages that follow help even one person to see—as a deaf man might see—Jesus Christ being confessed in every bow and every bended knee, then this little resource will have done its work.

Our family made our yearly hajj to one of the St. Louis Symphony Orchestra's family concerts this past Sunday. These are family friendly, one-hour affairs and many of them have been quite good. It's a rite of passage in our home: you get to start coming along when you turn four.

Sunday's event was advertised as a Beethoven-fest with special emphasis on Symphony No. 5. But, alas, someone invited Ron Burgundy.

Continue reading…

GUEST POST from Rev. Stanley Lacey of St. Thomas Evangelical Lutheran Church-UAC , Magnolia.

The words of Mr. Christiansen and Rev. Kieschnick that I quoted in my previous post openly express an aversion to worship customs and practices found throughout Scripture, commanded in the Old Covenant by God, and continued in various forms in the New Covenant by men, angels, and the four living creatures in Revelation. This is a spiritually dangerous disposition to have, but it is unfortunately common among Christians in the LCMS. In my estimation, it is more dangerous than the falsehood that Lutherans historically haven’t practiced these ceremonies. 

Still, I believe we should respond to the erroneous historical claim. The more a falsehood is repeated unchallenged, the more convinced people are that it must be true. This relates to the illusory truth effect, which Wikipedia defines as “the tendency to believe false information to be correct after repeated exposure.” This may be a lie, since it comes from Wikipedia, but if we say it enough…

LCMS Christians have heard it said over and over that many practices which confessional Lutheran pastors and laypeople advocate for are “too Roman Catholic.” Karsten Christiansen went so far as to say, “Some in LCMS national and district leadership, and others, including pastors and laypersons, continue seeking to restrict the worship practices of all congregations to a singular worship form described as traditional, but which is, in actuality, a form that has never historically been used within the LCMS. Some of these ‘traditional’ worship practices are more Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox than historically Lutheran, such as genuflecting, kneeling, incense, head coverings for women, elimination of women’s public reading of scripture or children’s messages, etc.”

These days, it's easy to find out how untrue Mr. Christiansen’s claim is. I want to believe he is speaking from ignorance, but it takes very little time or effort to show how historically inaccurate Truth and Light Media's statement really is.

It is easy enough to fact-check those who say the Gottesdienst Crowd advocates customs and practices that are more Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox than historically Lutheran, but repeating something over and over, without your readers or listeners hearing the historical facts, has power. People begin to believe the claim is axiomatic. It feels as obvious as “Where there’s smoke, there’s a fire” or Poison’s “Every rose has its thorn.” If decent people with an internet connection do nothing, who will stop the spread of this illusory truth effect?!

You can probably search the Gottesblog for more examples of quotations showing how Lutherans have viewed old church practices and customs. You should also check out Ernst Zeeden’s Faith and Act, where I get one of the quotations below.

What follows are words from a Reformed guy visiting Wittenberg in 1536, Martin Luther teaching on Genesis in 1545, C.F.W. Walther, and our Synod’s original Constitution that refute the claims of Mr. Christiansen and similar claims by Rev. Kieschnick that the sorts of church customs and practices that Gottesdienst advocates for have never been practiced in the LCMS and are more Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox than historically Lutheran.

Wolfgang Musculus (Reformed guy):

“At 7:00 we entered the church where the Office of the Mass, as they call it, was held in the following manner: 

“First the boys and the headmaster sang the Introit for Cantate Sunday in Latin, set apart in the chancel in an entirely papistical fashion. Then came the Kyrie eleison with the organ being played in alternation. Thirdly a deacon, dressed entirely according to the papistical fashion and standing by the altar, which was likewise adorned with candles and other things, sang in Latin ‘Gloria in excelsis Deo’ (Glory to God in the highest); this canticle the choir and organist again completed. When this was finished the deacon sang a collect, as they call it, in German, facing the altar with his back turned toward the congregation, and appended a reading from the Epistle of James, facing the congregation, also in German. 

“Again the organ was played while the choir sang, ‘Victimae paschali’ and the congregation sang responsively, ‘Christ ist erstanden!’   

“Upon this the deacon sang a portion of the Gospel in German, ‘But now I am going to Him who sent Me,’ etc. (John 16:5), while facing the congregation. After this reading the organ was played as the congregation sang, ‘We All Believe in One True God.’   

“When this was finished Justus Menius preached, dressed in the usual manner, not in any special robe.   

“After the sermon the deacon, standing at the altar in priestly garb, exhorted the people to prayer for some particularly enumerated concerns and closed with Christ’s promise: ‘Whatever you ask the Father,’ etc. (John 15:16, 16:23). Next he briefly recalled the institution of the Lord’s Supper, then he sang the Words of Institution first over the bread, whereby he elevated it entirely according to the papistical fashion while genuflecting away from the people; then over the chalice, which he likewise elevated after finishing the Words of Institution. When this was over the organ played and the choir sang the Agnus Dei (Lamb of God). Meanwhile Communion began. A deacon dressed in the usual manner administered the chalice. Not a single man was seen going to Communion, but a few little women were communed. Following this, the deacon communed himself at the altar, after having first adored the bread,  although he did not do so with the chalice. This he carefully emptied and then washed with newly poured wine, so that nothing of the blood remained. 

“After Communion he sang a prayer while facing the altar. When this was finished he dismissed the people with a benediction that he sang while facing them. 

“Finally, as the congregation left the church the choir sang Da pacem, Domine in German. And with that this celebration was ended. 

“Vespers was held at 1:00 in the afternoon, entirely after the papistical fashion, in the chancel, except that a boy sang the Sunday Gospel down to the congregation from the loft in the ordinary manner. After Vespers there was a sermon on the Second Commandment, ‘You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain,’ etc., after which ‘Christ is arisen’ was sung” (Ernst Zeeden, Faith and Act (Kindle Edition), loc 697ff).

Martin Luther:

“When we hear the Word of God, we should receive it with special reverence and piety, if not with bended knees, at least with humble hearts. Thus it is good that the Sacrament of the Altar is honored with bended knees; for the true body and blood of the Lord are there, likewise the presence of the Holy Spirit and the promise or the Word of God, which should be heard reverently. For God works there, and the Lord shows Himself. In Moses this is sometimes called the face of God. He means that God is present and appears to me. Here it is certainly fitting for me to rise or to fall on my knees. And the appearances and faces of God we experience are equal to, yes, superior to, all the appearances in the Law of Moses. When I approach Baptism, I must certainly conclude that nothing human is being done there. But the water is a veil or a means. So is the Word with which God is veiled. Behind these stands our Lord God, and they are the faces of God through which He speaks with us and works in every person individually. He baptizes me; He absolves me and gives me His body and blood through the tongue and the hand of the minister. For God works salvation in Baptism. And this is the presence or form and epiphany of God in these means. Therefore we do the right thing when we bow and revere God when He speaks with us. If we do not do so with our bodies, we should at least do so with all our hearts.

And in Baptism, of course, our eyes and hearts should always be directed to the manifest appearance in the Jordan, where the voice of the Father is heard from heaven, the flesh of the Son is seen, and the Holy Spirit appears in the form of a dove. Thus also in our Baptism. And what is primary in the Lord’s Supper is the means by which Christ gives me His body. Thus it is actually God, not the minister, who nourishes and feeds us. In Baptism the voice of the Trinity is heard, and the words of Baptism must not be understood or received in any other way. Therefore this adoration is necessary, if not with a bending of the body, at least with spiritual reverence.

Today, however, when the Word and the sacraments are held in such contempt, few people care whether they sit or rise when the Word is read and preached. Under the papacy, just as among the people of Israel, the true knowledge of the Word and of godliness has been neglected, and we have devoted ourselves only to the observance of ceremonies both when the text of the Gospel is read and when the sacraments are celebrated and administered” (LW AE 8:145-146).

C.F.W. Walther:

“We know and firmly hold that the character, the soul of Lutheranism, is not found in outward observances but in the pure doctrine. If a congregation had the most beautiful ceremonies in the very best order, but did not have the pure doctrine, it would be anything but Lutheran. We have from the beginning spoken earnestly of good ceremonies, not as though the important thing were outward forms, but rather to make use of our liberty in these things. For true Lutherans know that although one does not have to have these things (because there is no divine command to have them), one may nevertheless have them because good ceremonies are lovely and beautiful and are not forbidden in the Word of God. Therefore the Lutheran church has not abolished ‘outward ornaments, candles, altar cloths, statues and similar ornaments,’ (Ap XXIV) but has left them free. The sects proceeded differently because they did not know how to distinguish between what is commanded, forbidden, and left free in the Word of God. We remind only of the mad actions of Carlstadt and of his adherents and followers in Germany and in Switzerland. We on our part have retained the ceremonies and church ornaments in order to prove by our actions that we have a correct understanding of Christian liberty, and know how to conduct ourselves in things which are neither commanded nor forbidden by God. 

We refuse to be guided by those who are offended by our church customs. We adhere to them all the more firmly when someone wants to cause us to have a guilty conscience on account of them. The Roman antichristendom enslaves poor consciences by imposing human ordinances on them with the command: ‘You must keep such and such a thing!’; the sects enslave consciences by forbidding and branding as sin what God has left free. Unfortunately, also many of our Lutheran Christians are still without a true understanding of their liberty. This is demonstrated by their aversion to ceremonies. It is truly distressing that many of our fellow Christians find the difference between Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism in outward things. It is a pity and dreadful cowardice when a person sacrifices the good ancient church customs to please the deluded American denominations just so they won't accuse us of being Roman Catholic! Indeed! Am I to be afraid of a Methodist, who perverts the saving Word, or be ashamed in the matter of my good cause, and not rather rejoice that they can tell by our ceremonies that I do not belong to them? 

It is too bad that such entirely different ceremonies prevail in our Synod, and that no liturgy at all has yet been introduced in many congregations. The prejudice especially against the responsive chanting of pastor and congregations is of course still very great with many people—this does not, however, alter the fact that it is very foolish. The pious church father Augustine said, ‘Qui cantat, bis orat—he who sings prays twice.’

This finds its application also in the matter of the liturgy. Why should congregations or individuals in the congregation want to retain their prejudices? How foolish that would be! For first of all it is clear from the words of St. Paul (1 Cor. 14:16) that the congregations of his time had a similar custom. It has been the custom in the Lutheran Church for 250 years. It creates a solemn impression on the Christian mind when one is reminded by the solemnity of the divine service that one is in the house of God, in childlike love to their heavenly Father, also give expression to their joy in such a lovely manner. 

We are not insisting that there be uniformity in perception or feeling or taste among all believing Christians—neither dare anyone demand that all be minded as he. Nevertheless, it remains true that the Lutheran liturgy distinguishes Lutheran worship from the worship of other churches to such an extent that the houses of worship of the latter look like lecture halls in which the hearers are merely addressed or instructed, while our churches are in truth houses of prayer in which Christians serve the great God publicly before the world. Uniformity of ceremonies (perhaps according to the Saxon Church order published by the Synod, which is the simplest among the many Lutheran church orders) would be highly desirable because of its usefulness. A poor slave of the pope finds one and same form of service, no matter where he goes, by which he at once recognizes his church. With us it is different. Whoever comes from Germany without a true understanding of the doctrine often has to look for his church for a long time, and many have already been lost to our church because of this search. How different it would be if the entire Lutheran church had a uniform form of worship! This would, of course, first of all yield only an external advantage, however, one which is by no means unimportant. Has not many a Lutheran already kept his distance from the [Calvinist] sects because he saw at the Lord's Supper they broke the bread instead of distributing wafers? 

The objection: ‘What would be the use of uniformity of ceremonies?’ was answered with the counter question, ‘What is the use of a flag on the battlefield? Even though a soldier cannot defeat the enemy with it, he nevertheless sees by the flag where he belongs. We ought not to refuse to walk in the footsteps of our fathers. They were so far removed from being ashamed of the good ceremonies that they publicly confess in the passage quoted: It is not true that we do away with all such external ornaments’” (Walther, Explanation of Thesis XVIII, D, Adiaphora, of the book The True Visible Church, delivered at St. Paul's Lutheran Church in Indianapolis, Indiana, Beginning August 9, 1871, at the 16th Central District Convention, translated by Fred Kramer, printed in Essays for the Church, I:193-194).

“Whenever the Divine Service once again follows the old Evangelical Lutheran agendas (or church books), it seems that many raise a great cry that it is ‘Roman Catholic’: ‘Roman Catholic’ when the pastor chants ‘The Lord be with you’ and the congregation responds by chanting ‘and with thy spirit’; ‘Roman Catholic’ when the pastor chants the collect and the blessing and the people respond with a chanted ‘Amen.’ Even the simplest Christian can respond to this outcry: ‘Prove to me that this chanting is contrary to the Word of God, then I too will call it “Roman Catholic” and have nothing more to do with it. However, you cannot prove this to me.’ If you insist upon calling every element in the divine service ‘Romish’ that has been used by the Roman Catholic Church, it must follow that the reading of the Epistle and Gospel is also ‘Romish.’ Indeed, it is mischief to sing or preach in church, for the Roman Church has done this also…

Those who cry out should remember that the Roman Catholic Church possesses every beautiful song of the old orthodox church. The chants and antiphons and responses were brought into the church long before the false teachings of Rome crept in. This Christian Church since the beginning, even in the Old Testament, has derived great joy from chanting…For more than 1700 years orthodox Christians have participated joyfully in the divine service. Should we, today, carry on by saying that such joyful participation is ‘Roman Catholic’? God forbid! Therefore, as we continue to hold and to restore our wonderful divine services in places where they have been forgotten, let us boldly confess that our worship forms do not tie us with the modern sects or with the church of Rome; rather, they join us to the one, holy Christian Church that is as old as the world and is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (C.F.W. Walther, writing in Der Lutheraner July 19, 1853, issue, volume 9, number 24, p. 163).

LCMS Original Constitution:

“14. Synod holds in accordance with the 7th article of the Augsburg Confession that uniformity in ceremonies is not essential; yet on the other hand Synod deems such a uniformity wholesome and useful, namely for the following reasons: 

a. because a total difference in outward ceremonies would cause those who are weak in the unity of doctrine to stumble; 

b. because in dropping heretofore preserved usages the Church is to avoid the appearance of frivolity and a desire for innovations; and is, as much as possible, to exhibit outwardly its connection with the Church of all time. 

c. because this is also required for the necessary purification of the Lutheran Church in America; that the emptiness and the poverty in the externals of the service be opposed, which, having been introduced here by the false spirit of the Reformed, is now rampant. 

All pastors and congregations that wish to be recognized as orthodox by Synod are prohibited from adopting or retaining any ceremony which might weaken the confession of the truth or condone or strengthen a heresy, especially if heretics insist upon the continuation or the abolishing, of such ceremonies. To this belongs the breaking of bread in the Lord's Supper; the formula of distribution: Christ says; the taking of the consecrated bread and cup with the hands; the use of ordinary bread instead of the host except in an emergency; and others. 

Where private confession is in use, it is to be kept according to Article 11 of the Augsburg Confession. Where it is not in use, the pastor is to strive towards introducing it. 

The desired uniformity in the ceremonies is to be brought about especially by the adoption and use of sound Lutheran agendas (church books)” (“Our First Synodical Constitution,” Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly 16, no. 1 [April 1943]: 11-12).

The Rev. John Henry Koopman is the associate pastor of Our Savior Lutheran Church in Mankato, MN.

It seems like folks typically prefer the Greek term Adiaphora and rarely use the German term Mitteldinge, although the German Formula of Concord uses both terms to introduce Article Ten: “so man Adiaphora oder Mitteldinge nennt.” As I am not much of a linguist nerd, I will have to leave the task of distinguishing between these terms to another individual who is perhaps further on the spectrum than I am. Regardless, I have grown tired of the term Adiaphora, at least insofar as it is often used by those advocating for the adoption of non-Lutheran practices in the Divine Service while still claiming Lutheran orthodoxy and orthopraxy, because “Adiaphora, bro!” As such, in order to differentiate myself from the above silliness, I’m going to use the term Mitteldinge instead. (As a bonus, Mittelding is way more fun to say than adiaphora.)

I’m not particularly original (as a dead orthodox Lutheran I try my best to avoid originality, since that always results in heterodoxy), and I’m only using this term because I read it in the writings of a (literally) dead orthodox Lutheran. In President Friedrich Wyneken’s 1860 synodical address and report, he has this gem of a paragraph:

“With respect to the order for worship, as a whole, it appears to be as defective as it was previously. Now we obviously know—granted that only orthodox agendas are in use among us—this is not an essential ingredient, but it is still lamentable that such a motley jumble continues to predominate among us. Even though the liturgy itself is something neither commanded nor forbidden [ein Mittelding], the doctrine of Christian freedom—thanks be to God—is in practice everywhere. And this freedom remains well preserved in all congregations. So the congregations should all the more so consent to a uniform liturgy, in order to allow the unity in Spirit to be expressed externally. The tenacity with which the worst bad taste is frequently clung to in this matter is astonishing. May God improve the situation.”

Wyneken makes an important connection between Mitteldinge and Christian freedom by way of two assertions. Firstly, he asserts that the liturgy is a Mittelding, which agrees with the definition in FC: Epitome X: “ceremonies or Church rites that are neither commanded nor forbidden in God’s Word, but have been introduced into the Church for the sake of good order and fitting use.”  There are, of course, some parts of the Divine Service which are commanded by God’s Word, such as the reading and preaching of Scripture, closed communion, women not reading the lections, etc. These things are therefore not matters of indifference, but by and large, the various specifics of the liturgy are Mitteldinge.

Secondly, Wyneken asserts that Christian freedom is preserved everywhere and is practiced everywhere. We understand what this means according to FC: SD X: “As soon as Christian freedom is weakened and human traditions are forced on the Church with coercion, as though it were wrong and a sin to omit them, the way is already prepared for idolatry. In this way, human traditions are multiplied and regarded as a divine worship, not only equal to God’s ordinances, but even placed above them.” Thus, Christian freedom in the liturgy is broken when the specifics of the liturgy are forced upon congregations as though the specifics of the liturgy are a matter of sin or righteousness. So long as the specifics are not coerced as though they were divine commands, freedom remains.

But the importance of Christian freedom is not so much that the Christian is free to do whatever he desires to do, but that he willingly becomes a servant to others. We see this from Luther’s wonderful 1520 treatise, The Freedom of a Christian, where he writes: “A Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none. A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all.” Thus, among us Lutherans, we maintain Christian freedom with regard to the Mitteldinge, and no Christians are condemned to hell because they observe fewer or more ceremonies in their congregation. Nevertheless, Christian freedom also means that we must be dutiful servants to others, and we must not insist on our own way.

Among the churches of the Augsburg Confession, this means that each of our congregations maintains these principles of freedom. Therefore, each congregation must subordinate itself to the will of the whole assembly of congregations. This is why Wyneken concludes, based on his two assertions, that “the congregations should all the more so consent to a uniform liturgy, in order to allow the unity of the Spirit to be expressed externally.” In accordance with Christian freedom, each congregation must willingly consent to worship according to the agreed-upon standards.

We do not belong to a papacy which rules over our congregations and dictates for us what we must and must not do. Rather, the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod is an entirely voluntary arrangement of congregations that exists for mutual support and the furtherance of true doctrine. We join together freely, and according to that freedom, we joyfully submit to the decisions of our entire synod. If the synod were to err doctrinally, we retain the freedom to walk faithfully and are thus free to leave the synod without the threat of damnation. In fact, if the synod were to err, we would be compelled and duty-bound to disobey the decision of the synod and remain faithful to the Lord’s Word.

However, when the synod is not erring, when the congregations of our entire assembly have freely resolved to walk a certain way, Christian freedom compels us to subordinate our own personal preferences for the sake of unity. Those who refuse to consent to a uniform liturgy for the sake of unity are therefore breaking the law of love, insisting on their own way, and destroying Christian freedom. For the sake of unity, for the sake of love, and for the sake of freedom, let us gladly and joyfully consent to liturgical uniformity. 

Our synod has published a handful of hymnals and agendas by which we may be liturgically united. These resources contain a wide array of hymns and liturgies (perhaps too wide of an array, in my opinion, but I’m willing to consent to the use of these hymns and liturgies for the sake of unity) and give the congregations of our synod ample resources to live out their liturgical life in ways that are both unique to the individual congregation and uniform across our thousands of parishes. Frankly, I am not looking for some broad and ambiguous “ordo” which everyone is free to define according to their own preferences. Let us simply use the hymnal published by our publishing house and keep it simple.

We Lutherans have always struggled to walk the straight and narrow road between the ditch of legalism on one side and antinomianism on the other. Legalism is a soul-destroying and damnable heresy that looks for salvation in one’s own works. But antinomianism is an even worse sin that delights in evil and is merely a cover for wickedness. The faithful road we must tread is framed by Christian freedom and a humble heart that subordinates itself for the sake of the whole. So when it comes to the Mitteldinge in our parishes, let us not each go our own way, but let us consent to uniformity in Mitteldinge so that our unity in the Spirit may be expressed externally.

By Matt Richard

Note: This was published at Pastor Richard’s Facebook October 3, 2026, and published here with permission. — Ed.

Listen up. It is time to set the record straight on contemporary worship services. We are not dealing merely with style. We are dealing with a fundamentally different theology of worship.

Take the chart above as an example. At first glance, someone might assume that the difference between a Liturgical Divine Service and a Contemporary Evangelical Service is simply a matter of preference: guitars versus organs, praise bands versus hymns, screens versus hymnals. But the chart shows something much deeper. Now, pay attention: The architecture of the services differs because their goals differ.

The Contemporary Evangelical Service moves toward response, next steps, connection, and integration into the church’s ecosystem. The Liturgical Divine Service moves toward reception: Christ gives His gifts through His Word and Sacraments so Christians can return to their vocations. That is to say, these are not merely different styles accomplishing the same thing. They reflect different theological assumptions about what worship is, who is acting, and why the congregation is there.

That is why the so-called “worship wars” cannot be reduced to instrumentation or aesthetics. Indeed, the issue is much deeper than guitars versus organs. It is about theology embodied in the service's structure.

And this is precisely why the Confessional Lutheran Church must take the ordo seriously. You see, Lutherans should not be naive enough to think that the historic order is merely an empty shell waiting to be filled with whatever style happens to be popular. The ordo has a theological direction. Its architecture confesses something.

And here is the point: The shape of the service reveals its theology. Change the shape long enough, and you may eventually change the theology with it.

Whenever the Divine Service once again follows the old Evangelical-Lutheran agendas (or church books), it seems that many raise a great cry that it is “Roman Catholic”: “Roman Catholic” when the pastor chants “The Lord be with you” and the congregation responds by chanting “and with Thy Spirit”; “Roman Catholic” when the pastor chants the collect and the blessing and the people respond with a chanted “Amen.” Even the simplest Christian can respond to this outcry: “Prove to me that this chanting is contrary to the Word of God, then I too will call it “Roman Catholic” and have nothing more to do with it. However, you cannot prove this to me.”

If you insist upon calling every element in the Divine Service “Romish” that has been used by the Roman Catholic Church, it must follow that the reading of the Epistle and Gospel is also “Romish.” Indeed, it is mischief to sing or preach in church, for the Roman Church has done this also . . .Those who cry out should remember that the Roman Catholic Church possesses every beautiful song of the old orthodox church. The chants and antiphons and responses were brought into the church long before the false teachings of Rome crept in. This Christian Church since the beginning, even in the Old Testament, has derived great joy from chanting... For more than 1700 years orthodox Christians have participated joyfully in the Divine Service. Should we, today, carry on by saying that such joyful participation is “Roman Catholic”? God forbid! Therefore, as we continue to hold and to restore our wonderful divine services in places where they have been forgotten, let us boldly confess that our worship forms do not tie us with the modern sects or with the church of Rome; rather, they join us to the one, holy Christian Church that is as old as the world and is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.

— The Rev. C.F.W. Walther, 1st president of the LCMS, from Der Lutheraner - Vol. 9, No. 24, p. 163, July 19, 1853.

So, my thoughts about that are these—and, and again, I don't experience this personally as much as I do anecdotally, but I've talked to a lot of people. A lot of people talk to me, and I've heard the complaint. It's not just an observation, it's a complaint that particularly many of our recent seminary graduates—but not only recent, I don't know how you define recent, but our seminary graduates—do a lot of things that have a Roman flair to them, Roman flavor, like chanting. And I don't know anything inherently against chanting, I don't. It's okay, it can be beautiful if done properly. Not all of our pastors who think they're great chanters really are great chanters, I'm just saying. Genuflecting, prostrating before the altar. I went to a church, I went to a church with a pastor, I looked around, he was flat on the ground. He was on the ground prostrating before the altar, venerating the Host, requiring private confession and absolution, not just suggesting it. And I've noticed also adding the Corpus Christi, the body of Christ, to our otherwise typically, generally vacant crosses. You know, that's one of the things that we've done a lot for years, for decades, for centuries—well, for decades. And our crosses are empty, symbolizing the resurrection. Jesus isn't on the cross anymore, but adding the body of Christ back.

— The Rev. Gerald B. Kieschnick, 12th president of the LCMS, from Unite Leadership Collective, Lead Time, 30:20 ff, May 21, 2024.

By Chris Streeper

Like a lot of young boys who grew up in the eighties, I spent a lot of time reading comic books. My personal favorite has always been Batman, but my father’s favorite hero was the Green Lantern. I enjoyed science-fiction quite a bit, so naturally, I also enjoyed the Green Lantern books. They were the only two DC characters that ever caught my interest.

For those unfamiliar with the Green Lantern, here’s a brief synopsis of the character. Hal Jordan served a fighter pilot in the Air Force and after his military service, put his skills to use as an experimental test pilot. One fateful day, an alien crash lands on earth and in his dying moments, bestowed onto Hal his power ring. As it turned out, this alien was a member of the Green Lantern Corps, an intergalactic law enforcement agency responsible for protecting the 3600 various sectors of the universe. Hal subsequently became Earth’s very first Green Lantern, protector of sector 2814. He was selected not because of his skills as a fighter pilot, but because of his courageous persona and his ability to overcome fear in the face of adversity, the core trait which all Green Lanterns must possess.

This was how the character was introduced in 1959, when my father was an eight-year-old boy. By the time I read my first Green Lantern book thirty years later, the lore had expanded a bit, and Earth was served by two additional Lanterns; John Stewart and Guy Gardner. All three men swore the same oath that all Green Lanterns across the galaxy did. All three men wore a similar uniform as the rest of the Corps. All three men utilized their power rings to fight bad guys, limited only by their imaginations and the strength of their will power. When this team of Lanterns assembled to defeat evil, they were virtually unstoppable.

Now as you might imagine, like many men who were born in my generation, as an adult I have enjoyed many of the comic book themed films that have been released over the past couple decades. While it was panned by critics, I enjoyed the Green Lantern film that was released in 2011. As you may guess, I was excited when I heard there would be a show that would feature Hal Jordan and John Stewart. Having dedicated an hour of my time each Sunday for the past eight weeks to watching Lanterns, I sadly must report that I am saddened by the product that was produced. Lanterns did not deliver what I expected. It wasn’t filled with intergalactic space battles, there was minimal use of the power rings, and the characters barely donned their uniforms or recited their oath. To put it bluntly and without spoiling it for those who may not have watched it yet; the show failed every expectation I had for a Green Lantern series. But it got me thinking…

Specifically, it got me thinking about church and worship over the past several decades and our current expectations. Granted, I was not alive in 1959, but the men who were have told me that Lutheran Worship during that period was pretty uniform across the board, especially within the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS). Nearly every congregation (over 95%) in the LCMS utilized The Lutheran Hymnal (TLH) each Sunday to conduct Divine Worship.

Flash forward to 1989, when I read my first Green Lantern book. Lutheranism in the United States had gone through some significant changes and was fractured.  Three bodies came together to form the ELCA. The LCMS and the Wisconsin Synod (WELS) were no longer in fellowship. Why? Primarily over things such as doctrine & practice. The “Worship War” had just begun making inroads with a contemporary worship that promised to deliver “Evangelical style” while maintaining “Lutheran substance.”

Now, nearly forty years later, one can walk into an LCMS congregation which looks nothing like one would expect. Instead of vested clergy many are presented with men in street clothes. Instead of Holy Scripture being read from a lectern and a sermon being delivered from a pulpit, many are given motivational messages from a stage. Instead of receiving the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper from the rail around an altar, many receive it from disposable single serving cups… if they receive it at all. Sacred music filled with lyrical theology has been replaced by catchy radio tunes. At many of these congregations one can find that the Book of Concord has been cast aside along with creeds, confession & absolution. Why? Two reasons; First… to attract new people to the church by casting off the dusty old image of the past. Second… adiaphora, none of that stuff really matters anyway.

But here is the problem. When I read a Green Lantern comic or watch a show… I expect to see epic space battles, powerful ring constructs, oaths & uniforms. Even before I became a Christian, when I would walk into a church, especially a Lutheran church, I expected to see something that closely resembles the Roman Catholic experience… after all, the Lutheran Confessions state that “We don’t abolish the Mass, but religiously keep and defend it.” [Ap XXIV] In fact, “The Mass is held among us and celebrated with the highest reverence.” [AC XXIV]. I expect to see vested clergy. I expect to hear hymns. I expect to recite creeds and hear the Word of God. I expect tradition. I expect to step into a sacred space that looks different from everything else in the world around it. I believe this to be true of most people’s expectations when they step into one of our congregations.

For nearly forty years many in our Synod have bought into the idea that Contemporary Worship is the way of the future and that it is what young people desire. But where are they? Our church body has an average age higher than nearly any other church body in the United States. It is past time to admit that the experiment has failed. Recent surveys and studies from organizations like the Barna Group show that young adults (Gen Z and Millennials) are increasingly drawn to liturgical, traditional, reverent church environments that are rooted in the ancient practices of the Christian faith and are structured around the church calendar rather than the high-production, trendy “show” environments most often found at non-denominational churches. They are seeking meaning, stability, and guardrails amidst the modern cultural turmoil which pervades our society.

Mark my words… Lanterns will go down in history as the biggest flop in the DCU. Why? Because it compromised its identity, its mythology, and its legacy. It gave up everything it is by caving to the whims of society and current trends. Instead of portraying the heroes as brave men who were team players and valiantly upheld their oath and performed their duties, they were portrayed as rebels who discarded their uniforms, had zero regard for authority or tradition, and went about things their own way. Yes, it will be regarded by some as innovative and brave, it may even win some awards, but it will go down in history as an abject failure. Why? Because fans wanted Green Lantern and they got a cheap knockoff of True Detective.

People who want Green Lantern don’t want True Detective. People who desire Christianity by way of the Lutheran tradition don’t want a generic contemporary moralistic therapeutic deism. If our congregations continue to deliver such experiences people will continue to pass over Lutheranism and journey on to the East or to Rome, where they will find a church bodies that are largely unified around their identity. Church bodies which will deliver them a consistent experience as they travel around the country and raise their families.

Right now, there are people all across our nation that are looking for true Christianity. They are seeking the crucified Christ who gives the forgiveness of sins. They are seeking the Catholic church, purged of error, heresy, papal abuses, and unbiblical practices. They are seeking the Lutheran Church, with all its liturgical trappings & traditions, full of Scripture, Creed & Confession. They desire sacred music. They desire the Sacraments. They want to hear the Law & the Gospel. Let’s give it to them, and not some cheap knock off that is Lutheran in name only.  

Note: seventeen years ago, in 2009, I wrote a reflection about the sainted Rev. Prof. Kurt Marquart. And this was regarding a magnificent paper of his that is now 48 years old, but remains relevant today - almost prophetically so.

And Prof. Marquart also spoke well ahead of his time when he addressed the worship wars and church growth in this talk entitled: “Church-Growth Liturgies in a Lutheran Context,” given at the CTSFW Symposia, Jan 23, 1997. You can find the audio here. Thank you to the person who sent this to me. I don’t want to “out” him without his permission - so let it be known that I am grateful to once again hear my late professor’s voice and wise teaching.

Here is the transcript (and thank you to the person who delivered the transcription to me). Again, if you really want to capture a lot of the subtlety and humor of the presentation, you can listen here — Ed.

Church-Growth Liturgies in a Lutheran Context

by Kurt Marquart

Thank you very much, and good morning, all. The the words of kindness from Dr. Feuerhahn, and it was a great, delightful surprise to have him here, and an honor to be introduced by him. But these words of kindness are too heavy for me, and they remind me of the beautiful custom I saw again in our Ukrainian sister church, where the absolution begins in this form. “Upon this your confession, I, as his unworthy servant, announce to you.” In that way, things are set in the right perspective.

I'm thankful for the topic that I've been assigned, and there ought to be, in good Lutheran style, some theses. Only four in number, so we should get through before lunch. I wonder, have have you received these yet? No. Well, never mind. They'll come in due course. Our competent departmental assistants are attending to the matter now, and I think it'll happen shortly. You'll get this little sheet summary theses on liturgy in the current struggle for church and confession.

And the first thesis is this: the Lutheran Church has no one officially prescribed liturgy.

But first, by way of introduction, church growth liturgies in Lutheran context. The topic is worded in such a way as to allow considerable creative ingenuity in choosing what one ought to cover obviously is boundless. The worship wars among us may not be dismissed simply as a case of more or less healthy turbulence to be expected in an age of cultural change and instability. We chatter all too glibly and reassuringly about culture, when in fact the crisis in our cultus goes to the bedrock of our faith, doctrine, and confession. Under the guise of sensible cultural adaptation, we are in fact being robbed of the dogmatical and sacramental substance of the Gospel. It is time to wake up from pleasant delusions, to sound the alarm, to watch and pray, not to be lulled to fatal sleep by soothing untruths.

The challenge is to frame the theological issues and criteria in such a way that they cannot be evaded with slippery rhetoric about adiaphora: things neither commanded nor forbidden in Holy Scripture. That the Lutheran Church suffers from a strange debility, not to say paralysis, in this field, many a participant in these debates has discovered, to his chagrin. At first sight it may even appear that the flaw lies in our confession itself. In point of fact, as we shall see, the root of the trouble is historical, and the solution lies precisely in that apparent confessional weakness which is its real strength.

To avoid undisciplined meanderings and fulminations, I submit four theses with some commentary attached, and some Dr. Feuerhahn unfortunately will be bring-and-tell, show-and-tell, because you've got to have the horse's mouth right here, and sometimes the other side.

Number one, the Lutheran Church has no one officially prescribed liturgy. To go at once to the heart of the matter, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as the Lutheran liturgy. Though that phrase, reminiscent of Luther Reed rather than of Martin Luther, is often bandied about, it carries more historically descriptive than theologically prescriptive weight. Luther himself made it abundantly clear that his liturgical suggestions were not to be taken as binding law, even in in introducing his very traditional Latin Mass of 1523, Luther cautions:

“But in all these matters, we will want to beware lest we make binding what should be free, or make sinners of those who may do some things differently, or omit others. All that matters is that the words of consecration should be kept intact, and that everything should be done by faith? For these rights are supposed to be for Christians, that is, children of the free woman (Galatians 4), who observe them voluntarily and from the heart, but are free to change them, how and whenever they may wish. Therefore, it is wrong in these matters that anyone should either seek or establish as law some indispensable form by which he might ensnare or harass consciences. These things neither can nor should be bound by laws. Further, even if different people make use of different rights. Let no one judge or despise the other, but every man be fully persuaded in his own mind (Romans 14). For external rights, even though we cannot do without them, just as we cannot do without food or drink, do not commend us to God. So the kingdom of God is not any rite, but faith within you, etc.”

Luther always adds that, etc.

Nor does the Book of Concord impose particular liturgical forms and details. This approach to Christian liberty is not a late polemical refinement that happened to get into Article 10 of the Formula of Concord. It belongs rather to our confession's deepest understanding of the Church, as articulated in the famous Article Seven of the Augsburg Confession:

“It is sufficient for the true unity of the Christian Church that the Gospel be unanimously preached in accord with its pure understanding, and that the sacraments be administered in accordance with the divine Word, it is not necessary for the true unity of the Christian Church that ceremonies instituted by men should be observed uniformly in all places.”

For this reason, the churches of the various countries in the individual territories that became Lutheran in the 16th century exhibited considerable variety in respect of liturgy and structure, yet remained maintained full doctrinal confessional oneness and fellowship. Herman Sasse put it like this:

“Our church is, in its essence, a confessional church, in a sense in which the Roman and the Reformed churches are not, for all these churches have beside their confession still something else, which shapes their distinctive characteristics and holds them together, namely their constitution, their liturgy, their discipline, or whatever. The Lutheran Church has none of that. It belongs to her understanding of the divine word, to the differentiation of law and gospel, that she finds in the New Testament no laws about church constitution, church discipline, and liturgy. She can live in episcopal, presbyteral, or congregational forms of constitution. Her liturgical possibilities extend from Swedish High Churchism all the way to Württemberg's lack of liturgy. She has only her confession: if gospel and sacrament are the notae ecclesiae by which we recognize the presence of the Church of Christ, then the notae ecclesia literani, a distinguishing mark by which we recognize whether a church is Lutheran or not is the Lutheran confession.”

I'm reminded of Löhe’s beautiful remark that the Queen is a queen even without her regal attire, and so the confessional, the Orthodox Church, remains the Orthodox Church with her full dignity, even without the array of her liturgy, which, however, is the right complement to it.

Historically, the Lutheran and the Anglican churches are the only two liturgical churches that issued from the Reformation. Their history is so closely intertwined that the Anglican has been called a Lutheranizing church, and the Lutheran Church in English-speaking countries turns without hesitation to the unparalleled liturgical and hymnological treasures with which Anglicanism has enriched and sanctified the English language. Yet these two churches are liturgical in very different ways.

A pamphlet I picked up years ago in the Anglican Cathedral of Melbourne bears various high ecclesiastical endorsements and the title "The Genius of the Church of England.” In it, Canon Charles Smythe of Westminster explains:

“the dual principle of maintaining a decent uniformity in the external worship of God, according to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, as the basis and condition of a wide liberty of theological speculation. You can afford variety in the pulpit so long as you have uniformity at the altar. The Anglican principle is here the direct antithesis of the Roman. The Church of Rome encourages an almost luxuriant variety of devotion, but insists on theological uniformity. The Church of England embraces many shades of theological opinion, but desiderates liturgical uniformity.”

That comes from the booklet, The genius of the Church of England.

Meanwhile, Vatican II has shown that Rome too will put up with many shades of theological opinion, so long as a papal monarchy is left intact. Theologically, Rome's alleged Petrine rock turns turned out to be papier-mâché, as time noted wryly. Although both the Anglican and the Lutheran churches have both confessions and liturgies, their roles in the respective churches are nearly reversed. If the Augsburg Confession, in particular, and the Book of Concord, in general, are the signposts of identity. That function belongs in Anglicanism more to the Book of Common Prayer than to the 39 Articles. Modern Lutheran churches seal the abandonment of their confessions, a state of affair affairs which is often already of long standing in these churches, when, like the Nordic and Baltic churches in Europe and the ELCA in America, they coalesce with their Anglican counterparts on basically Anglican grounds.

The ELCA clergy are to be inoculated with apostolic succession in the Anglican sense, which, for both partners, partner churches, now includes that most strident bit of counter-apostolic sectarianism — the ‘ordination’ of women — but the Episcopal Church need not conform its preaching and sacramental life to the Augsburg Confession in the slightest. That is how the coordination of faith and order avenges itself. In the end, a beefy dog of order wags the flimsiest tail of faith. The Divine Liturgy of the Gospel and sacraments deserves better than that.

Two liturgical details can be a diaphragm, but the liturgy, as a holistic organism of preaching and sacrament, is not.

Except for what the formative concord in Article 10 calls a case of confession, details of rite or ceremony may usually be regarded as adiaphora. Whether an introit or gradual is chanted this way or that or not at all is technically indifferent, which precisely does not mean that we may go about it sloppily or indifferently. But the real point here is something else. It is often assumed that liturgy, as such, is in the realm of adiaphora. Not so fast here, friend.

Details of rite and ceremony are one thing; the theology of public worship is quite another. David Luecke’s The Other Story of Lutherans at Worship muddies the waters thoroughly on this point. On the one hand, one must be thankful that Luecke bothers with historical and confessional arguments at all. But on the other hand, one wishes he had left them alone, if the result is confusion worse confounded.

Take Luecke's recurrent annoyance with the term liturgy. After a sentence which is either very wrong or else got very garbled in the printing, he says, "But the main point of the confessor's discussion is that liturgy is not the preferred vocabulary. Confessional terms are ceremonies and practices.” But the liturgy of Apology 24:80 is precisely not the same thing at all as the ceremonies and practices of the Formula of Concord. Ceremonies and practices belong to the how, to the realm of form in detail. In other words, adiaphora. But liturgy in Article 24 means content, the what of public worship. The term

“does not really mean a sacrifice, but in public service. Thus, it squares well with our position that a minister who consecrates offers the body and blood of the law to the people, just as a minister who preaches, offers the gospel to the people, as Paul says, First Corinthians 4:1: This is how one should regard us as ministers of Christ and dispensers of the sacraments of God, that is, of the Word and sacraments.”

Again, thus the term liturgy squares well with the ministry. How does Luecke deduce from this that the term is regarded as undesirable in the Confessions when it squares so well, or that it is equivalent to ceremonies and practices? He has muddled things up thoroughly, keeping in mind the natural fit between liturgy and ministry. According to the Apology, consider this choice proposed by Luecke. “One group sings praise songs and prays together for about an hour. For the same amount of time, another hears pastor-led scripture readings, sermon, and prayers. Which is better worship?” Page 37. Luecke suggests that the question is unanswerable.

That is not true.

Of course, if one assumes faith for one group and unbelief and impenitence for the other, the answer is clear: true worship is where there is true faith. But that's obviously not the issue, since only God can read the heart. The question is whether, other things being equal, one practice is as good as another. If so, if it is, then a family devotion or a hymn-singing Bible class is indistinguishable from a church or congregation, and preaching, and the divinely instituted preaching office, let alone the sacraments, make no difference at all. That may be fine Pentecostalism, but with a Lutheran understanding of the Church and her worship, it has nothing in common.

This is not style. This is substance. Luecke asks the right question.” What basically is worship? A simple question. It is a fundamental question for issues of worship in churches today.” He says. More's the pity that he again escapes into confusion. He answers, “There is no simple Answer.” And continues, “The many traditions of worship in Christian churches today stand as testimony to differences in emphases, even among biblically centered churches.” This odd conception of biblically centered churches — do they accept baptismal regeneration or the Lord's body and blood, according to His Word. This odd conception of biblically centered churches, whether or not they're sacramental, may may account for Luecke’s strenuous efforts to debunk the Holy Communion as the standard Chief Service for Sunday and holy days. His heroes are the Pietists, and the villains the liturgical restorationists.

But he is quite wrong about Luther and the Confessions. The Augsburg Confession’s claim of weekly celebration, Luecke dismisses as mere diplomatic accommodation on the part of Melanchthon. But he has overlooked the Apology's comment: “We religiously keep and defend the Mass.” If mere passive compliance is meant here, the statement is thoroughly dishonest. Far from such sullen, hypocritical conformity, the Augsburg Confession confidently exults. “Thus, the Mass is preserved among us in its proper use, the use which was formerly observed in the church, and which can be proved by St Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 11:20ff, and by many statements of the fathers.” All the apology.

This use of the sacrament, when faith gives life to terrified hearts, is the worship of the New Testament, because what matters in the New Testament is the spiritual motivation, dying and being made alive. For such use, Christ instituted it as He commanded 1 Corinthians 11: ‘Do this in remembrance of me.’”

That is exactly Luther's point in the introduction to the Latin Mass of 1523, “The service now in common use everywhere goes back to genuine Christian beginnings, as does the office of preaching.” The German version has a nice wording here. Basically, it says.

“Our commonly used service has a fine Christian pedigree, but as the latter, the office of preaching, has been perverted by the spiritual tyrants, so the former has been corrupted by the hypocrites. As we do not, on that account, abolish the office of preaching, but aim to restore it again to its right and proper place, so it is not our intention to do away with the service, but to restore it again to its rightful place.”

That Luther and the Confessions insist on sound preaching needs no further proof here. The built-in link between the preaching and between preaching and the Supper, as constituting the Mass or liturgy, may not be so obvious.

Luecke tries to use Franz Lau, the Reformation scholar, to undermine the idea of sermon and sacrament as the standard service commended by Luther. In the first place, Lao has quite some Pietistic axes to grind. He compiled a book of quotations entitled, I give the English equivalent, "The Faith of the Reformers, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin.” But he's only trivially right when he dubs it “a historical fable and nothing more that most services in the wake of Luther and Wittenberg were sacramental services.” Luecke quotes that. It’s quite misleading. Of course, Luther had Matins and Vespers too, and not only on Sundays but every day. So statistically, of course, these predominate. But this does not in the least disprove the fact that the full Mass, sermon and sacrament, was the Chief Service for Sundays and holy days, indeed Luther inveighs against the custom of omitting the consecration on Good Friday and using the so-called pre-sanctified elements left over from Maundy Thursday. Says Luther, “Nor is it proper to distinguish Lent, Holy Week, or Good Friday from other days, lest we seem to mock and ridicule Christ with half of a Mass and the one part of the sacrament.” It is this mockery that Luecke is warmly recommending, as a matter of principle, not of emergency.

A little later, still in his 1523 Mass, Luther says, "For properly speaking, the Mass consists in using the Gospel and communing at the table of the Lord,” and in his German Mass of 1526, Luther says, "For among Christians, the whole service should center in the Word and sacrament.” Accordingly, several of the 16th-century church orders, Lutheran church orders, provided that if the Holy Supper could not be celebrated on a given Sunday for lack of communicants, then the service should end after the sermon with a prayer, the Our Father, and a benediction, but only after an admonition had been read against despising the sacrament. That's what's missing in the Lutheran hymnal, page five.

The Lutheran confessions know of no Lutheran liturgy, in a canonical sense, just as they know of no Lutheran church. The point is to take the church's historic service and make the appropriate Evangelical corrections. When that has been done, the result is a perfectly good Lutheran liturgy, whether the prototype be Roman, Ambrosian, Gallican, Byzantine, or what have you. The principle is the same in every case. That belongs to our theology of worship, and is therefore emphatically not an adiaphoron, but rather a matter of confession at some length in Article 24 of the Mass of both the Augsburg Confession and its Apology.

Behind the confession stands the instituting mandate of the Lord. This do in remembrance of me. It is in response to this mandate and invitation that the Church gathers to receive from the resurrected Savior forgiveness, life, and salvation. And that instituting mandate is addressed to and may be observed only and exclusively by the Church, the Eucharistic community. It is not addressed to seekers on Mars Hill. That is why the congregation meets on Sundays and holy days, and that is why its liturgy or Divine Service is, first of all, for the Church herself, the bride and body of Christ. Others may be present. Indeed, the missionary magnetism of this liturgy makes that highly desirable. But they cannot take part in the essence of it. They must first enter the temple by Holy Baptism and the appropriate instruction.

I must now summarize and do the show-and-tell with particular examples, because thesis three proposes that the Lutheran liturgical malaise arises from the paradox that a) theologically the liturgy is for Lutherans shaped not by legal, be they biblicalist, canonical, or political, but by Evangelical considerations, namely faith and love. Yet b) historically, Lutheran liturgies have in fact been prescribed by law in the context of established state church.

The first point: it's the whole theology of worship in the Book of Concord that the liturgy is determined by the shape of the Gospel. It is not determined by some sort of imaginary Levitical law to be distilled from the New Testament. So it's not a matter of biblicistic precedents, and since it says nothing about girl acolytes, therefore you can have them, or may have them, or must not have them, or ought to have them. That kind of argument, on the basis of simply external precedent, doesn't get anywhere. The liturgy has got to be shaped by the church's confession. The truth of it, that means, as our distinguished predecessor in this place yesterday said, Dr. Oliver Olson, that the Eucharistic prayers of the type which which make of the Eucharist again of the sacrament again a sacrifice are wrong. It is frightening to what extent the Gregory Dix's four-action scheme has been uncritically accepted by many Lutheran liturgiologists, so that the service with with the four action scheme as a skeleton again becomes basically something we do for God, an act of sacrifice that we offer to Him.

I was surprised to see, I had to officiate the other day in a former church of another background, and they're in the service book. What is it? The Service Book and Hymnal of ’52 or so. One of the predecessor bodies of the ELCA has this wording in the prayer of thanksgiving. First, you have the Words of Institution, fine. Then, after the Words of Institution, “remembering therefore this salutary precept, his life-giving passion, death,” and so on, “we give thanks to Thee, and we beseech Thee mercifully to accept our praise and thanksgiving, and with Thy Word and Holy Spirit to bless us, Thy servants, and these Thine own gifts of bread and wine, so that,” and so on.

Now, wait a minute. This is after the consecration. Has he forgotten the writer who is supposed to pray that he forgotten is just consecrated? And now this is the Lord's body and blood. And now we are thinking that that either the Holy Spirit or the officiant is so confused that we now need to pray for this bread and wine for us to be a blessing. The theology of the Formula of Concord that the essence, what makes a sacrament, is not these fourfold external actions, but the consecration, the distribution, and the reception. And this kind of Eucharistic prayer falls under Luther's condemnation. Luther gets very caustic, you know, when he criticizes the Canon of the Mass. I deeply appreciate Dr. Brian Spinks's defense of Luther on that point. That Luther really does apply theological criteria, and he says, "Here is a prayer. Receive, O Lord, this spotless and pure sacrifice for the sins.” And the silly man is biting himself in the cheek. Doesn't he realize it hasn't been consecrated yet? What does he hope to achieve? Offering to God a piece of bread and wine-is that supposed to be doing anything? So there is deep confusion in in the canon, and I think this sort of thing is a surprisingly thoughtless example of it. But we'll have some more theological considerations in in the conclusion.

I should like to add now also this is also love that shapes the liturgy. I mean the external form of it, and that goes a long way. Luther's principle is love is empress in ceremonies, and that means that those who lead the people in worship must not have the attitude that the Pharisees had: “Oh, what about this ignorant rabble? These cattle-they don't know anything. Let them take it, and if they don't like it, too bad.” But rather, the attitude of the Lord was that He had, when He saw the people, how confused they were, like sheep having no shepherd. He felt compassion for the multitude, and so the absolute prerequisite for healthy and sound liturgical leadership is also the sense of compassion for the people. Luther constantly, in his masses, says, "Look, don't burden the people with endless readings that are too long, or this or that. It's too too demanding. Their attention will lapse, and then what's the good of that?” On the other hand, though, when Luther speaks scathingly about all the frightful howling and growling all day long that the monks do, but he he perhaps overlooks and forgets that he if he hadn't howled and growled the Psalms frightfully for many years, he wouldn't have known them so well either, and his his own devotion and his hymnology absolutely arises out of the craggy grandeur of the Psalms, and that is the other story.

But Luther was extremely sensitive and very, very much aware that in liturgy, in the matter of the external form, there's got to be mutual accommodation, and this is why in the Confessions, in Article 28, the Augsburg Confession, says that yes, bishops may make regulations, and the assembly ought to keep these, but not as though they were conscience binding, the Grabau idea, but out of unity and love. Unity and love; these are the things that need to be cultivated in the church. And here is, incidentally, where Dr. C. F. W. Walther surpasses the, say, the approach of Grabau.

Grabau tried to reintroduce in America the approach of of church orders imposed from above, but that takes us now to point B. Historically, Lutheran liturgies have been prescribed by law in the context of established state churches. So, we're not so far from the Anglican situation in that at all. If for us some particular church order doesn't play as large a role as a Book of Common Prayer, it may be in part because the external social stability in the British system proved greater, so that the church orders lasted a longer time and were more stable, whereas things went rather helter-skelter in many Lutheran countries, and besides, there were too many to choose from. But I believe that this fact that the details of our liturgical life were ordered by the government, also in consultation with church leaders, but this fact has created in us this strange inability to make provision for it in freedom.

Walther tried very hard to establish the church in a post-Constantinian situation, where the church would order her life in accord with her own principles and not in accord with the dictates of governmental power, which, by the way, Peter the Great so envied in the Lutheran and other Protestant churches that he got rid of the patriarch and imposed on Russia a synodical system patterned on the ones he found in Germany, so that the government could control the church all the better. He saw how that worked very clearly. We learned yesterday from Professor Olson, and I'm deeply grateful to learn that that it was Melanchton who introduced this basic system, and Flacius who fought against it. That means that Melanchthon did not take Luther's advice as he had written him in July 1530, where Melanchthon had been willing to agree that we must obey the bishops in ceremonies, inasmuch as they are authorities in the state. Luther said, "On no account, a bishop as a bishop has nothing to command,” and he gives the example of Bugenhagen wearing different hats. Bugenhagen is a bishop of the church at Wittenberg. He is also the head of his own household. The fact that he can command his servant at home do this or that doesn't mean that he can command his church to do this or that. So the domestic authority does not transfer to the church.

It is a great pity that Melanchthon prepared the way for the takeover of the secular powers in this realm. It may do us good to remember this commonality, especially in this 450th anniversary year of the death of King Henry VIII, but what is meant practically is that the average Lutheran pastor and congregation did not have to worry their heads about what to do and how to do it. These decisions were taken by the higher ups. Read, for example, that book about liturgical life in Leipzig during the time of Bach. A certain rationalistically inclined superintendent Rosenmüller comes and takes over, and he says, "From now on, we don't have to keep these laws anymore. You don't have to pray the prayer of the day, don't have to preach in the gospel of the day. You can be free. And the result was cacophony. People had not been trained on how to how to internalize, how to make the decisions from within the spirit of the liturgy. So, if we are to recapture that, then much more is needed than simply perfunctory repetitions of slogans and clichés, and that means that our pastors need to be thoroughly imbued with the spirit of the liturgy, and our congregations come to learn again what it means to take these decisions on in a churchly way.

And therefore, I hurry. Are you signaling that? No, you're signaling. All right. The Ministry of Standing Orders, I called it at the Pittsburgh Convention.

We come now to Thesis 4. Well, actually, how much time do we have? Okay, just a few words because I think it's important to illustrate this point at the hands of a particular example. There developed a dispute in Nuremberg under Osiander about absolution, and here the dynamic becomes clearly evident. The city council of Nuremberg were so happy to be rid of the jurisdiction of the bishops and their power to excommunicate, they were not to hand over that again to the Evangelical clergy. And so the idea developed that now they were going to absolve everybody en masse, and there was to be no individual confession and absolution. Osiander protested against that. He said, "What kind of nonsense is this? What kind of absolution do you call it when you throw out the words like pearls to the swine, be they unrepented, adulterers, murderers, who knows what? You simply declare them all forgiven, and you renounce the binding key.” So Osiander strongly criticized his practice, and so, of course, and he he was not given to understating the matter, and so there was enormous turmoil in the city. The city fathers wrote to Wittenberg for an opinion. Luther and Melanchthon, in several opinions, tried to make peace. Well, let's have the public confession and the private confession. Despite the efforts of the Nuremberg City Council, despite the extremism of Osiander in some cases and the enormous hostility that existed for him, Luther and Melanchthon refused to throw him to the wolves. They kept on maintaining that the principle is right; we cannot throw out private confession, but Osiander should accept public confession too, so that both could remain in Christian freedom side by side.

That was obviously a compromise, because Wittenberg did not wish to lose the adherence of Nuremberg to the Reformation. A church order signed by Luther in 1542 said, and Walther quotes that, that under no circumstances should it ever happen that the absolution is said to a whole crowd of people standing together. No, that should be said only to individuals. That's obviously the intent of that wording, “Therefore, I forgive you.” So here's an example of how the dynamic of church and state works together, muddles through with a compromise, but the result is that in our church today we have no clear conception just how absolution ought to be handled, and this matter is sort of an agenda item that ought to be pursued when time permits.

Now, thesis four: typical church growth liturgies fail not in terms of a checklist of details, but by surrendering the biblical confessional nature of worship as a whole.

In particular, the twin dimensions of truth and transcendence are systematically assaulted by two things: a) the intrusion of secular cultural norms and values, including even musical forms of a carnally degraded and degrading provenance, and b) the cultivation of a generic, unconfessional religiosity of the pop-American experiential charismatic type. I was happy to hear the distinction between three kinds of culture yesterday, but I'm mindful of Walther's insight that even the highest culture is simply refined flesh. ABC and other channels may present adultery in very coarse and vulgar terms. PBS presents adultery in the most exquisitely tasteful fashion.

So it's very important to see that this is not a question of simply of culture, of preference, of taste, or social class. This is a question of flesh or spirit, of heaven or hell. And so, for instance, the intrusion of secular norms and values. Three things in particular. First of all, I don't have time to inflict on you the huge collection of examples of horror that I've got. There's one I just got from Pastor Pless. I thank him very much. It hasn't been published yet, but it's such an awfully reworded, non-confession, non-absolution, that I can only describe it as a piece of unbelievably flatulent verbosity. That it ends up saying nothing. Or here is a prayer. One example. Here is supposed to be confession. “God of Majesty and all, we confess our failure to truly live” — split infinitive — “to truly live the Christian life, we have wanted too many times to remain in the past when you want to challenge us with the future.” So, 15-year-old kids are praying that. Sorry, we've lived in the past. We need to go. “And the abundant life you promise each of us through faith, with eyes that fail to see, we miss the vision of the glory of serving in Christ's name. Forgive us all our sins. Restore us to the life you have planned for us in your world, Amen.” The words of assurance: “In light, truth, and grace, God surrounds us with a love that will not let us go, turning our mourning into joy, our sin into forgiveness, our fear into awe, our despair into rejoicing.” Good heavens! What is all this chatter? “Tonight, God calls each by name, welcomes us into the family of faith, and grant us now peace now and into the future, which the world cannot give. We are forgiven. We are free. Thanks be to God. Amen.” That shows perhaps there is wisdom in having church orders after all. To strain this sort of Effusive chatter. Why can't we stick to the book, not embroider? So we're struck by the sheer triteness and the the awful emptiness of much of this.

But of course, that is not the worst. That is absurdity and sheer secularity. What about this? Here is a Super Sunday coming up, offering clergy a chance to score. So the bulletin for the sermon won't be the same, much different from the programs at Joe Robbie's Stadium in Miami. The bulletin starts with kick-off at 10:45 a.m. Then an invocation or a pre-game prayer. Instead of the Star-Spangled Banner, the flock will sing what he terms the unofficial anthem of churches, "Amazing Grace".” Misuse of that wonderful hymn. Then I have a united cheer, and the next thing I have on the program is the huddle with the team owner. For added authenticity, he throws in commercial breaks.

Has anybody any idea of what worship is to inflict such a horror on a Christian congregation? The football ideology, entertainment evangelism. But the absurdity is not only to be found in one direction. I've got one here from an Anglo-Orthodox source: a suggestion, an organic anthem, a rewording of “A Mighty Fortres"s” in a more organic way. Let me read just the first stanza. The others are better, but here's the first: “A mighty flowing out his God, He flows throughout the ages, and so to flow Himself to man, He comes to us in stages. Yet still, one God is He, one flow eternally. His stages pave the way to flow through man today, and now he flows within us.”

Well, the the final thing I must have. I've got quotations from encyclopedias that show encyclopedias of music that show the unspeakably horrid carnal background of the so-called rock music. One of our mutual colleagues at your institution finds it offensive that I regard rock as intrinsically unsuitable for worship. When Paul said, however, he becomes all things to all men, he did not include there that he therefore will accommodate himself to Corinthian prostitutes and to their ethos, and bring that into the congregation. He protests against that. Therefore, you can prove that because of his background, this music has entirely wrong associations and does not belong in the beauty of holiness.

The final thing is, as Sasse always points out, the Lutheran identity is shaped not just by the article of justification, but it's a kind of ellipsis, a double center justification and the true presence of the Lord's body and blood. Luecke threw that to the wind, and the church growth liturgies, on the whole, create in fact instead an interdenominational, unconfessional solidarity with quasi-Pentecostalism. Therefore, I'll read the conclusion without further ado.

These are no trifles that are at stake in our worship wars. It is God's gift or human counterfeits. Who wants a roistering block party with pop artists caterwauling through blaring loudspeakers when we can have God's heaven on earth? The Divine Service is our Mount of Transfiguration. The Epiphany of the Son of God is consummated there, in the star of His Gospel Word, the open heaven of Jordan's baptismal flood, and the wine of Cana become for us His very blood. Here we taste in advance of the restored Tree of Life in the midst of the new heavens and the new earth. Though we must regularly leave and return, the Lord goes with us. He does not drive us out as from that first paradise, but gently leads us to Himself, strengthening and cheering us whatever depth or the valley of the shadow of death we must traverse. And at the entrance stands no sword-bearing, avenging cherubim barring our way, on the contrary, angels and archangels welcome us back ever again, with all the company of heaven, till our pilgrimage and transfiguration be accomplished.

That we cannot surrender.

Note: I believe I coined the expression “Tale of Two Synods” in 2021. Here are all of the Gottesblog posts that make use of the term. — Ed.

Continue Reading…

GUEST POST from Rev. Stanley Lacey of St. Thomas Evangelical Lutheran Church-UAC , Magnolia.

When I got up the other day and checked my email, I saw an update from the Substack Truth and Light Media, by Karsten Christiansen, with a headline that read, in part, "Scriptural Adiaphora means LCMS worship wars must end."

In the conclusion of his post, Karsten Christensen said, "Worship wars need to end. Respect for God’s Holy Word relative to adiaphora and worship practice must be reestablished within the LCMS. Let’s get on with investing our energy and resources in pursuing the Great Commission while there is still time for those who do not yet know Jesus as their Savior, all for the sake of Christ’s Church and His people. Amen.”

Before continuing, I encourage anyone reading these words right now to listen to or watch this episode of On the Line, where Richard Stuckwisch explains the true meaning of adiaphora and how it applies today. 

For my part, I want to focus on two paragraphs from Mr. Christiansen’s post. He begins with the following words:

“Dear Friend in Christ,

Lutheran worship practice has historically included our Lutheran Confessions and the sacraments while respecting adiaphora – what God neither explicitly commands nor forbids in scripture. This goes back well before the establishment of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, all the way to Dr. Martin Luther and his contemporaries. Indeed, adiaphora is specifically noted in the LCMS Handbook (LCMS Inc.’s constitution and bylaws).

Article III Objectives, Section 7 of the Handbook reads:

“The Synod, under Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, shall … encourage congregations to strive for uniformity in church practice, but also to develop an appreciation of a variety of responsible practices and customs which are in harmony with our common profession of faith” (emphasis is the author’s).

Some in LCMS national and district leadership, and others, including pastors and laypersons, continue seeking to restrict the worship practices of all congregations to a singular worship form described as traditional, but which is, in actuality, a form that has never historically been used within the LCMS. Some of these “traditional” worship practices are more Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox than historically Lutheran, such as genuflecting, kneeling, incense, head coverings for women, elimination of women’s public reading of scripture or children’s messages, etc.”

Rev. Gerald Kieschnick said something very similar in a now-unlisted video interview on the Unite Leadership Collectives podcast. (And don’t worry, I downloaded the video on my computer just in case they decide to delete it!) While explaining that the LCMS is in decline in part due to what he refers to as a “romanization of the clergy,” Rev. Kieschnick says, 

“So, my thoughts about that are these—and, and again, I don't experience this personally as much as I do anecdotally, but I've talked to a lot of people. A lot of people talk to me, and I've heard the complaint. It's not just an observation, it's a complaint that particularly many of our recent seminary graduates—but not only recent, I don't know how you define recent, but our seminary graduates—do a lot of things that have a Roman flare to them, Roman flavor, like chanting. And I don't know anything inherently against chanting, I don't. It's okay, it can be beautiful if done properly. Not all of our pastors who think they're great chanters really are great chanters, I'm just saying. Genuflecting, prostrating before the altar. I went to a church, I went to a church with a pastor, I looked around, he was flat on the ground. He was on the ground prostrating before the altar, venerating the Host, requiring private confession and absolution, not just suggesting it. And I've noticed also adding the Corpus Christi, the body of Christ, to our otherwise typically, generally vacant crosses. You know, that's one of the things that we've done a lot for years, for decades, for centuries—well, for decades. And our crosses are empty, symbolizing the resurrection. Jesus isn't on the cross anymore, but adding the body of Christ back” (Transcribed by AI, 30:20ff)  

As soon as any Gottesdienst or Gottesdienst-adjacent person begins criticizing LCMS pastors and congregations for adopting non-denominational-coded church practices, the cry we hear from those utilizing such practices is often a response like this: “We as Lutherans must have an appreciation for a variety of responsible practices and customs which are in harmony with our common profession of faith. Different churches for different people. Different practices for different contexts. It is enough to agree on the Gospel and the Sacraments.” 

We say more than this based on the Scriptures in our Lutheran Confessions and in the witness of Lutherans who have gone before us. We aren’t to appreciate church practices and customs

When Mr. Christiansen issues his command that the worship wars end and cites our Synod Constitution, he quickly passes over “strive for uniformity” and italicizes “but also to develop an appreciation of a variety of responsible practices and customs which are in harmony with our common profession of faith. There’s nothing wrong with emphasizing this half of the statement, but we also ought to take special note of a few other words here. We as LCMS Christians ought to be committed to developing an appreciation for a variety of practices and customs in the church so long as they are “responsible practices and customs” and “in harmony with our common profession of faith.” 

When those in our Synod who wish to promote non-denominational-coded church practices in their divine services (both the Chief Divine Service and other divine services) use this section of our Synod’s Constitution to defend their rejection of old church customs in favor of church customs originating in heterodox churches, it begs the question: Are the church practices and customs of heterodox pastors and churches responsible and in harmony with our common profession of faith? Assuming they are without close and critical examination would contradict Scripture, which says, “Test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

Based on what Christiansen goes on to say, one must also ask: Is it spiritually healthy for a Christian to speak pejoratively of customs that originate in Scripture and are practiced by faithful Christians even today? 

It may be helpful to distinguish between what is prescriptive and descriptive in Holy Scripture to determine what is truly commanded and forbidden, and what is neither commanded nor forbidden. However, even when Scripture describes the faithful practices and customs of true believers that are not necessarily binding for a Christian because they lack God’s express command, they should never be disparaged as the property of a heterodox church by saying something like, “That’s too Roman Catholic!” 

Genuflecting (bowing the knee), kneeling, using incense, ministers wearing special clothing in the conduct of the liturgy, and even lying prostrate in the presence of the Lord are not the property of Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox. These practices and customs belong to the people of God in both the Old and New Testaments and the church of all time.

“Now take Aaron your brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister to Me as priest, Aaron and Aaron’s sons: Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for glory and for beauty. So you shall speak to all who are gifted artisans, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom, that they may make Aaron’s garments, to consecrate him, that he may minister to Me as priest. And these are the garments which they shall make: a breastplate, an ephod, a robe, a skillfully woven tunic, a turban, and a sash. So they shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother and his sons, that he may minister to Me as priest” (Exodus 28:1-4).

“Moses and Aaron went from the presence of the assembly to the door of the tabernacle of meeting, and they fell on their faces. And the glory of the LORD appeared to them” (Numbers 20:6).

“Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went home. And in his upper room, with his windows open toward Jerusalem, he knelt down on his knees three times that day, and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as was his custom since early days” (Daniel 6:10).

“And when the Magi had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him. And when they had opened their treasures, they presented gifts to Him: gold, frankincense, and myrrh” (Matthew 2:11).

“All the angels stood around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures, and fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying: ‘Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom, Thanksgiving and honor and power and might, Be to our God forever and ever. Amen’” (Revelation 7:11-12).

“Aaron shall burn on it sweet incense every morning; when he tends the lamps, he shall burn incense on it. And when Aaron lights the lamps at twilight, he shall burn incense on it, a perpetual incense before the LORD throughout your generations” (Exodus 30:7-8).

“So it was, that while he was serving as priest before God in the order of his division, according to the custom of the priesthood, his lot fell to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord. And the whole multitude of the people was praying outside at the hour of incense. Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing on the right side of the altar of incense” (Luke 1:8-11).

“Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints” (Revelation 5:8).

Would Mr. Christiansen or Rev. Kieschnick balk and sneer at our Lord when He fell on His face before the heavenly Father? 

“Jesus went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, ‘O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will’” (Matthew 26:39).

At one point in his post, Christiansen asserts, “We believe that it would be good and right for us all to remember that it takes all kinds of churches to reach all kinds of people. A singular worship practice being pushed by some may be good for certain congregations and not for others. One size does not fit all, as even Martin Luther recognized.” It should be said at this point that no one is saying that we should force congregations of the LCMS to use “a singular worship practice.” Not even the editors and fans of Gottesdienst can claim that they all have a singular worship practice! Also, no one is saying that keeping church practices in common is necessary for salvation or merits grace before God. 

But, even if we concede that a church’s worship practices vary by context, it is beyond dispute that every believer and unbeliever who has ever existed or will ever exist will eventually genuflect in the presence of and at the name of the Lord Jesus, whether they ever practiced genuflecting in this life or not. They will bow their knee on that day, whether they embraced or despised genuflecting in this life.

“God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:9-11)

Anyone like Karsten Christiansen, representing Truth and Light Media, or Rev. Gerald Kieschnick, carrying the credibility of a former LCMS Synod President, writing or speaking to a large audience of LCMS Christians ought to do their research before making such confident assertions about which worship practices have been used within the LCMS and are historically Lutheran. And if we are going to talk honestly about worship practices that are truly foreign to historic Lutheranism and the LCMS, we need to look not at what these figures deride as Roman Catholic, but at the practices they want us to assume are responsible and in harmony with our common confession.

It is much more accurate to say that the following church practices tolerated in the LCMS today are actually practices and customs that have never been historically used in the LCMS and are more non-denominational, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, and generally heterodox than historically Lutheran:

1. Jettisoning the donning of ornate vestments by the Lord’s ministers in the public worship services (Exodus 28:1-4).

2. Dispensing with the basic historic structure of the Chief Divine Service found already in synagogue of Jesus’s day, the narrative arc of the Gospels (Jesus preaching ministry—Service of the Word & Jesus’ suffering, death, resurrection, and ascension—Service of the Sacrament), the outline of Revelation (Jesus’ message to the Seven Churches—Service of the Word & Marriage Supper of the Lamb and God and God dwelling with His people—Service of the Sacrament), the description of Christian worship in the Acts of the Apostles (the doctrine of the Apostles—Service of the Word & fellowship, breaking of the bread, prayers, and sharing all things in common and giving to those in need—Service of the Sacrament).

3. Throwing out 500 years of historic Lutheran chorales in favor of hymns written by sacramentarians—or modern praise music produced almost entirely by sacramentarians. Even what the Songwriter Initiative is producing now still has a long way to go to write texts as substantive as those we have from the Lutheran tradition. Their time, treasure, and talent might be better spent composing new melodies for hymn texts from Walther’s Hymnal, the Lutheran Service Book, etc., for churches that can’t make an immediate leap to older melodies.

4. Eliminating biblical worship practices like kneeling, genuflecting, and at least recognizing the use of incense in worship as good and Scriptural, even if your parish doesn't use it. Even if you really have people who are allergic or experience respiratory issues in response to incense, no Christian should deride this Biblical practice as “too Roman Catholic.”

5. And—arguably one of the most harmful church practices adopted by LCMS pastors and congregations today from the heterodox groups—the practice of allowing Christians joined to heterodox pastors and congregations to partake of the Lord’s Supper at LCMS altars. When a congregation gives guests the impression that anyone can come forward to receive the Lord’s Supper regardless of whether they are Methodist, Roman Catholic, Assemblies of God, ELCA, or non-denominational—teaching by their practice that false doctrine, so long as it is not a false doctrine that denies the bare facts of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, isn't spiritually perilous—that is not LCMS or Lutheran practice. 

This last example of non-denominational-coded church practice adopted by many LCMS congregations, even many that may utilize other traditional worship practices, is evident whenever a pastor tells visitors in the crowd from the chancel or stage if they’ve “received training or instruction in this,” or “they are baptized, confess their sinfulness, believe Christ is somehow present in the Supper, and desire to live a godly life,” or “they believe in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and the Real Presence,” and say nothing concerning the necessity of already receiving the Lord’s Supper as a member in good standing of a congregation in fellowship with the LCMS, they may receive the body and blood of Jesus at that altar. Such a practice of Holy Communion belies a rejection of the Biblical teaching that Christians are commanded to avoid false teachers and false teaching (Romans 16:17-20). Our Lutheran fathers firmly upheld this Biblical teaching in the Book of Concord, even in the article on adiaphora.

The non-denominational-coded ceremonies of the heterodox are designed to make the church's public services immediately accessible to the visitor. This isn’t just seen in stripping away complexity in the service and reducing it to a few praise songs, announcements, a prayer, the Lord’s Supper, a sermon, and a few more praise songs. It is also seen in what is lacking in the preaching and in the administration of the Lord’s Supper. 

To be accessible and avoid offending visitors, non-denominational-coded pastors and churches will avoid polemics, i.e., refuting and warning against false doctrine and false teachers, almost completely. They will also explain who may receive the Lord’s Supper in such a way that almost any self-identifying Christian who believes in some sense of the Real Presence will think it appropriate to come up and receive it. This hardly qualifies as a responsible practice or custom in harmony with our common confession of faith. This church practice ignores God’s command to Christians to avoid heterodox pastors and teachers. And yet, many LCMS pastors and congregations adopt this, along with other visitor-friendly practices of non-denominational churches. False teachers and false doctrine exist within and without our Synod. They and it can destroy saving faith, and Christians must keep away. This is why our churches teach:

“Under the title and excuse of outward adiaphora, things are proposed that are in principle contrary to God’s Word, although painted another color. These ceremonies are not to be regarded as adiaphora, in which one is free to do as he wants. They must be avoided as things prohibited by God. In a similar way in such a situation ceremonies should not be regarded as genuine free adiaphora, or matters of indifference. This is because they make a show or pretend that our religion and that of the papists [insert: “the heterodox American sects”] are not far apart in order to avoid persecution [insert: “in order to avoid offending visitors or make them feel uncomfortable or out of place in any way”], or they pretend that the papist’s ceremonies [insert: “the ceremonies of the heterodox American sects”] are not at least highly offensive to us. When ceremonies are intended for this purpose, and are required and received (as though through them contrary religions are reconciled and became one body), we cannot regard them as adiaphora. When returning to the papacy [insert: “becoming indifferent toward doctrinal differences along with most of the heterodox American sects”] and departing from the Gospel’s pure doctrine and true religion should happen or gradually follow from such ceremonies, we cannot regard them as adiaphora. For in this case what Paul writes shall and must win out: ‘Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? … Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them’ (2 Corinthians 6:14–17)” (FC SD X 5-6).

Also,

“[A]ll Christians should beware of participating in the godless doctrine, blasphemies, and unjust cruelty of the pope [insert “heterodox American sects”]. They should desert and condemn the pope [insert “heterodox American sects”] with his [“their”] followers as the kingdom of Antichrist, just as Christ has commanded, ‘Beware of false prophets’ [Matthew 7:15]. Paul commands that godless teachers should be avoided and condemned as cursed [Galatians 1:8; Titus 3:10]. And he says, ‘Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers.… What fellowship has light with darkness?’ (2 Corinthians 6:14). To dissent from the agreement of so many nations and to be called schismatics is a serious matter. But divine authority commands everyone not to be allies and defenders of impiety and unjust cruelty. In this, our consciences are excused well enough, for the errors of the kingdom of the pope [insert “heterodox American sects”] are clear” (Tr 41-42).

The heterodox sects of America reject the Biblical teaching concerning the true and substantial presence of Christ’s body and blood under the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper. We Lutherans believe Jesus when He says, “This is My body…This is My blood.” The bread and wine do not contain Jesus' body and blood. The bread and wine are not plain, ordinary utensils we use to receive Christ's true body and blood. The bread and the wine do not symbolize the body and blood of Jesus. The body and blood of Jesus are not present only spiritually. Jesus is not present in the Lord’s Supper by His divine nature alone, nor by any other twisting of Holy Scripture about the Lord’s Supper.  According to Christ’s own words, we confess along with Justin Martyr, “This we receive not as common bread and common drink. We receive them as Jesus Christ, our Savior, who through the Word of God became flesh. For the sake of our salvation He also had flesh and blood. So we believe that the food blessed by Him through the Word and prayer is the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ” (FC SD VII 39). 

The old Lutheran church customs flow from the conviction that Christ is truly present, speaking to His people in the preaching, and that the bread and the wine of the Lord’s Supper are truly His body and blood for our forgiveness, life, and salvation. The Bible is full of examples of how saints behaved by God's command and spontaneously in the presence of the true and living God. The old Lutheran church customs flow from the conviction that the same true and living God who appeared before Moses and Aaron at the tabernacle of meeting comes to us now to preach to us and nourish us with His own flesh and blood. 

The customs and practices of the American sects and their non-denominational messaging flow from a rejection of this true and substantial presence of Christ in and through the Means of Grace. Instead, they insist God must come to us through forms of public worship that resonate with us personally and make us feel the way we think we ought to feel. Above all, they can’t be boring, because God would never want us to be bored! 

The customs and practices of the heterodox groups are not in harmony with our common confession of faith as orthodox Christians. Because they are not in harmony with our common confession, LCMS pastors and congregations cannot adopt them responsibly. On the contrary, adopting these church practices is unloving and militates against the harmony and public unity God desires for His people by obscuring what we actually believe is going on when God’s Word is read and preached and when the Lord’s Supper is celebrated.

If Mr. Christiansen wants the worship wars to end, then LCMS pastors and congregations need to show that non-denominational-coded worship practices and customs are responsible and in harmony with our common profession of faith. They need to provide compelling reasons to justify casting aside the old Lutheran church practices and customs in favor of the customs and practices of heterodox sects. If they cannot do this, they ought to abandon the customs they have adopted from the heterodox and restore the old Lutheran church customs, since our churches teach that, “Nothing in the customary rites may be changed without good reason. Instead, in order to foster harmony, those ancient customs should be observed that can be observed without sin or without proving to be a great burden. In this very assembly we have sufficiently shown that, for the sake of love, we will reluctantly observe adiaphora with others, even if such things may prove to be somewhat burdensome. We judge that the greatest possible public concord which can be maintained without offending consciences ought to be preferred to all other interests” (Ap XV 51-52). 

Unless and until the LCMS pastors and congregations that have abandoned old Lutheran church customs in favor of non-denominational-coded practices and customs have given compelling reasons for such a change, a change that has violated love and violently disrupted the public unity and concord among LCMS pastors and congregations both locally as well as at the district and synodical level, we cannot and will not appreciate their particular practices and customs. We must only appreciate responsible practices and customs that are in harmony with our common confession of faith. As long as we are tempted by the Devil, the world, and our own sinful nature to adopt church practices and customs that fall short of this standard, we must continue to fight the worship wars in ourselves, our own congregations, and in our district and synodical gatherings, until our Lord Jesus returns in glory. On that day, “everyone will genuflect, and every tongue will confess to God” (Isaiah 45:23).

In this journal (Lutheran Mission Matters, November, 2019), former Texas district president, the Rev. Michael Newman has a modest proposal that I think we should consider. Beginning on page 11, he writes:

***

Action Two: The LCMS Starts a New Church Body in the Third Largest Mission Field in the World.

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod has demonstrated biblical Kingdom multiplication for nearly 175 years:

• Believers reached out to new people. By God’s grace, through the Word and Sacraments, disciples made new disciples.

• Churches planted new churches; sometimes a single congregation heroically and faithfully birthed multiple new churches in many communities.

• Districts of the Synod launched new districts. For example, the Southern District gave birth to both the Texas and Florida-Georgia districts, as missionaries were sent to new places in order to expand the reach of the Gospel.

• AND, the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod started new church bodies around the world.

Resolution 2-01 from the 2019 LCMS convention was titled, “To Thank God for 125 Years of International Mission through The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.” That resolution articulated one facet of LCMS church multiplication: “WHEREAS, The planting of churches and raising up of pastors and church workers has resulted in the formation of 35+ partner church bodies. . .”

The LCMS has actively started new Lutheran church bodies in different places and cultures, among people of different languages and customs, at opportune times and for the purpose of seeing the Gospel reach new people so that more might confess the name of Jesus and receive the gifts of forgiveness and eternal life.

According to my research, at least ten of those 35+ partner churches were started from scratch by the LCMS through missionary outreach to new places and cultures around the world8 :

Africa:

• The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Ghana: started in 1958, became a partner church in 1971

Asia:

The Lutheran Church—Hong Kong Synod: started in 1915, post-1949 became an independent synod • India Evangelical Lutheran Church: started in 1894, became a partner church in 1959

• Japan Lutheran Church: started in 1948, became a partner church in 1968 • The Lutheran Church in Korea: started in 1958, became a partner church in 1971

• Gutnius Lutheran Church (New Guinea): started in 1948

• The Lutheran Church in the Philippines: started in 1946, became a partner church in 1971 • Lanka Lutheran Church: started in 1927, became a partner church in 2001

South America:

• Evangelical Lutheran Church of Brazil (IELB): started in 1900, became a district of the LCMS in 1904, became a partner church in 1980

North America:

• Lutheran Church-Canada: started in 1854, became an autonomous partner church in 1988

What is even more encouraging is that the new church bodies started by the LCMS have continued the pattern of multiplication. Disciples are making new disciples. Congregations are planting new congregations. Partner churches are even starting new partner churches! The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Brazil (IELB) started the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Portugal in 1959. LCMS fellowship with this new body was established in 2019. The IELB is now in the process of starting a new Lutheran body in Mozambique. God’s Word multiplies!9 Where is the next place the LCMS should consider starting a new church body?

Where is there a need to reach a new culture in new ways? What about the third largest mission field in the world behind China and India, the United States of America?

What if the LCMS recognized that, like any long-standing entity, its reach has narrowed? The Missouri Synod has a limited connection with new generations. The Missouri Synod is very mono-ethnic. It has structures, costs, and preferences that create barriers to the emerging “new nation” that is developing within the United States. Is it time to send missionaries to launch a new church body in the US? Is it the right season in history to give birth to a new biblical and confessional voice that can speak Christcentered, grace-focused, sacramental-rejoicing, and Scripture-founded words into the spiritual conversation happening in America today?

I’m not talking about division; I’m talking about multiplication. Might the launch of a new movement, rooted in and founded upon Reformation theology, be just what is needed to reinvigorate the multiplication legacy of the LCMS—and the Lutheran Church in Western civilization?

Picture it:

• A younger, more diverse and nimble church in which Article XIV of the Augsburg Confession (“Order in the Church,” “rite vocatus”) is unencumbered by European educational structures and Western accreditation requirements. Envision a church that has the option to use the older models of pastoral formation and certification, but also has the ability to be faithful to the Confessions while making use of new technology and new systems that accomplish faithful pastoral formation and sending for greater Gospel outreach.

• A church that is able to practice Article VII of the Augsburg Confession (definition of the Church and true unity of the Church) outside of a Western, European, sixteenth-century overlay, free to use the best of what God has provided in external forms and ceremonies throughout the years, while at the same time incorporating other biblical paradigms that honor God and speak to an emerging generation.

• A church that can meet the chaotic fallenness of today’s culture with sound proclamation of Law and Gospel, applying Article IV of the Augsburg Confession (Justification) without being afraid of the “new” sins of this generation.

What if the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod did what it has always done: send missionaries to start a new church body in order to reach a new nation—even the new and emerging “nation” developing in the US?

***

I disagree with some of the details and motivations in this article, but this proposal would solve the ongoing “Tale of Two Synods” that nobody is really happy about. Even the Rev. Zach Zehnder’s latest survey reveals a shocking degree of division in our synod that defies compromise - forcing even him to come to grips with the reality that we are not walking together on many issues that are important across the board, including: pastoral formation, liturgical worship, and the role of women in the church. There are doctrinal and confessional issues that are not reconcilable, largely based on our different interpretations of the Bible and Confessions.

Some issues can be discussed and compromised: how many districts should we have? What should the mascot and colors be of one of our Concordia universities? What is the division of labor between synod and district? Term limits? How to resolve disputes within synod? Questions like these can be hashed out.

But there are issues that simply cannot be compromised. One faction or the other will win, and one will lose: Can women preach and administer sacraments to other women? Should women lead the public liturgy (such as Nicene Creed) and read the scriptures in worship (including the Gospel)? Should women serve as elders and distribute communion? Should women lead men (even pastors) in public devotions? Is the male-only pastorate biblical, or merely cultural? Should there be a non-residential formation option for pastors? Should laymen who are not field workers or vicars preach, or should any laymen consecrate the elements in worship services? Should an agreed-upon liturgical Divine Service from one of our hymnals be used? Should we ordinarily commune people who do not belong to LCMS churches or to churches with whom we share fellowship (closed communion)?

On these and similar issues, the possible answers are mutually exclusive. And we are divided in the synod about them.

They cannot be both permitted and not permitted.

There are those who say Article 24 can be disregarded, whether for the sake of the Gospel or by its supposed recension by other parts of the confessions, and others who hold to a strict quia subsciption and cannot abide any of the articles to be set aside by churches in our communion. Again, these are questions that will ultimately be decided by a one-size-fits-all decision - probably at a convention. And even then, we see district presidents and pastors who simply refuse to comply with synod, knowing that our polity makes discipline virtually impossible, and that even the decisions of conventions cannot really be enforced.

And so we are left with perpetual bickering. We are a Tale of Two Synods. We are in a de facto state of broken fellowship. Both sides are frustrated. Why do we have to live like this?

President Newman has the solution: dissolution. Why don’t the “missional” churches peel off and form a new church body? They could outright mandate congregational freedom to worship any way they like. They could form pastors and leaders - including women, if that is their choice - without residential seminary training. They could use Kairos and Luther House of Study, or they could do a kind of congregation-based internship - without any pushback from members of the LCMS. They could experiment freely and be entrepreneurial without being anchored to those who oppose them in the LCMS. They could re-evaluate the principles of biblical and confessional hermeneutics. They claim that they know how it can be done better. Well, maybe they should have the opportunity to prove it. Talk is cheap, after all.

Their big churches could get more representation if they want to organize into a synod or some convention structure. If Caesar’s courts approve of the CTX steal, they could even have a “forward-thinking” university with a lady president - and they could re-start CTX’s certification of church workers. They would be free to remove the name “Lutheran” from their churches and institutions without reproach from anyone in the LCMS - and without alienating potential members who might see the label as a turnoff.

They would have no more complaints about their being too many collars and chasubles and miters in synod publications, and not enough CoWo at synod and district functions.

This just seems like a win-win.

I sometimes wonder if the only thing standing in the way of a peaceful separation is financial: things like LCEF loans and employee benefits. There is no reason why the LCMS couldn’t figure out a way to either grandfather in churches that leave, or expand eligibility for our benefits beyond the LCMS.

The Reverend Professor Kurt Marquart was openly calling for a friendly dissolution 25 years ago. Our divisions have only gotten worse since that time. Abraham and Lot were honest enough with themselves to realize that they needed a little more space between them in order to keep the peace.

We should consider the Newman Option by spinning off a new and experimental church body.

Both of these discussions about Lutheran liturgy and adiaphora were released on the same day: October 5, 2026.

By Matt Richard

Note: This was published January 2, 2026 at https://www.pastormattrichard.com/2026/01/how-to-kill-lutheranism-just-change.html and is republished here with permission.

Rev. Will Weedon recently shared the following online from Dr. Joseph Herl of Concordia University, Seward, regarding Johann Georg:  

"... the year was 1616. Johann Georg, Margrave of Brandenburg, converted to Calvinism and sought to enforce Calvinism on his very Lutheran territory. What changes did he demand?

1. All images are to be removed from the Church and sent to the court. 

2. The stone altar is to be ripped from the ground and replaced with a wooden table.

3. When the Lord's Supper is held, a white cloth covers the table.

4. All altars, crucifixes, and panels are to be completely abolished.

5. Instead of the host, bread is to be baked into loaves, cut into strips, and put in a dish from which the people receive it in their hands; likewise, the chalice is received by the people with their hands.

6. The words of the Supper are no longer to be sung, but rather spoken.

7. The golden chalice is to be replaced by a wooden one.

8. The prayer in the place of the collect is to be spoken, not sung.

9. Mass vestments and other finery no longer used. 

10. No lamps and candles are to be placed upon the altar.

11. The houseling cloth is not to be held in front of the communicants.

12. The people are not to bow as if Christ were present.

13. The communicants shall no longer kneel.

14. The sign of the cross after the benediction is to be discontinued.

15. The priest is no longer to stand with his back to the people.

16. The Collect and Epistle are no longer to be sung, but spoken.

17. Individuals are no longer to go to confession before communing, but rather register with the priest in writing.

18. The people are no longer to bow when the name of JESUS is mentioned, nor are they to remove their hats.

19. The Our Father is no longer to be prayed aloud before the sermon, but rather, there is to be silent prayer.

20. Communion is not to be taken to the sick, as it is dangerous, especially in times of pestilence.

21. The stone baptismal font is to be removed and a basin substituted.

22. Epitaphs and crucifixes are no longer to be tolerated in the Church.

23. The Holy Trinity is not to be depicted in any visual form.

24. The words of the sacrament are to be altered and considered symbolic.

25. The historic Epistles and Gospels are no longer used, but rather a selection of the Bible by the minister, read without commentary." [1]

It is quite obvious that Johann Georg's changes were not neutral  They weren't random stylistic updates or mere cultural adjustments  They were surgical strikes—liturgical and theological moves designed to strip Lutheran theology and align the churches of his territories to Calvinist norms  Dr. Herl nailed it: Johann Georg believed that the only way to root out Lutheran doctrine was to change Lutheran worship—to get rid of worship that confessed in action what Lutherans believed in their hearts.[2]

What can we learn from this, though? 

First, examining what Johann Georg abolished, removed, and reformed helps us understand what the Lutheran Church was actually like in the 1500s  In other words, Georg's removal of crucifixes, chanting, stone altars, reverence at the name of Jesus, kneeling for communion, and even private confession (to name a few) shows that the early Lutheran Church was not embarrassed by ceremony  The Lutheran Reformers did not avoid the beauty of liturgy or reverence out of fear of "looking too Catholic." No, they understood that worship practices confess doctrine. They knew that reverence wasn't optional—it was an extension of faith.

Second, Johann Georg's removal of chanting and the stripping away of liturgical furniture most certainly weakened the sanctuary's sacred spaces, making the sacred appear more like the common.  

Third, the piety of the laity was stripped away. The removal of bowing, for instance, erased bodily catechesis. That is to say, bowing is a physical confession of faith. Without these physical confessions of faith, worship can become internalized, individualized, and emotionally driven. When posture no longer teaches, the piety of the laity resorts to internalized feelings of the heart.  

Fourth, the Sacraments were substantially reduced and diminished. This wasn't a minor adjustment. It was a theological decapitation. The very heart of Lutheran worship—the second half of the Small Catechism—was undermined. Alas, when the Sacraments go, not only is assurance displaced but Lutheranism ceases to exist.  

This begs the question:

What does it say when Lutheran churches today voluntarily do the very things Johann Georg forced on the Lutheran Church in the 1600s What does it say when Lutheran worship today looks more Calvinist than Lutheran?

Yes, theology most certainly shapes practice. But we must also recognize this: our actions, ceremonies, and liturgical habits teach. They shape how we think, believe, and confess. In other words, practice is not neutral—as already stated above. Practices carry theological weight. They are not a blank canvas we're free to paint over however we wish. Every practice—every posture, every song, every rite—either reinforces the truth or introduces error.

This is why the Lutheran Church must not only preserve sound doctrine but also the sound practices of the Lutheran faith. Let us not be so naive as to think the Lutheran Church can adopt Reformed or Evangelical practices without compromising Lutheran doctrine. Let us not be so naive as to think that doctrine and practice are not joined at the hip.

Mark this well: To confess rightly, we must worship rightly  To worship rightly, we must believe rightly  Anything less, and we're not just rearranging furniture—we're undermining the theological foundation of the Lutheran Church.

So, guard Lutheran practice  Guard Lutheran doctrine.

Because in the end, it's all one confession.

[1] Joseph Herl, Worship Wars in Early Lutheranism: Choir, Congregation, and Three Centuries of Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2004), 111, referenced in a Twitter post by Rev. Will Weedon (12-30-25)

[2] Ibid, passim.

Each year our congregation in Cullman joins with the city to help kick off our annual Oktoberfest celebration with a Divine Service in German. This year the service fell on St. Michael and All Angels day. As we celebrate, even though many of the participants cannot understand the language (translations are provided), the ones gathered are pleased that they can follow along because the liturgy is the same. It is a great witness to the unchanging nature of the Church and that God remains with His people in the same way as He always has. The highlighted link is to an article that was written by one of our city’s newspapers.

In February 2025, then-Texas District President Michael Newman laid out his blueprint to “The Way to Unity in the LCMS.” I had previously responded to his piece here. But it popped up again in my feed, and I had some further thoughts on it. His solution involves Article 7 and Formula 10 (cherry picked), while ignoring Article 24. It involves reducing the treasure of the Divine Service to snotty comments about candles and cassocks. And this from the DP who was in charge when Concordia Texas led the way to “unity” in his district. I’m not so sure he is the best guy to be lecturing us about unity. Especially given this recent revelation. Really?

We had a lot of unity when we didn’t collectively ignore Article 24, when we didn’t have congregations having Sunday morning variety shows, rebaptisms, lay consecrations, and unvested pastors strutting around like late night TV furniture salesmen on a stage bereft of altar, font, and pulpit.

President Newman says: “It’s time for a groundswell of what truly unites us.” I agree. And we saw in our recent convention that a solid majority of us are quite united. We are united in that we want a synod comprised of churches that are serious about the Gospel and the Sacraments, not purveyors of clown-shows that ape the latest fads among non-sacramental megachurches. “For the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree about the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments.” And that’s what the Divine Service is: it is the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. So when the former president mocks the Divine Service as being about candles and vestments, it only shows that he doesn’t get it at all. He is only looking at the externals. He doesn’t seem to have the blick. And he most certainly doesn’t understand us. He just wants us to shut up and accept whatever goes on in LCMS congregations, no matter how disunited they are from the rest of us. As his fellow former Texas DP put it: we liturgical types are the speedbumps. Well, maybe we’re kind of fed up with being driven over.

The reason that “We do not abolish the Mass” isn’t because we think candles are romantic or that vestments look nice. Our forbears retained the liturgy and its ceremonies precisely because “it is enough to agree about the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments.”

Candles are not necessary. Neither are vestments. Neither is an altar. I just celebrated Mass today with none of those things - although I wore the little ribbon stole from my communion kit. But what I did have was the Mass. And it is enough for my parishioner in the hospital. I didn’t strut around and tell jokes. I invoked the Most Holy Trinity and made the sign of the cross. I didn’t show up dressed like I was going to the zoo. I celebrated the Mass in her hospital room. I read the Word of God with reverence. I preached the Gospel with serious joy. I followed the Mass that she knows by heart. I chanted the verba. I did not rush through it like an auctioneer or mindlessly mumble the words. By means of those words of Christ, Christ became miraculously present for us. I genuflected before the Divine Presence. We reverently ate the body of Christ and drank His blood out of a simple, but dignified chalice. We sang the Agnus Dei. We sang the Nunc Dimittis. Satis est: It is enough. For in this Divine Service that we have retained, we do indeed agree about the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments.

And yes, our rites don’t have to be exactly the same. Unlike my usual practice in celebrating the parochial Mass every Sunday and Wednesday, I spoke an ex corde collect and spoke the post-communion collect (instead of chanting them). We have the freedom for such variation - even differing from ourselves at different times and places. But the overall Mass was the same, dare I say it, it was united with what Christians have done for millennia, Lutherans have done for centuries, and we in the LCMS have been doing since the mid 19th century. Our unity transcends the LCMS, and extends back to the apostles themselves.

And while the former president does the usual omission of Augsburg Confession Article 24 in his confessional argument and apology for CoWo, that too is part of the confessions that are supposed to unite us:

[1] Our churches are falsely accused of abolishing the Mass. The Mass is held among us and celebrated with the highest reverence. [2] Nearly all the usual ceremonies are also preserved, except that the parts sung in Latin are interspersed here and there with German hymns. These have been added to teach the people. [3] For ceremonies are needed for this reason alone, that the uneducated be taught ‹what they need to know about Christ›. [4] Not only has Paul commanded that a language understood by the people be used in church (1 Corinthians 14:2, 9), but human law has also commanded it. [5] All those able to do so partake of the Sacrament together. This also increases the reverence and devotion of public worship. [6] No one is admitted to the Sacrament without first being examined. [7] The people are also advised about the dignity and use of the Sacrament, about how it brings great consolation to anxious consciences, so that they too may learn to believe God and to expect and ask from Him all that is good. [8] This worship pleases God [Colossians 1:9–10]. Such use of the Sacrament nourishes true devotion toward God. [9] Therefore, it does not appear that the Mass is more devoutly celebrated among our adversaries than among us.

For it is a lie when our Roman Catholic opponents say that we have abolished the Mass. Or is it? Well, it’s a lie if it is said about me and my congregation. Sadly, not every LCMS pastor of every LCMS congregation could stand and publicly read Article 24 to his congregation with a straight face like I can. Better to just not mention it at all, I suppose. We worship liturgically according to the Mass that we have received because it “pleases God” and “nourishes true devotion toward God” (AC 24:8). Satis est indeed! And I can actually say this even about the simple Mass that I celebrated in the hospital: “It does not appear that the Mass is more devoutly celebrated among our adversaries than among us” (AC 24:9).

Look at those words from our confessions that unite us: Reverence. Devotion. Dignity. Devoutly.

We are devout because we actually believe this stuff. We can do without candles and vestments when they would become cumbersome - such as in a hospital. But we cannot do without the Mass. The candles and vestments are enhancements that point to our confession that something greater than ourselves is present. And it was God Himself who instituted the use of vestments for ministers who are presiding in the Divine Presence. That is not a manmade tradition. That is of divine design. Our neo-evangelical and non-denominational brethren don’t believe in the Real Presence in the New Testament church. That’s why they don’t vest. If they did, I believe that they would. They are devout. But they don’t confess the sacramental Presence. That’s why they don’t genuflect. That’s why they don’t elevate. That’s why they don’t ring bells. That’s why they don’t receive the Supper on their knees. Those things make no sense to those who do not confess the Real Presence. And to us who do, none of those things are necessary, but all of those things are salutary because they confess the Real Presence, and they enhance the unity of our confession. And that is why the Lutheran reformers were unified in retaining the Mass and its attendant ceremonies.

The ordinary and normal use of vestments, the celebration of Mass at an altar, and preaching from a pulpit all point to the dignity, reverence, and seriousness of our confession. For here’s another part of our confessions that unite us that the former president omitted, which comes from the Augsburg Confession: "A Review of the Various Abuses That Have Been Corrected":

It can easily be judged that if the churches observed ceremonies correctly [si ceremoniae rite fiant in ecclesiis], their dignity would be maintained and reverence and piety would increase among the people.

There is no one right way to “observe ceremonies,” but they can indeed be observed “correctly” [Latin: rite, literally “according to the rite”]. And this also means that they can be observed incorrectly. So there are wrong ways - and those wrong ways impede, not enhance, our unity. The correct way to carry out ceremonies involves the words dignity, reverence, and piety. And that all grows out of that which separates us from our non-denominational brethren in both Gospel and Sacraments, i.e. our sacramental imagination.

And another confession omitted by the former president, Apology 24:

At the outset, we must again make this preliminary statement: we do not abolish the Mass, but religiously keep and defend it. Masses are celebrated among us every Lord’s Day and on the other festivals. The Sacrament is offered to those who wish to use it, after they have been examined and absolved. And the usual public ceremonies are observed, the series of lessons, of prayers, vestments, and other such things.

And Formula 10 isn’t a free-for-all, as I wrote about here:

And to throw a wrench into the whole works, the darling passage from the Book of Concord that the anti-liturgical faction of the LCMS likes to point to, FC SD 10, actually does put an asterisk on the definition of adiaphoron: “When there are useless, foolish displays [Latin: inutiles nugas et puerilia spectacula, German: unnütze, närrische Spektakel [Schauspiele]] that are not profitable for good order, Christian discipline, or evangelical practice in the Church, these also are not genuine adiaphora, or matters of indifference” (FC SD 10:7).

For that is another part of our confession that the former president didn’t really want to talk about.

The kind of unity President Newman is encouraging is a group decision to just look the other way and collectively pretend that the naked emperor is clad. It almost worked for the crooked tailors in the tale who promoted a unity based on a convenient and collectively agreed upon falsehood. As pragmatic as the false unity was, it came crashing down when the townspeople came to grips with the reality that they had been bamboolzed.

Maybe the real way to unity in the LCMS is to embrace all of our confessions, and look once more to the time when we didn’t have liturgical chaos: everyone doing what is right in his own eyes, turning our worship services into spectacles (Spektakel, Schauspiele), and abolishing the Mass.

Unity is achievable to those who truly desire it.

A Review of T. R. Halvorson, Vicarious Satisfaction in the Lutheran Confessions and Orthodoxy (Sydney, MT: Synoptic Text Information Services, Inc., 2026).  317 Pages. Paperback. $21.99.

When it comes to theology, it is clear that T. R. Halvorson has a passion, or one might be tempted to say a one-track mind, an over-arching desire to set the record straight on the atonement; and the result of his efforts has been the provision of a great gift to Confessional Lutheranism. He is the creator of Synoptic Text Information Services, a small publishing house whose titles deal exclusively with documentation and defense of the orthodox Lutheran teaching on the atonement as vicarious satisfaction. Consider this list of their published titles and bundles:

• The Hollaz Legacy: Lutheran Atonement Facing Rationalism and Pietism

• Luther's Liturgical Criteria and His Reform of the Canon of the Mass by Bryan D. Spinks

• Vicarious Satisfaction in Lutheran Catechisms, Confessions, and Hymns

• Atonement in Confessional Lutheran Theology Series:

• Volume 1: Franz Pieper

• Volume 2: Chorus of Voices (Anthology)

• Volume 3: Jack D. Kilcrease

• Volume 4: Harnack, Thomasius & Philippi

• Atonement in Lutheran Orthodoxy Series:

• Johannes Quenstedt (2nd Edition)

• Baier-Walther

• Abraham Calov

Now to these titles, some his own and some by various theologians, he adds another compilation of his own, of the evidence that the Lutheran Confessions themselves unambiguously teach the vicarious satisfaction as the voluntary sacrifice Christ made to bear the punishment for sin and the Law’s curse in our stead, a sacrifice made to God for the sin of the world, satisfying the requirements of the Law and securing our freedom from the Law’s condemnation.

Halvorson admits that the task was not straightforward because, he explains, “What the Book of Concord confesses about the atonement . . . had to be gathered because it cannot be looked up: there is no article on the subject, and the material lies distributed across nine documents, in four registers, arranged by the accidents of controversy rather than by any scheme.”[1] But the result of this gathering is a clear confessional rebuttal of some current schemes that continue to peddle false claims, such as “Orthodoxy got substitution wrong.” “Orthodoxy got satisfaction wrong.” “Orthodoxy is too legal, too juridical.” “The promise without satisfaction is enough.” But it turns out that these charges, which are rarely examined, may be tested against the evidence, and with the evidence presented in this book, the charges are found wanting.

 A major emphasis Halvorson finds in the Confessions’ data is the preservation of the vicarious satisfaction’s effect on the conscience, and the consolation of the troubled conscience. He explains:

The word conscience and its forms occur 322 times in the Book of Concord. . . . Whatever else the confessions are arguing about, they are arguing about consciences, and the atonement is where that argument is conducted. . . .

The confessions do not define the term, but their usage is consistent and narrow. The conscience is not the faculty by which a man knows right from wrong in general. It is the place where he stands before God’s judgment and knows how he stands.

It is therefore something that can be terrified.[2]

The Confessions therefore emphasize the objectivity of the vicarious satisfaction, and the merit of Christ coming from outside of us. They “will not let the certainty rest on the strength of the faith that receives. ‘This worthiness consists not in the greatness or smallness, in the weakness or strength of faith, but in the merit of Christ’ (FC SD VII.71).”[3]  

Halvorson goes on to explain what Lutheran Orthodoxy is, namely, “the theology of the third, fourth, and fifth generations after the Reformation, men who were no longer in contact with the religious experience or the original insight that had produced it.”[4] Halvorson delves into the views of Quenstadt and Hollaz, two main figures in the era of Lutheran Orthdoxy, as well as Francis Pieper’s affirmation and defense of the Orthodox position, and painstakingly compares this favorably to the Lutheran Confessions, finally providing definitive evidence that the two positions are one and the same, with the result that the charges against Orthodoxy are shown to be entirely false.

Pastors and students of theology can benefit from Halvorson’s detailed analysis and point-by-point ironclad rebuttal of the notion, advanced by Gustaf Aulén, Gerhard Forde, Steven Paulson, and others, that the vicarious satisfaction is an invention of the Orthodox. On the contrary, it is central to the Gospel itself.

[1] Halvorson, 62.

[2] Halvorson, 69.

[3] Halvorson, 72.

[4] Halvorson, 76.

By the Rev. Matthew Uttenreither

Everyone remembers where they were when 9/11 happened. It’s one of those events that is burned in the conscience of mankind. It was a tragic day and it was the time for the Church to stand up and be a witness of the peace that one can only find in Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

The churches in New York City were directly impacted. Many LCMS Churches were affected. President Benke had a tremendous task in front of him and from what I read in his book as it pertains to caring for the people affected as well as the pastors under his authority who were caring for their people, first responders, etc.… From what is revealed in the book, President Benke acted as a true “bishop” caring for the clergy, even getting them two weeks of “vacation” away so they can be recharged while providing fill-in clergy for them. This should be commended. It’s obvious he cares for the pastors under his care. And if that was the end of the story, it would be a story of a faithful District President who stepped up in one of the most difficult times in American History and rose to the occasion. Sadly, that is not the end of the story in It’s OK to Pray.

The Mayor of New York City called for a time of healing, as any good Mayor would do during this time. He called for a day of Prayer and it would be held at Yankee Stadium and the great Priestess of American Spirituality at that time, Oprah Winfrey was asked to officiate. What would follow was the living embodiment of a “COEXIST” Bumper Stickers. The Prayer Service was filled with religious leaders from Rome, the East, various Protestant Churches, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, and our very own President David Benke.

President Benke tells a very one-sided story in his tale. Benke feels that he was in the right because he received permission from his ecclesiastical supervisor, then Synod President, Gerald Kieschnick. President Kieschnick defends this by appealing to by-laws and as we all know the by-law is the final word in the LCMS. No, where in his book does he try to justify theologically that what he did was ok and not a public sin against the first table of the Law. Instead, he appeals to how “popular” his “prayer” was as well as the marketing of said prayer in t-shirts, stickers, etc.… He truly believes that this “prayer” was a hallmark of evangelism. You would be hard-pressed to find any citation of scripture in this “memoir”. Benke even goes so far to suggest that the real reason behind the criticism of Oprah as officiant of the Prayer Services was racial.

The real hero of this sad story is VP Wallace Schulz who rightly suspended President Benke from the roster of Synod. President Kieschnick in this book even “threatens” Schulz that his own position in Synod could be in jeopardy and ultimately Kieschnick was right as Schulz was fired from the position as speaker of the Lutheran Hour. There are others that could speak to the twisting of the truth that President Benke details in this book for example President Benke fails to mention the committee on constitutional matters role and who appointed those people on the committee to give the interpretation on a resolution that dealt with the church in the public square.

Ultimately, “It’s OK to Pray” is a story of pride. President Benke revels in the “heretic” label he received. We see this in how his friends and supporters talk about Benke in this book. Benke is labeled as a “martyr” and like Luther himself, who Scudieiri wrongly says in the Introduction that Luther stood up to the Emperor in 1517. Benke claims its all about the “precious name of Jesus” and “Gospel” repeatedly in this book but he ultimately fails to proclaim what that Gospel is.

What is needed in this sad tale is a corrective written by those men who courageously filed charges against Benke. What is needed is repentance and faith. Lord, have mercy.

In his recent poll (which is admittedly not a scientific survey), the Rev. Zach Zehnder claims that we are shockingly united on the issue of male-only ordination. This is based on 85% of respondents saying that women should not be ordained. 10% said that they should. 5% were not sure. Zehnder celebrates this as a great show of unity.

But think about it. The reason we don’t ordain women and have them serve pastorally is because it is doctrine. It is dogma. It’s not just a preference. If he took a poll and asked about the Trinity or the Two Natures of Christ, would he be celebrating the fact that 85% of respondents agreed to these doctrines? Or would he express concern that 15% didn’t?

Moreover, according to the poll numbers, nearly a fourth (23%) of all women who took the poll expressed the belief that women should be ordained. That is shocking disunity. There is good news, however, as among boomers, roughly a quarter of all of them, men and women alike, favor women’s “ordination,” while among the young, there is an overwhelming consensus - about 95% of respondents aged 18-29 - opposed. A good many of our liberals are, to no one’s surprise, « personnes d'un certain âge » . Slightly more than a fourth (26%) of those aged 70 and above, favored women’s “ordination.” For they grew up brainwashed by feminism. Our Gen Z and Gen Alpha folks have seen the destruction of feminism and of liberalism in general. They are lurching back to a more conservative, even a reactionary and traditionalist, Christianity. And this is not only an LCMS trend. It is across Christendom in the West. As the old Rolling Stones hymn puts it: “Time Is On My Side.”

And even among those who answered that they oppose women’s “ordination,” there was no question asking why. I have a suspicion that among those who oppose it, many of them will not say that it is a doctrine, but rather only a preference. Reading between the lines among some of our less traditionalist podcasters, I suspect this to be the case with some of them. They say they oppose women’s “ordination,” but would they still oppose it if it didn’t cause offense and discord? Would they still oppose it if synod approved it?

Why don’t we ordain women? It is not a cultural matter, a preference, or an adiaphoron. It is rather an expression of the order of creation, of the incarnation, and it is spelled out in God’s Word. Moreover, exclusive male-only ordination was also practiced by Jesus and the apostles themselves. Those who want women’s “ordination” have a lot of tricks up their sleeves, including the tried and true: “Did God actually say?” Some of them argue that prohibitions of women in ministry are merely Paul’s personal opinions and biases - not God’s Word. I have even heard Paul condemned as a “misogynist.” Some try to cast doubt on the Pauline authorship of the epistles. Some argue that the prohibitions were culturally and temporally bound. Some run to that old friend of radicals, Gospel Reductionism. Others appeal to reason placed in a magisterial way above the Scriptures. Others say that God is still speaking, and He is giving us new revelations for our day. Others say that it is an adiaphoron, and simply a matter of preference. They want what they want, and they will just go ahead and do it while reverse-engineering a theology to support it. “Any port in a storm.”

One person who used to think in these terms, served as a Lutheran “pastor,” changed her mind, and stepped away from purporting to be in the ministry is a lady named Ulla Hindbeck. She was “ordained” as a “priest” in the (Lutheran) Church of Sweden. By 1991, she had repudiated her “ministry” and wrote about it in the Confessional Lutheran Research Society Newsletter Number 21 (Easter 1991). It was reprinted by Logia in 2000 (Epiphany 2000, Volume IX Number 1). This issue is devoted to Feminism, and can be downloaded for $4.00 here.

Hindbeck concludes:

Our fathers in our apostolic church did not know such a god who calls women into the apostolic office. It is a new god who is worshiped here - woman-god, socialism’s god, a god of human reason, a new god, and a new belief. It is not Christianity but another religion.

Since women pastors are a human order in the church that conflicts with God’s Word, a woman cannot be considered to be among the ungodly pastors, who, thanks be to God’s grace in spite of their ungodliness, administer a valid sacrament. Women do not have the binding and loosing key, and can therefore neither bind nor loose a person in respect to sin. Those who attend the Lord’s Table administered by a woman have not received absolution.

The Lord’s Supper administered by a woman has no blessing. She is not leading people to God, but away from God. The one they are serving in their female-pastoral office is not God, but the devil, antichrist…. A woman pastor’s administration of the sacrament will, therefore, lead people directly to condemnation.

This same issue of Logia from 26 years ago also includes a piece by the Rev. Dr. David Scaer that remains fresh today: “Christology and Feminism.” He wrote:

At this moment the LCMS is discussing the participation of women in the public liturgical functions, as well as some suggested changes in the liturgy and hymns. In so doing we must make sure that we are not blind in claiming that these matters are adiaphora. We Lutherans may have played the adiaphoristic card too often as a convenient way of absolving ourselves from the requirements of difficult questions. The things we may call adiaphora have christological consequences.

What we do reflects what we believe. We fail to see how our practices and doctrines are intimately related to each other. But I assure you that the rest of the theological world does not suffer from this failure. Feminist theology recognizes the profound influence of symbols and makes it their first order of business that the right symbols are in place to convey the right message.

After an analysis of several feminist theologians and how christology shapes their arguments, Scaer concluded:

How we stand on the incarnation must be related to our understanding of ministry. No church can have a feminized clergy and still insist on a masculine Christ. The inconsistency will soon be noticed…. The LCMS remains one of the few Protestant churches of any significance with a recognizable theological position. The Southern Baptists are opposed to the practice as a group, but they have no control over what the individual congregations do…. Only from such a holistic approach that involves a firm commitment to the biblical revelation and to the incarnation of God in Jesus can we come to a complete understanding of what it means to be ministers of the gospel.

I think it would be helpful for pastors and podcasters (and maybe even some District Presidents) to clarify what they believe about male-only ordination. Do they believe it is just a custom that may, or may not, be worth retaining? Do they believe synod has the authority to overturn this prohibition and allow for women to be "ordained”? Or do they believe that male-only ordination is a doctrine, a dogma, an unalterable truth of God’s created order, testified by Holy Scripture?

This was published April 1, 2022. — Ed.

Some years ago, at a denominational event that lasted for three days and two nights, I noticed that an entire series of worship services and devotions, one after another, were consistently and uniformly casual and sloppy. I don’t explicitly remember the content from these services and devotions, but it wasn’t terrible. At worst, it was innocuous, that is, it was simply the weakest of the weak hymns from LSB or it was bland statements extolling how much God loves us, while at it is best, it was quite good. That is to say I remember that we sang a couple of Lutheran Chorales and there was some decent exegesis and application at times. I didn’t go there with high expectations in this regard and I wasn’t there to judge the worship and devotions. I expect these things to be uneven for all sorts of reasons. What caught my attention was that these 9 or 10 different pastors, all of whom would describe themselves as “missional,” all acted and behaved in identical ways and used the same ceremonies, all of which were strange to me.

Continue reading…