Higher Things — Top Ten Reason Why We Use the Liturgy
August 25th, 2011
by The Rev. William Cwirla
((Found by a friend’s facebook posting on higherthings.org))
Why the Liturgy? First a definition and a disclaimer. By “liturgy” I mean the western catholic mass form as it has been handed down by way of the Lutheran Reformation consisting of the five fixed canticles – Kyrie, Gloria in Excelsis, Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei. Pardon the Greek and Latin, but it sounds cool and we still use ‘em. “Liturgy” also includes the assigned Scripture texts for the Sundays, feast days, and seasons. Most of what I will say about the liturgy of the Divine Service will pertain to “liturgical worship” in general.
Now, why do we worship according to the western, catholic liturgy?
- it shows our historic roots. Some parts of the liturgy go back to the apostolic period. Even the apostolic church did not start with a blank liturgical slate but adapted and reformed the liturgies of the synagogue and the Sabbath. The western mass shows our western catholic roots, of which we as Lutherans are not ashamed. (I’d rather be confused with a Roman Catholic than anything else.) We’re not the first Christians to walk the face of the planet, nor, should Jesus tarry, will we be the last. The race of faith is a relay race, one generation handing on (“traditioning”) to the next the faith once delivered to the saints. The historic liturgy underscores and highlights this fact. It is also “traditionable,” that is, it can be handed on.
- It serves as a distinguishing mark. The liturgy distinguishes us from those who do not believe, teach, and confess the same as we do. What we believe determines how we worship, and how we worship confesses what we believe.
- It is both Theocentric and Christocentric. From the invocation of the Triune Name in remembrance of Baptism to the three-fold benediction at the end, the liturgy is focused on the activity of the Triune God centered in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. Worship is not primarily about “me” or “we” but about God in Christ reconciling the world to HImself and my baptismal inclusion in His saving work.
- It teaches. The liturgy teaches the whole counsel of God – creation, redemption, sanctification, Christ’s incarnation, passion, resurrection, and reign, the Spirit’s outpouring and the new life of faith. Every liturgical year cycles through these themes so that the hearer receives the “whole counsel of God” on a regular basis.
- It is transcultural. One of the greatest experiences of my worship life was to be in the Divine Service in Siberia with the Siberian Lutheran Church. Though I spoke only a smattering of Russian, I knew enough to recognize the liturgy, know what was being said (except for the sermon, which was translated for us), and be able to participate knowledgeably across language and cultural barriers. I have the same experience with our Chinese mission congregation.
- It is repetitive in a good way. Repetition is, after all, the mother of learning. Fixed texts and annual cycles of readings lend to deep learning. Obviously, mindless repetition does not accomplish anything; nor does endless variety.
- It is corporate. Worship is a corporate activity. “Let us go to the house of the Lord.” The liturgy draws us out of ourselves into Christ by faith and the neighbor by love. We are all in this together. Worship is not simply about what “I get out of it,” but I am there also for my fellow worshippers to receive the gifts of Christ that bind us together and to encourage each other to love and good works (Heb 10:25). We are drawn into the dialogue of confession and absolution, hearing and confessing, corporate song and prayer. To borrow a phrase from a favored teacher of mine, in church we are “worded, bodied, and bloodied” all together as one.
- It rescues us from the tyranny of the “here and now.” When the Roman world was going to hell in a hand basket, the church was debating the two natures of Christ. In the liturgy, the Word sets the agenda, defining our needs and shaping our questions. The temptation is for us to turn stones into bread to satisfy an immediate hunger and scratch a nagging spiritual itch, but the liturgy teaches us to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.
- It is external and objective. The liturgical goal is not that everyone feel as certain way or have an identical “spiritual” experience. Feelings vary even as they come and go. The liturgy supplies a concrete, external, objective anchor in the death and resurrection of Jesus through Word, bread, and wine. Faith comes by hearing the objective, external Word of Christ.
- It is the Word of God. This is often overlooked by critics of liturgical worship. Most of the sentences and songs of the liturgy are direct quotations or allusions from Scripture or summaries, such as the Creed. In other words, the liturgy is itself the Word of God, not simply a packaging for the Word. Many times the liturgy will rescue a bad sermon and deliver what the preacher has failed to deliver. I know; I’ve been there.
Ten is one of those good numbers in the Bible signifying completeness, so I’ll stop at ten. I’m sure there are more.
Read 1468 times
@Jason #299
You are so correct, Jason, but this is another topic. Standards and uniformity in confirmation instruction are so much more important than worship style IMHO. I would put confirmation instruction at the top of the Koinonia agenda but nobody even mentions it.
@Mark Louderback #297
I mean have a real understanding of their own sinfulness such that the Gospel makes sense.
Anyway, I worry about reductionism. I also wonder if there isn’t a bunch of talking past one another here. This thread was supposed to be why Higher Things uses the liturgy and how helpful it is to young to people. Until I had children, I was skeptical of that view, no offense to life long Lutherans here. However, seeing how much impact it has had especially on my older son, I have grown to understand and appreciate its usefulness in nurturing the faith of the young. I remember singing songs that I really loved and enjoyed in high school at a non-lutheran church, but I would catch myself wondering whether these songs were just pleasant because I could identify with the author’s sentiments or whether they were accurately reflecting what is really in scripture. I just didn’t know, and it made me wary.
@Holger Sonntag #300
Remember the account of Jesus’ healing of the paralytic in Matth. 9:1-8? What if there would have been no grumbling of the Jewish leadership present, what if Jesus had done no more than forgive the man’s sins? Would we have been disappointed, angry, confused — but, Jesus, he’s still paralyzed? He’s received the one gift that really matters: forgiveness, life and salvation, and we ask: that’s it?
Well, yes, because Jesus had been healing others. Because the blind were seeing, the lepers were being healed, and the dead were rising. No doubt.
And Jesus does heal the man.
what really matters is basically what you’ve listed in your post. That is the distilled essence.
Ok…I agree.
And that everybody but yourself seems to have grasped by now, see only post #285…
You got that right. I’m a lot slower than others. Takes so much more time for me to get things.
It is part of the reason I do CoWo. CoWo: for the slower and dumber. (shrug) Someone has to be an outlier.
I, for one, am fully in agreement with the Lutheran Confessions regarding the ancient, universal church ceremonies and customs:
Well…it does not sound like that. I have not seen that at all stated, except here. So, let’s go with this too then.
But I think what was much more urgent to the Reformers in the 16th century than showing some historical rootedness (a problem perhaps most pressing for today’s Americans uprooted by constant change and innovation) was the desire not to widen the gap between the “Catholics” and the “Lutherans” more than necessary by introducing liturgical novelties.
Sure. I agree with this.
Of course, Pr. Louderback, you will object here: but it’s no longer familiar to congregants today!
I don’t object really, as much as I say “Back in his day, it was important to show that connection to the church through the ceremony.”
Nowadays, I don’t think the ceremony shows any great connection. I don’t see that people perceive it in the same way.
So, for me, the important part that I am looking to connect to is that proclamation of the Gospel—the same stripped down service we spoke of earlier.
Which all of the sudden is thrown away, since you want to have a service that is based on much more liturgy…a lot more extraneous stuff….so, I’m still at a loss.
According to Luther, it’s basically for two reasons, one lest those Christians imprisoned under the tyranny of the pope be “murdered” (this point is made against the “enthusiasts” who didn’t want anything “Romish” in the church anymore); and two in order to demonstrate the continuity of the Lutheran church with the church of Christ, the church of the apostles, and Christ’s “beloved ancient church” (this point is made against the Romanists who wanted to brand the Lutherans as innovators and heretics, also in liturgical matters).
I think both of these are quite legitimate. But as things have changed in the world, certainly the first one is not much of an issue any more. As far as the second goes, I would point to the Gospel, celebration of the sacraments, etc.
At my own church, we also use the historic creeds and the small catechism in the service. So, I think there is continuity.
Of course, here one can again object:
I guess I would respond that there are plenty of churches around that still have traditional services. So, we have that remain.
Historical continuity mattered to the Lutherans…
Of course. It still matters to me.
Also, one can ask: what’s the point of “ecumenical” discussions with the Roman church when in our worship practices we depart more and more from the common heritage, from the heritage handed down to us, as Luther asserts, from Christ himself via his apostles, the ancient church, AND the Roman church?
Well, I guess I don’t give a rip about how the RCC worships. I care about their false teaching and doctrine. That is what we need to be addressing.
As it is, I think that our Synod is moving closer and closer to the common heritage. At least the liturgical churches certainly are. I’m sure that at most of them, it would be hard for an average person to tell the difference between Lutheran and RC.
Sounds like a good argument, if it weren’t for the fact that we didn’t inherit baptism, sound liturgical practices, etc. from Christ and the apostles via our “fellow Protestants.” We inherited these “treasures” as Luther calls them (elsewhere, he calls them “relics”) via the pope’s church, tragic (humbling — ah, again…) as that may sound to some in a thoroughly Protestant-Evangelical country such as the USA.
I don’t see how that makes a difference. Why would that change the argument?
So “Rome” and “fellow Protestants” can’t ever be on the same level in this regard; Rome will always have the historical precedent.
Well….no. Rome and fellow Protestants are separated by a few years. They are both break-offs of the true Church, which is what Lutheranism represents. So, no, Rome does not have a historical precedent.
Let’s be clear about this: did Lutherans inherit the liturgy from Rome? No: they inherited the liturgy from Lutherans. Rome took the liturgy, twisted it, and taught falsely. They are the ones who broke away from the truth of the liturgy.
Of course, we can, as you always urge, “reform” these too,
Yes. Because they serve a purpose.
but wouldn’t that lead us only back to what Luther already accomplished by his reforms of worship that cut out all the devilish additions but preserved what was in it of Christ and the pure ancient church? Why do we need to reinvent the wheel, why be different?
It is not “being different” to seek to present the Gospel to a new generation in ways that the new generation can understand.
Besides, I’m just going back to the essence of worship that we seemed to agree upon.
But, apparently, it all boils down to this: you want to be where “the people” (ie., the unbelievers) are, at least as far as liturgy and musical tastes are concerned. Where other Christians are or have been seems of little or no concern to you. Besides, since you’re not the first one to follow this strategy, you can rightly claim that there are now other Christians also where you are, etc.
It is interesting how many current Christians gravitate to the worship service though—it is not as though my congregation is just the unbelievers. Plenty of Christians like the service very much. So, it reaches out to both.
And yes, I’m not doing anything that has not already gone on a generation.
You might say: that’s because for him, raised a Catholic as he was, the papal church was just too big a factor to be ignored just like that. But I think this “biographical” explanation doesn’t do justice to what I quoted from Luther above, which, again, was grounded in a certain doctrine of the church that brought forth a certain view of the history of the church.
I don’t know. I don’t know what Luther would have thought. I certainly would not care to speculate along these lines. If he approved, he would approve because we proclaim Christ. Because our foundation is justification.
In summary, I think, beyond our sparring over how we should worship today, we should ask ourselves what our view of ecclesiology and church history is.
For Luther, at any rate, worship, ecclesiology, and church history seem to have been closely intertwined. Can we reject this and still call ourselves Lutherans?
I guess it all depends on what one means by Lutheran. If by Lutheran, we mean “One who holds to Scripture and all its teachings,” then yes. If by Lutheran, we mean, “One who holds to Scripture and also to the traditions of man” then, the answer would be “No.”
Ok….what about everything you said previously about worship? It seems as though you are basically turning away from that? How does the radicalness fit in to the western liturgy?
@holger sonntag
thank you for your posts; i have greatly benefited from reading them..
I pray for the LCMS Lutheran Church. As a Lutheran all my life I find this argument so wasteful. We are called to be fishers of Men. Why are we wasting our time with contemporary vs. Divine Service. The lutheran Church is soo out of touch with culture and could be dead in 50 years if we don’t wake up. After watching the Higher Things videos to many youth I couldn’t get them to even want to go to this. I had an open mind but still it was like pulling teeth. The Pastors looked so stuck on themselves, cocky and out of touch with youth. Why are we cramming this doctrine thing at youth who are struggling with their home lives. My youth are raised in an unmoral lifestyle yet all you do is worry about yourselves. Why aren’t we reaching out to kids. The last thing the children want is the same ole stuff they get at their dying church at home. Its time for these high church pastors to get off their high horse and get their hands dirty. Martin Luther wrote hymns to connect with the youth of that day. Why can’t the church body do the same for the youth of today. Please Help
Jason – yours is the most arrogant response I have seen to date. It’s really hard to start to disagree with you when you say “After watching the Higher Things videos to many youth I couldn’t get them to even want to go to this.” What does that even mean?
This “doctrine thing”? Are you kidding? Really?
Again, let me say, this “ole church” is thriving – youth group is overflowing the building, we had to open the chapel and move rehearsals for the 6th grade class. Our last confirmation / first communion was about 35 new confirmands. And we are the type of church you are trying to diss.
The problem you’re having isn’t the hymns….and please try to be less offensive.