I.C.M. - SW MN WordAlone

Liturgical Understanding as a part of the Confessional Crisis

Jack L. Torgersen

The confessional confusion that characterizes the ELCA today did not just begin with the advent of Called to Common Mission (CCM). This problem began with publication of the LBW (Lutheran Book of Worship). Many of the liturgical pundits who were on the commission which produced the LBW adopted the understanding of Holy Communion advocated by Dom Gregory Dix set forth in, The Shape of the Liturgy (Dacre Press 1945, A&C Black). This understanding of communion places the major emphasis in the Words of Institution on the phrase “do this in remembrance of me.” The question of how do we “do this” is answered by saying that we do so by following Christ’s example at the Last Supper of “taking”, “breaking”, “blessing” and “sharing”. This is what is called the four action shape of the liturgy: taking = offertory procession, breaking = the fraction, blessing = the Words of Institution as consecration and usually enclosed in a eucharistic prayer, and sharing = the distribution. Each of these four actions are seen to be necessary and essential for validity of the sacrament. I remember reading quotes at the time from Dr. Eugene Brand stating, in his opinion, that there hadn’t been a valid Lutheran Communion for four hundred years because of the lack of the four action shape in the Lutheran Liturgy.

Dix’s liturgical theology is a basic departure from the traditional Lutheran understanding of Holy Communion. Lutheran theology has always placed the primary emphasis on the words “for you” and “for the forgiveness of sins” in the Words of Institution. Because of this, there are only two things that are absolutely necessary for the validity of the sacrament. These essential elements are the Words of Institution as proclamation and the distribution. In his major treatise “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church” (in “Luther’s Works,” vol. 36) Luther insists that a distinction be made between the sacrament and the service which surrounds it. The theology of the four-action shape of the liturgy collapses that fundamental distinction.

Many people will say, at this point, that liturgical practice has always been “adiaphora,” matters indifferent to salvation and therefore areas where great latitude is permissible. For this reason there have been segments of the Lutheran Church that have been highly liturgical while others have been “low church” and both have been equally Lutheran. The problem enters in when something which is an adiaphoron becomes commanded or enforced. By definition, an adiaphoron can never be seen as the only way to do something or understand something.

During the process of the publication of the LBW such strong objections were raised by respected teachers, such as Dr. Oliver Olson and Dr. Gerhard Forde, concerning the liturgical theology which seemed to be dominating the new hymnal. Because of those protests the use of the “bare verba”, the words of Institution alone, was included begrudgingly, as an option in the LBW Order of Service. This use of the “bare verba” without encasing them in a eucharistic prayer has been the preferred practice among most orthodox Lutherans. I find it significant that in subsequent worship materials published by the ELCA, the option of using the bare Words of Institution is no longer given (such as “With One Voice”). If we take seriously the dictum “lex orandi, lex credendi,” practice shapes or defines understanding and belief, then we must raise strong objections. What has been considered merely one option out of many previously, is subtly now transformed into a mandatory practice. What once was an adiaphoron is now transformed into a necessity. We are very much in danger of being dragged back into a new “Babylonian Captivity of the Church.”

There are many who are discouraged, thinking that our battle to preserve the integrity of a Lutheran theological identity and authority of the confessions in the ELCA is lost. I think we need to take an example from the past. After the defeat of Protestant princes and cities in the Smalcald War many thought all was lost. Charles V declared that he would now “teach the Germans Spanish”, i.e. drag the Protestants kicking and screaming back into the Roman fold. He started his program of eradicating the Reformation by taking two steps. He demanded the reestablishment of both the historic episcopate and the canon of the mass in Lutheran territories. It looked as if Luther’s work was doomed to sink back into oblivion. Flacius Illyricus and other staunch Lutherans put the political pressure on Maurice of Saxony and other leaders to prevent them from merely acquiescing to the Emperor’s demands. In doing so, they were instrumental in saving the Lutheran cause. Flacius Illyricus’ motto was “Agitate, Agitate, Agitate.” As confessionally concerned Lutherans struggling to preserve the faith of our forbearers, we need to follow Matthias Flacius’s example. His motto must become our motto also with one modification: “Educate, then Agitate, Agitate, Agitate”.

Text Box: 2 Luther, Matin. “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church” in Luther’s Works, Volume 36, Word and Sacrament II, pages 36

“ADIAPHORA” defined:

In Christian history this term has had a more specific meaning related to the question whether there are certain areas of belief or conduct in which differences are of no consequence so far as the Christian character is concerned. Usually this has centered around actions which are neither commanded nor forbidden by Christ or the Scriptures and rites & ceremonies which have historical but not Biblical warrant…

The position taken (in the Formula of Concord) is that, while these ceremonies are indeed matters of indifference in themselves, to yield to the insistence of those who regard them as essential is to deny the Gospel.

(from “The Encyclopedia of the Lutheran Church,” pp. 6-7)