š±Seed šNeutral š”Consideration
Importance: 10%
The Big Idea
Book of Concord, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article 15, p. 230
This topic concerning traditions involves many difficult and controversial questions, and we know from actual experience that traditions are real snares for the conscience. When they are required as necessary, they terribly torture consciences that omit any observance. At the same time, their abrogation carries with it its own evils and questions.
false dichotomy of traditional and contemporary
balance of creative response and connection to heritage
my experience on the shred
my connection with Irish music
Biblical Ways to Engage Worship
Ā In order to avoid dismembering our expression of liturgy, we must be clear about what worship encompasses.Ā We do not worship for the sake of God - He needs nothing from us - but because He has created us as worshiping creatures.Ā Worship is for the sake of Godās people: it is a gift from God in which we participate.Ā Ā
This participation in worship takes on two main aspects throughout the pages of Scripture.Ā One is remembrance and connection to story; the second is the creative worship response.Ā Connection to story is important because we come into Godās story.Ā He has defined and laid out the course of the salvation narrative.Ā Therefore, we should not be trying to fit Him into our lives, but humbly entering His.Ā His story started long before our birth and encompasses many more lives than our own.Ā Being connected to Godās story is to be connected with His community: the Church.Ā We read words that are not our words, but become ours.Ā We sing songs that are not our songs, but become ours.Ā We do and say and think and act in ways that are not ours, but become ours as we are connected to the heritage of our faith.Ā Communal worship is a space to encounter, learn, connect, and participate in this grand old story.Ā Ā
The creative worship response is a related yet distinct way the body of Christ participates in worship.Ā Whenever Godās people have encountered Him the natural response has always been creative.Ā After crossing through the Red Sea the Israelites sang a new song.Ā After Mary encountered the angel and the wonders of the Christmas story she sang a new song.Ā The giving of the covenant on mount Sinai was followed by the outpouring of God given creative power to build and decorate the tabernacle and its instruments.Ā Encountering God is an occasion to bring forth the creative expression of praise and wonder.Ā Not only this, but times of darkness and despair are also times for creative response in lament.Ā Godās people have always responded to God creatively, whether He feels close or far, this creative impulse should by no means be neglect.Ā Ā
Engaging Worship from Our Place in the Story
Our place in Godās story sits uniquely after His crucifixion and resurrection, yet before His triumphal return.Ā This position places the church at an interesting cross road between the worship and devotion which has come before and our current worship in the present.Ā In this place, we would do well to hold to the tension between tradition and translation.Ā On the one hand, we have traditions passed down to us in the form of art, songs, prayers, and liturgical orders.Ā These are valuable gifts from our ancestors in the faith.Ā They are a great treasury from which we can be challenged and consoled by the voices and praise of our ancestors.Ā Ā
Yet we need to be careful to also hold on to translation.Ā Our people are a product of their time.Ā The things of beauty and meaning from tradition do not always land the same way they used to among Christians in a different time dealing with different struggles and life experiences.Ā Consequently, it is of utmost importance that liturgy be translated into forms that reach our people so that they can actually be formed by it.Ā This is a pull in two directions.Ā Striving to proclaim the alien ideas and power of Godās Gospel in its fullness, while also being sensitive to the hearer.Ā Ā Ā
The Narrow Liturgical Walk (Incomplete)
I have been trying something new lately. Well not really ānewā but more new to me. Each morning when I come into my office, I take some time to sing and pray the service of Matins. Before you think about being impressed, I donāt always sing all of it, or say all the prays. Sometimes I flip around the pages and sing random hymns or psalms that I like or remember. It started as a bit of an experiment but has turned into more than that.
Talk about the benefit of the practice and how it has helped shape my focus and outlook on the day
I grew up in a very liturgically traditional Lutheran (LCMS) congregation and have vivid memories of attending Easter vigil services and singing along with the organ and choirs. But there was always something in me that pushed against this kind of worship. It felt boring and āuseless.ā Even in seminary I often skipped chapel because I felt like there were other things I could be doing with my time. As I have grown, I can now identify what I was pushing against. It was not so much the style, content, or really the use of time. I felt embroiled in a dichotomy that has long been an issue with Christian worship. A dichotomy that is not always clearly stated or honestly approached.
The dichotomy is that there is a tension between worship being a human act, or an act of God. On one side liturgy is a human tradition with particular prays, music, and ways of reading Scripture coming from specific times and places passed down from generation to generation (even contemporary worship styles come from a particular place and time). While on the other hand, Jesus says ādo thisā or āgo and makeā with clear instructions to baptize and celebrate communion. These clear instructions come with clear promises. When we are baptize, or when we eat and drink His Body and Blood, He acts and gives us His life, forgiveness, and all the good gifts He offers.
So which one is it? Is liturgy about me acting or God acting? And does the particular form of the act matter? Why did Jesus not spell it out more in Scripture?
The difference between sacrament and ritual.
ritual as a human act (the things we do). Sacrament as what God does for us. Sacrament as the visible word of God.
It is striking that these words about worship practice and liturgy are just as true today as they were during the reformation.
Book of Concord, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article 15, p. 230
This topic concerning traditions involves many difficult and controversial questions, and we know from actual experience that traditions are real snares for the conscience. When they are required as necessary, they terribly torture consciences that omit any observance. At the same time, their abrogation carries with it its own evils and questions.1
We see two extremes to avoid in holding this dichotomy
- making a particular form of worship tradition necessary because it can end up hurting peopleās consciences that think they need to do all the human acts in order to receive Jesus forgiveness.
- Throwing away liturgy and worship cause itās own problems as well
Liturgical practices is a narrow walk between
There is a balance to be struck between requiring particular forms of worship or Christian practice and throwing away too much of the wisdom passed on to us from the worship and devotional life of past generations.
It is a narrow path to walk so that we do not slip into legalism and obsession with human transition nor to we fall into intellectualism, individualism or emotionalism
Book of Concord, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article 15, p. 225-226
For although the holy Fathers themselves had rites and traditions, they still did not maintain that these things were useful or necessary for justification.
They did not obscure the glory and work of Christ. Instead, they taught that we are justified by faith on account of Christ and not on account of these human acts of worship. Moreover, they observed these human rites on account of their usefulness for the body, so that people may know at what time they should assemble, so that they may have an example of how all things in the churches might be done decently and in order, and finally, so that the common people may receive some instruction. (For different seasons and various rites are valuable in admonishing the common people.)1
God is the only one who justifies so the human act of worship according to a particular liturgy does not save you nor does it condemn you
The purpose of liturgy is for teaching and helping the church maintain a healthy balance
Example my first few years of ministry, I realized just how easy it is to go weeks and months without ever touching a Bible (other than to put together a sermon or Bible study). There are so many things to think about, plan, talk to people, you name it. The todo list always grows with little way to actually check it all off. And boy can I tell you, that kind of separation from the Word is a good way to suck yourself dry. It is the fastest way to go from āI have a lot of cool stuff to tell you about the Bibleā to āIām exhausted and have no idea what we should talk about.ā And so I made it a priority to read or listen to audio of the Bible regularly. I have tried many different methods and approaches but the important thing has always come back to connection with Godās word.
One way to think about this is using the corpus doctrine image that the things that come the most clearly from scripture are more important than things that come from tradition.
Need to find systems lecture on body of doctrine or Corpus doctrinae
Two complimentary approaches to liturgical practice
- Liturgy as Reflection of Scriptural Rhythms
- Liturgy as Human Tradition and long term memory
Important
Therefore, the core purpose of liturgical practice is to teach and learn the faith in practical and down to earth ways. If a piece of liturgy is not being used for this purpose it has lost itās way. Likewise if a piece of Liturgy is thrown away without consideration for what it was meant to teach an equally poor course of action has been chose.
Concern to maintain continuity with the past and the value of handed down traditions especially in celebration of the mass
- Book of Concord, Augsburg Confession, Article 24, p. 69
distinction between services of communion or āthe massā with other scripturally oriented āworship servicesā
- Book of Concord, Augsburg Confession, Article 24, p. 72
Book of Concord, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article 7and 8, p. 181ā83.
The opponents say that universal traditions ought to be observed because they are thought to have been handed down from the apostles. Such religious people! They wish to retain rites taken from the apostles, but they do not wish to retain the teaching of the apostles. They ought to interpret these rites in just the same way as the apostles themselves interpreted them in their writings. For the apostles did not want us to think that through such rites we are justified or that such rites are necessary for righteousness before God. The apostles did not wish to impose such a burden on consciences nor they did wish to locate righteousness and sin in the observances of days, foods, and similar things. Indeed, Paul calls such opinions teachings of demons 1 Tim. 4:1. Therefore the intention and counsel of the apostles ought to be sought from their writings; it is not sufficient to cite their example. They observed certain days not as if that observance were necessary for justification, but in order that the people might know at what time they should assemble. Whenever they assembled, they also observed some other rites and a sequence of lessons. Frequently, the people continued to observe certain Old Testament customs, which the apostles adapted in modified form to the gospel history, like Easter and Pentecost, so that by these examples as well as by instruction they might transmit to posterity the memory of those important events. But if these things were handed down as necessary for justification, why did the bishops later change many of these very things? Whatever was a matter of divine right was not allowed to be changed by human authority. Before the Council of Nicaea, some observed Easter at one time, others at another time, but this difference did no harm to faith. Afterward, the arrangement was adopted by which our Easter falls at a different time from the Jewish Passover. However, the apostles had commanded that the churches observe the Passover with their fellow Christians who had been converted from Judaism. Thus, after the Council of Nicaea, certain nations clung tenaciously to this custom of observing the Jewish time. But the words of this decree show that the apostles did not wish to impose an ordinance on the churches. For they urge that no one should be troubled even though fellow Christians do not observe Easter at the correctly calculated time. The text of the decree is preserved in Epiphanius: āDo not calculate, but celebrate it whenever your brethren of the circumcision do; celebrate it with them at the same time, and even though they have erred, do not let this trouble you.ā256 Epiphanius writes that these words are taken from an apostolic decree about Easter. From this the prudent reader can easily judge that the apostles wanted to remove from the people foolish opinions concerning the necessity of observing a set time, since they forbid them from being troubled even though a mistake is made in the calculations. Further, there were some in the East named Audians after the originator of the dogma, who on account of this decree of the apostles contended that the Passover must be celebrated with the Jews. In refuting them258 Epiphanius praises the decree and says that it contains nothing which deviates from the faith or rule of the church, and he blames the Audians for misunderstanding the expression. He interprets it the same way that we do, because the apostles did not consider that it made any difference when Easter was celebrated. However, because certain prominent brothers were converts from Judaism but kept their customs, the apostles wanted the rest to follow their example for the sake of harmony. The apostles wisely admonished the reader neither to destroy the liberty of the gospel nor to impose a necessity upon consciences, for they add that one must not be troubled even if there has been an error in the calculations. Many examples of this kind can be collected from the histories in which it appears that differences in human observances did not undermine the unity of the faith. But what need is there for further discussion? If they think that similar observances in food, days, clothing, and similar things that do not have the mandate of God are necessary, the opponents do not at all understand what the righteousness of faith or the kingdom of Christ is. But look at how religious our opponents are! For the unity of the church they require uniformity in human ceremonies although they themselves have changed the ordinance of Christ in the use of the Lordās Supper, which previously was certainly a universal ordinance. But if universal ordinances are necessary, why do they change the ordinance of Christās Supper, which is not human but divine? However, on this whole controversy we will have to say more later.1
Universal tradition is nice but not actually necessary
While one side of the coin is thinking about the human traditions that are a part of liturgical practice. The deeper reality that all this is pushing toward is the fact that Scripture pictures and encourages a particular mode of being. Humans were created to live and relate with God and one another in particular God pleasing ways.
Luther and the reformers pictured this as vocation. They lived in a world with too much ceremony and rites
we live in a world that does not have enough, but we need to make sure to approach this carefully
All of this flows from the good order of Creation God set in place in the garden of Eden and is restoring through Jesus Christ.
Therefore, truly good and healthy liturgical practice must derive primarily from the witness of scripture with human tradition as a secondary source.
Book of Concord, The Augsburg Confession, Article 28, p. 100ā102.
The apostles directed that one should abstain from blood and from what is strangled. But who observes this now? Yet those who do not observe it commit no sin. For the apostles themselves did not want to burden consciences with such bondage, but prohibited such eating for a time to avoid offense. For in this ordinance one must pay attention to the chief part of Christian doctrine which is not abolished by this decree. Hardly any of the ancient canons are observed according to the letter. Many of their rules fall daily into complete disuse, even among those who observe such ordinances most diligently. Consciences can neither be counseled nor helped unless we keep this moderation in mind: that such ordinances are not to be considered necessary, and even disregarding them does no harm to consciences.1