🌿Sapling 😁Strongly-Agree 🟢Conviction
Importance: 10%
The Big Idea
Liturgy is Latin for “the work of the people.” They are the wonderful way by which we get to practice our faith together as a community. They are an interesting meeting of embodied Biblical truth and human tradition.
Related Notes: Embodiment of Community Foundations of Discipleship Introduction to Thematic Liturgies Project Thoughts on Liturgy and Rhythm
What is Liturgy? (Incomplete)
Thesis: liturgy is an outward
The writers of the Book of Concord also outlined a number of valid purposes for observing liturgical traditions:
- Restraining the flesh.
- Disciplining nonliterate people.
- Good order of the Church community.
- Help people focus on the Holy things of God.
- Help instruct people about how to live and what to do when.
Many authors have used the world liturgy in many ways. a foundational use comes from the Lutheran confessions:
Book of Concord, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article 24, p. 272-273
The word “liturgy” (leitourgia) in Greek means sacrifice, they say, and the Greek church calls the Mass the liturgy. Why do they omit here the old term “Communion,” which shows that the Mass was formerly the Communion of many? But let us speak about the term “liturgy.” This word does not properly mean a sacrifice but rather public service. Thus, it agrees quite well with our position, namely, that the one minister who consecrates gives the body and blood of the Lord to the rest of the people, just as a minister who preaches sets forth the gospel to the people, as Paul says |1 Cor 4:1], “Think of us in this way, as servants of Christ and stewards of God’s mysteries,” that is, of the gospel and the sacraments. And 2 Corinthians 5:20, “So we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us; we entreat you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God… .” Thus the term “liturgy” fits well with the ministry. It is an old word, ordinarily used in public in law. To the Greeks it meant “public responsibilities” like taxes collected for the equipping of a fleet or similar things. As Demosthenes oration Leptines shows, it is completely taken up with public responsibilities and exemptions: “He will say that some unworthy people have found an exemption to avoid public duties (leitourgia).” They also used it this way during Roman times, as the rescript of Pertinax, concerning the law of immunity, shows. “Even though the number of children does not excuse parents from all public duties (leitourgia) …” A commentary on Demosthenes states that “liturgy” is a kind of tax to pay for the expense of the games, the equipping of naval vessels, the care of the school, and similar public responsibilities. Paul uses the same word for the collection in 2 Corinthians 9:12. Taking of the collection not only supplied what the saints needed but also led them to give thanks to God more abundantly, etc. And in Philippians 2:25, he calls Epaphroditus a leitourgos, a “minister to my need,” where Paul certainly does not mean a sacrificer. But there is no need for more testimonies. Anyone who reads the Greek authors can find examples everywhere of how leitourgia meant public duties or services. Moreover, because of the diphthong, philologists do not derive it from the lite, which means prayers, but from leita, which means public goods; thus the verb leitourgeo means, “I attend to or I administer public goods.”
Book of Concord, Large Catechism, p. 428.
It seems to me that we shall have our hands full to keep these commandments, practicing gentleness, patience, love toward enemies, chastity, kindness, etc., and all that is involved in doing so. But such works are not important or impressive in the eyes of the world. They are not uncommon and showy, reserved to certain special times, places, rites, and ceremonies, but are common, everyday domestic duties of one neighbor to another, with nothing glamorous about them. Those other deeds captivate all eyes and ears. Aided by great splendor, expense, and magnificent buildings, they are so adorned that everything gleams and glitters. There is burning of incense, singing and ringing of bells, lighting of candles and tapers until for all of this nothing else can be seen or heard. For when a priest stands in a golden chasuble, or a layperson spends a whole day in the church on his or her knees, that is considered a precious work that cannot be sufficiently extolled. But when a poor servant girl takes care of a little child or faithfully does what she is told, this is regarded as nothing.1
Marriott Definition of doing the redeemed world right2 Each of us have been habituated into particular patterns of church embodiment. Whether it’s the memory of a childhood pastor, or the discomfort from visiting a church on vacation, all of us have lived experiences that have taught us what we think a church community should look like. If we draw on the definition of liturgy as “the performance of faith,” or “‘doing the world rightly,” We can begin to see that these ideas of an ideal church are a liturgy behind our liturgy. They are the lived liturgies that have sunken in and taken root. Collectively, we can call these parts of our social imaginary: rhythms of church embodiment. They are the patterns that make us feel at home in a particular context. The things we notice the most when they lack in other communities, or when things change within our own.
The Narrow Liturgical Walk (Incomplete)
I have been trying something new lately. Well not really “new” 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 don’t 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 “useless.” 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 “do this” or “go and make” 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 people’s consciences that think they need to do all the human acts in order to receive Jesus forgiveness.
- Throwing away liturgy and worship cause it’s 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 “I have a lot of cool stuff to tell you about the Bible” to “I’m exhausted and have no idea what we should talk about.” 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 God’s 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 it’s 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 “the mass” with other scripturally oriented “worship services”
- Book of Concord, Augsburg Confession, Article 24, p. 72
Book of Concord, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article 7and 8, p. 181–83.
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: “Do 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.”256 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 Lord’s Supper, which previously was certainly a universal ordinance. But if universal ordinances are necessary, why do they change the ordinance of Christ’s 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. 100–102.
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
Book of Concord, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article 7and 8, p. 179–80.
We did not have trivial reasons for presenting this article. For it is evident that many foolish opinions about traditions have crept into the church. Some thought that human traditions were necessary acts of worship for meriting justification. Later they debated how it came to pass that God was worshiped with such variety, as though, indeed, these observances were true worship rather than outward rules of discipline completely unrelated to the righteousness of heart or the worship of God. These varied for good reasons according to the circumstances, sometimes in one way, and at other times in another. Likewise, some churches excommunicated others on account of such traditions as the observance of Easter, images, and similar things. From this the inexperienced have concluded that faith or righteousness of the heart before God cannot exist without these observances. For about this point there are in existence many foolish writings by the summists and others. But just as the different lengths of day and night do not undermine the unity of the church, so we maintain that different rites instituted by human beings do not undermine the true unity of the church, although it pleases us when universal rites are kept for the sake of tranquility. Thus, in our churches we willingly observe the order of the Mass, the Lord’s day, and other more important festival days. With a very grateful spirit we cherish the useful and ancient ordinances, especially when they contain a discipline by which it is profitable to educate and teach common folk and ignorant. But we are not now discussing the question whether or not it is beneficial to observe them for the sake of tranquility or bodily usefulness. Another issue is involved. The question is whether or not the observances of human traditions are religious worship necessary for righteousness before God. This is the point at issue in this controversy. Once it has been decided, it will be possible to decide whether for the true unity of the church it is necessary to have similar human traditions everywhere. For if human traditions are not acts of worship necessary for righteousness before God, it follows that it is possible to be righteous and children of God even if a person does not observe the traditions that have been maintained elsewhere. Analogously, if the style of German clothing is not an act of devotion to God necessary for righteousness before God, it follows that it is possible to be righteous and children of God and the church of Christ even if they wear not German, but French clothing.1
Kolb, Robert, et al. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Fortress Press, 2000, p. 180.
Book of Concord, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article 15, p. 229
Furthermore, we gladly keep the ancient traditions set up in the church because they are useful and promote tranquility, and we interpret them in the best possible way, by excluding the opinion that they justify. But our enemies falsely charge that we abolish good ordinances and church discipline. We can claim that the public liturgy in the church is more dignified among us than among the opponents. If anyone would look at it in the right way, we keep the ancient canons better than the opponents. Among the opponents, unwilling celebrants and hirelings celebrate the Mass, and very often they do so only for the money. They chant psalms, not in order to learn or pray, but for the sake of the rite, as if this work were a required act of worship, or for the sake of financial reward. Many among us celebrate the Lord’s Supper every Lord’s day after they are instructed, examined, and absolved. The children chant the Psalms in order to learn them; the people also sing in order either to learn or to pray. Among our opponents there is no catechesis of children whatever, even though the canons prescribe it. 1
Book of Concord, Smalcald Articles, Article 1, p. 301–02.
That the Mass under the papacy has to be the greatest and most terrible abomination, as it directly and violently opposes this chief article. In spite of this, it has been the supreme and most precious of all the various papal idolatries. For it is held that this sacrifice or work of the Mass (even when performed by a rotten scoundrel) delivers people from sin both here in this life and beyond in purgatory, even though the Lamb of God alone should and must do this, as mentioned above. Nothing is to be conceded or compromised in this article either, because the first article does not allow it. And wherever there might be reasonable papists, a person would want to speak with them in a friendly way like this: “Why do you cling so tenaciously to the Mass?”
- After all, it is nothing but a mere human invention, not commanded by God. And we may discard all human inventions, as Christ says in Matthew 15:9: “In vain do they worship me with human precepts.”
- It is an unnecessary thing that you can easily omit without sin or danger.
- You can receive the sacrament in a much better and more blessed way (indeed, it is the only blessed way), when you receive it according to Christ’s institution. Why do you want to force the world into misery and destitution for the sake of unnecessary fabrications—especially when the sacrament can be had in another better and more blessed way?
Let it be publicly preached to the people that the Mass, as a human trifle, may be discontinued without sin and that no one will be damned who does not observe it but may in fact be saved in a better way without the Mass. What do you want to bet that the Mass falls of its own accord, not only among the mad mob but also among all upright, Christian, reasonable, and God-fearing hearts? How much more would this be the case were they to hear that the Mass is a dangerous thing, fabricated and invented without God’s Word and will?1
Book of Concord, Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration Article 10, p. 636–637.
useless, foolish spectacles, which are not beneficial for good order, Christian discipline, or evangelical decorum in the church, are not true adiaphora or indifferent things. On the contrary, in regard to true adiaphora or indifferent things (as defined above) we believe, teach, and confess that such ceremonies, in and of themselves, are no worship of God or any part of it. They must instead be distinguished from each other in an appropriate manner, as it is written, “In vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines” (Matt. 15:9). Therefore, we believe, teach, and confess that the community of God in every time and place has the right, power, and authority to change, reduce, or expand such practices according to circumstances in an orderly and appropriate manner, without frivolity or offense, as seems most useful, beneficial, and best for good order, Christian discipline, evangelical decorum, and the building up of the church. Paul teaches how one may yield and make concessions to the weak in faith in such external matters of indifference with good conscience (Rom. 14:1–23), and he demonstrates this with his own example (Acts 16:3 and 21:26; 1 Cor. 9:10).1
Liturgy as Reflection of Scriptural Rhythms
Distinction between Human Liturgical Traditions and the Sacraments (Incomplete)
Kolb, Robert, et al. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Fortress Press, 2000, pp. 372–75.
Bear in mind, too, that in baptism the external ceremonies are least important, such as blowing under the eyes, making the sign of the cross, putting salt in the mouth or spit and clay in the ears and nose, anointing the breast and shoulders with oil, smearing the head with chrism, putting on the christening robe, placing a burning candle in the child’s hand, and whatever else has been added by humans to embellish baptism.
Kolb, Robert, et al. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Fortress Press, 2000, Article 13 pp. 219–20.
But here they insist that we also enumerate seven sacraments. Now, we believe that we have the responsibility not to neglect any of the rites and ceremonies instituted in Scripture, however many there may be. But we do not think that it makes much difference if, for the purpose of teaching, different people have different enumerations, as long as they properly preserve the matters handed down in Scripture. After all, even the ancients did not always number them in the same way.378 [3] If we define the sacraments as rites, which have the command of God and to which the promise of grace has been added, it is easy to determine what the sacraments are, properly speaking. For humanly instituted rites are not sacraments, properly speaking, because human beings do not have the authority to promise grace. Therefore signs instituted without the command of God are not sure signs of grace, even though they perhaps serve to teach or admonish the common folk. [4] Therefore, the sacraments are actually baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and absolution (the sacrament of repentance). For these rites have the command of God and the promise of grace, which is the essence of the New Testament. For surely our hearts ought to be certain that when we are baptized, when we eat the body of the Lord, and when we are absolved, God truly forgives us on account of Christ. [5] And God moves our hearts through the word and the rite at the same time so that they believe and receive faith just as Paul says [Rom. 10:17*], “So faith comes from what is heard.” For just as the Word enters through the ear in order to strike the heart, so also the rite enters through the eye in order to move the heart. The word and the rite have the same effect. Augustine put it well when he said that the sacrament is a “visible word,” because the rite is received by the eyes and is, as it were, a picture of the Word, signifying the same thing as the Word. Therefore both have the same effect.1
Liturgy as Hands on Teaching (Incomplete)
It is ironic that church services often feel like places kids do not belong.
Liturgy is about hands on learning
Book of Concord, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article 15, p. 226
Traditions have the purpose of demonstrating and illustrating things for the people. However, out of some Pharisaical persuasion our adversaries attach to these purposes something different, namely, that such observances merit the forgiveness of sins; that such worship rites are necessary for salvation; that on account of such things human beings are reckoned righteous before God. Clearly, this is “to honor with gold and silver, with precious stones”: to hold that God is conciliated by a variety of clothing, ornaments, and similar things without number in human traditions or that the worship of God consists of things like the distinction between times, foods, vessels, or clothing.1
The book or concord is clear that the idea of Liturgy falls within the category of human traditions, rites and ceremonies. Being written in a context where church rites had become more like magic incantations (i.e. the phrase “Hocus Pocus” literally coming from the Words of Institution in the Latin mass) it makes sense that the reformers had to reorient the church to the true source of our salvation and faith. Liturgy is not what saves people. Only faith in the saving work of Jesus saves people! What follows is a helpful distinction to keep this balanced.
Liturgy for Good Order and Tranquility (Incomplete)
we often look to other means for good order or operations
role of memorization
Liturgy as language and Grammar
In grafting of our story into God’s story
Unification of Heaven and earth in Christ. The shadow is gone the real has come
Maybe the amount of life is a reflection of how closely it aligns with heavily reality