Why Should Churches Have Liturgy?

“There is no point in repeating words every week that have no meaning to me.” That’s a sentiment often heard surrounding the use of liturgy in the church service. In a way, the statement is correct. Jesus criticized the Pharisees for using lengthy prayers to somehow gain favor with God, because their heart was not involved in their supplications. However, such a disinterested vein repetition need not accompany the use of the liturgy when we understand the meaning and purpose of what is being said. Martin Luther criticized the use of Latin in the church services of the Middle Ages because the people could not understand what was being said. We do the same thing today if we do not explain the meaning of the words and customs that we use. There are several reasons why the use of liturgy is particularly helpful and important for the church. I will outline three below:

It’s Biblical.

Most of the contents of the worship service are taken directly from Scripture. The worship service opens with the invocation: “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” The Trinitarian address is used in this manner in Matthew 28:19, when Jesus gives the disciples the great commission. When we begin the service in this way, we are confessing that it is God who is bringing us together in the congregation, and that it is God who is working during the service. The next element of the worship service is confession and absolution. This is also a Scriptural practice, as we are called by God to confess our sins (1 John 1:9), and pastors are called to forgive sins (John 20:22-23). The various canticles that are often sung during worship services are taken directly from Scripture, such as the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55), and the Song of Simeon (Luke 2:29-32). A liturgical service also has three Scripture readings, and sometimes a Psalm reading. Hearing and reciting liturgy is hearing and reciting the Word of God!

It’s Historic.

I studied the early church fathers in college, and I will never forget one of the experiences I had reading the third century writer St. Hippolytus. I was looking through one of his books for a paper I was writing, and I came across a section where he discussed what the early Christian worship services looked like. Hippolytus discussed how the Communion service began with the words: “The Lord be with you. And also with you. Lift up your hearts. We lift them to the Lord.” This is exactly what liturgical churches say even today! When we use the liturgy, we come to realize and express that we are part of the same church as those who have lived throughout the centuries. We see ourselves as part of God’s great story in gathering his church together, and leading us by his Spirit!

It Reflects Heavenly Worship.

The book of Revelation gives us a taste of what worship in heaven looks like. John explains how the twenty-four elders surround the throne of God wearing white robes, and they have a song that repeats itself: “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!” (Rev. 4:8). The congregation of angels and saints also are said to repeat certain words together, such as “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!” (Rev. 6:12). The worshipping community also often prostrate themselves, falling to the ground, to express the holiness and greatness of the God they worship (Rev. 6:14). When a liturgical church uses robes, singing, corporate readings of praises to God, and practices kneeling during different parts of the service, she is reflecting the very worship we will all experience in heaven. Worship is not simply a picture of heaven, but when we gather together to praise our Lord, heaven and earth meet! God is with us, and so are all the angels and saints crying: “Holy, holy holy is the Lord God Almighty!”

The Importance of Liturgy

On today's program I was joined by Dr. Curtis Leins, the assistant presiding pastor of the AALC, and professor of Church History and Liturgics at the American Lutheran Theological Seminary. He discussed his studies in liturgics, why churches should not abandon the liturgy, and various other topics.

Here is the program.

The Lutheran Rosary

Here are the two ways to use prayer beads that I recommend:

First 
1.Hold the crucifix and meditate on the cross. Recite John 3:16 or another verse.
2.Continue meditating on the cross until you get to the first large bead
3.At the medal, recall the Holy Trinity
4.Throughout the next beads, meditate on the Ten Commandments, remembering where you have fallen short
5.Meditate on the Apostle's Creed, recalling God's great acts of salvation
6.Pray the Lord's Prayer
7.Meditate on Holy Baptism using Mathew 28:19, Acts 2:38, or another verse about Baptism
8. Meditate on Confession, reciting Psalm 25:11, the Jesus prayer, or another verse of confession
9. Meditate on the Sacrament of the Altar reciting the words of institution
10. End holding the cross, with the invocation and make the sign of the cross



Second
1. Holding the crucifix, say the Invocation and make the sign of the cross;
2. Holding the crucifix, say the Apostles Creed
3. Holding the first bead, say the Our Father
4. On each of the next three beads, say the Jesus Prayer
5. On the chain, say the Doxology
6. On the large bead, say the Our Father
7. On each of the next ten beads, say the Jesus Prayer
8. Holding the chain, say the Doxology
9. Repeat these steps until you have gone through all the beads
10. Holding the medal, say  the Magnificat
11. Holding the crucifix, end with the Invocation and make the sign of the cross

The Regulative Principle of Worship

On today's program, I discussed the Reformed regulative principle of worship. I went through some of the basic arguments for this position and demonstrated why I believe them to be flawed.

Here is the program.

Why Should Christians Observe Lent?

Lent has been formally observed by Christians since the 4th century, but the practice of fasting, repentance, and prayer before Easter has been observed since at least the 2nd century according to the testimony of St. Irenaeus. Easter has always been a time of celebration for the church. On Easter we remember the victory that Christ won through his resurrection; we celebrate the fact that he overcame death, hell, and the devil by conquering the grave, as he burst forth from the tomb. But times of great joy in the Christian tradition, such as Easter or Christmas, are preceded by contemplation, repentance, and prayer.

The forty days in which fasting is practiced before Easter mirrors the forty days that Jesus spent in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-2). The practice of forty days of fasting goes back even farther, as both Moses (Exodus 34:28) and Elijah (1 Kings 19:8) used forty days as a means for spiritual preparation. In the same way that these great saints took time out of their lives to focus on prayer, and fasting, and in imitation of Christ, we too utilize this spiritual practice.

In certain traditions, fasting becomes legalistic. Certain churches, bishops, and pastors, require fasting for these forty days, and at times even dictate what your fast should be. Instead of a free decision, fasting becomes compulsory, it is made into a strict Law. This is opposed to the Gospel. St. Paul writes to the Colossians, “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or new moon or a Sabbath.” (Colossians 2:16) We are no longer bound to a Law which dictates what we can and cannot eat or drink, or what days we need to celebrate. Those ordinances of the Old Testament were pictures of Christ, which no longer have any hold on us because Jesus has fulfilled them. We have freedom in Christ.

Does this mean that we shouldn't observe Lent because God doesn't require us to? We would do well to listen to the wisdom of St. Paul on this point. “ 'All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful.” (1 Corinthians 10:23) Even though we don't need to observe Lent, it is helpful to do so. As Christians for 2,000 years have used this time as a means to focus on repentance and fasting, we too would do well to do the same. Focusing on repentance, and taking time to meditate over our sin is helpful because it allows us to more fully understand the joys of Easter. A recognition of our sin always comes before the proclamation that our sins are forgiven. We only rejoice in God's forgiveness if we understand the truth of our great offenses against God.

There are different ways in which Lent can be observed. Some choose to fast from food from sun up to sun down; others choose to fast from a certain meal each week, or choose a 24 hour period to fast; many will give up some sort of habit or food that they usually indulge in. There are also spiritual practices which some take up such as praying the Psalms, setting aside a longer time of prayer than is normal during the rest of the year, or having a plan to read through more Scripture each day.

I would encourage you to observe Lent this year, not in a legalistic way, not because you have to; but do so because through it you will be edified, and through contemplation, prayer, and fasting, the Gospel will become even more joyous when it is proclaimed boldly on Easter morning.

Thoughts on the Visible/Invisible Church Distinction

In the pietistic tradition, the distinction between a visible and invisible church is highly emphasized. This doctrine made its way into the Waltherian school of Confessional Lutheranism; sometimes it is confessed that the church is purely invisible, though it has certain visible "signs" of its presence. There is some wisdom in separating true faith from external ecclesial structures, since faith is a matter of the heart, but ultimately I think this tradition misses the intimate connection between the physical and transcendental within Luther's thought. In reading an article titled "Luther's Double-Faceted Concept of the Church" by Vilmos Vajta (in the volume: Manns, Peter et. al. Luther's Ecumenical Significant: An Interconfessional Consultation. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.)I came across the following quote of Luther which explains the relationship between the visible and invisible rather well:

"Therefore, for the sake of better understanding and brevity, we shall call the two churches by two distinct names. The first, which is natural, basic, essential, and true, we shall call 'spiritual, inner Christendom.' The second, which is man-made and external, we shall call 'physical, external Christendom.' Not that we want to separate them from each other; rather, it is just as if I were talking about a person and called him 'spiritual' according to his soul, and 'physical' according to his body, or as the Apostle is accustomed, to speak of an 'internal' and 'external' person. So, too, the Christian assembly is a community united in one faith according to the soul, although according to the body, it cannot be assembled in one place since every group of people is assembled in its own place." (Luther's Works Volume 39, page 70)

For Luther, there is an essential connection between the two aspects of the church. It's not as if there are two separate churches, one visible and one invisible, but the church contains both a visible and invisible aspect. This is commensurate with Luther's sacramental theology which maintains the reality of the earthly and heavenly elements in vital connection to one another. Thus Luther's view of the church is not that of an ethereal Platonic reality as some allege, but is thoroughly incarnational. Not only is this more consistent with Luther's own theology, and that of the church catholic, but portrays the usage of ecclesia in the New Testament.

Some Thoughts on Mercersburg Theology

I have recently been reading a lot on the "Mercersburg Theology" which arose from conservative Presbyterian theology in Pennsylvania in the mid 19th century. The two primary proponents were John Williamson Nevin, and the noted church historian Philip Schaff. The main thrust of Mercersburg theology was the quest for a reformed Catholicity. This was promoted through the use of historic liturgical practices and a recovery of the sacramental theology of John Calvin.

The most important book written by Nevin titled "the Mystical Presence" defends a view of the Lord's Supper which proposes that their is a real partaking of Christ mystically through faith in the Eucharist. Though negating the Roman Catholic and Lutheran insistence on the local presence of Christ's human nature, Nevin argues against the popular Zwinglian Princeton approach to the sacraments that one partakes of the whole person of Christ through the sacrament. This partaking involves the mediating work of the Holy Spirit, wherein mystically the Christian is raised through faith to partake of Christ's whole person. This act offers and brings forgiveness to the recipient.

Nevin's view of the Eucharist is heavily dependent upon his insistence that salvation is both legal and ontological. Integral to salvation is mystical union with Christ. This goes beyond the legal/covenantal union that many propose, and approaches the real-ontic union idea of Mannermaa. For Nevin, the benefits of Christ cannot be separated from his person. Thus, the benefits of redemption involve mystical union and participation in Christ which is exemplified in the Eucharist.

Another emphasis of the Mercersburg theologians was the insistence that salvation comes through the church. The strict visible/invisible church distinction of Hodge personalizes faith to such an extent that participation in the external church becomes almost a matter of preference, being separated from an individual act of faith which occurs apart from the ecclesiastical community.

There was a lengthy debate between Hodge and the Mercersburg theologians which would ultimately determine the future of the Presbyterian tradition in America. Hodge viewed Christianity as essentially adherence to specific doctrines, thus the purity of the church depended upon its acceptance of correct doctrine. Nevin and Schaff argued for a more organic view of the church, wherein the Christian faith is not centered in doctrine but life. This does not mean life as in moral transformation as in Ritschl, but the life of Christ and the eschatological life that he communicates through his person. Thus the church as an organic institution continually grows and becomes more sanctified. In the minds of the Mercersburg theologians, this would hopefully eventually result in the reunification of the church: Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, and Reformed.

Ultimately, of course, the Mercersburg theologians were on the losing side of the debate. While Nevin's historical work regarding the Eucharist far outweighed Hodge's for a purely symbolic understanding, it was ultimately the Princeton tradition which would define Reformed theology in America.

I find it fascinating that there was (and remains) a movement toward catholicity within the Reformed tradition. I find this encouraging, but ultimately I don't believe that Reformed theology can solve the desire for catholicity. Nevin's emphasis on the incarnation as the paradigm for church life is correct, but ultimately cannot be sustained on Reformed principles. The Zwinglian principle that "the finite is not capable of the infinite" negates the possibility of a true Reformed catholicity. An incarnation-centric theology like that of Nevin and Schaff ultimately cannot stand within the Reformed tradition. To do so is to deny the central principle which divided the Lutheran and Reformed branches against one another. If you deny this principle, can you still be said to remain Reformed? I don't think so. It is not surprising to me that the Puritanical/ Princeton type of Reformed theology has been predominant. Attempts such as the Mercersburg movement and the Federal Vision movement to strike a balance between the two positions is impossible. Consistency ultimately must lean one toward Lutheranism or Princeton & Puritan theology. Either the finite is capable of the infinite or it isn't. There is no middle ground on this essential issue.

Does absolution obscure Christ's mediatorial role?

I received the following question which I think deserves a response since it is so commonly asked:

Hey, I just started watching your video "Just and Sinner: What is the doctrine on the two kindoms?" And you mentioned that if someone were to commit a crime to someone else, and they went to the pastor for forgiveness, then it was then the pastor's job to forgive them. Now I was wondering how that perspective matches with I John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." And I Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus".

It is a common objection to our practice of pastoral absolution, that it obscures the role of Christ as sole mediator, placing the pastor in Christ's role. However, I don't think this is the case.

First a distinction needs to be made between a Lutheran and Roman view of ordination. In Roman Catholic theology, ordination is a sacrament. When the priest is ordained, there is an ontological change; there is indelible mark placed into the individuals character. He is declared an "alter Christus", meaning "another Christ." The man who is ordained then becomes a priest, and is able to offer sacrifices up to God on behalf of the congregation and re-present Christ's sacrifice during the mass.

In a Lutheran view of ordination, there is no indelible mark placed on the individual. Ordination is not a sacrament and there is no special grace thereby received by the one ordained. However, ordination is a divine call. It is a call from God, enacted through the church which places one into a specific office in the church. In this office one is to preach the word an administer the sacraments. The pastor's calling is not higher than other essential roles in the church, it is merely different. Thus all roles in the body of Christ are significant and no one needs to be placed above another as if a pastor is on a higher spiritual plane than other members of the church. But because of the divine nature of the call, the pastoral office should not and cannot be usurped by the laity, and the pastor should not usurp the role of the laity either.

It's clear that the Roman and Lutheran views of ordination are different. What Luther feared about the priesthood laying claim to aspects of Christ's own unique priesthood was done away with during the Reformation. However, Luther still promoted the pastoral office as one in which God acts to forgive sins. Does this not still make the pastor a co-mediator?

Think about what a mediator is. A mediator is a go-between, acting in an intercessory role between two parties. Technically, if you pray for someone else, you are acting as a mediator. If my brother falls into sin and I pray for his repentance and forgiveness, I am interceding before my brother, being a mediator between him and God. The point is that Christ has a unique mediatorial role which does not negate other mediators in a lesser sense. In the instance of confession and absolution, I don't believe that Christ's mediatorial role is being violated. This is apparent in the fact that Christ himself commands it.

Look at the following two texts:

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:19)

"If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld." (John 20:23)

John commands his disciples, the leaders of the first century church, to forgive sins. He does not tell them to talk about the forgiveness of sins, or tell them where to receive the forgiveness of sins; rather, Jesus commands the actual forgiving of sins by his disciples. All contemporary evangelical interpretations of this text try so hard to twist its clear meaning. Looking at them was one of my primary reasons for becoming a Lutheran. The texts are simply so clear.

Remember that it is the same John who writes the epistle wherein he commands personal confession to God for forgiveness, who also writes of the forgiveness that the disciples could offer those in the church. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. God does forgive sins through confession in prayer. However, he has also instituted a means by which the forgiveness that we receive can be heard and received visibly. This does not mean that Christ is obscured, but that when the minister proclaims forgiveness, it is the act of God coming through the pastor to bring forgiveness. It does not point us away from Christ's mediatorial role but points us to the one who continues to be our intercessor, assuring our salvation.

It is not the pastoral office that makes the word effective. It is not that the pastors words and actions have magical powers. Rather, it is the word itself which is effective, the minister is merely a means to bring that word to people's ears, and forgiveness to sinful saints.

Some problems I have with the mega-church movement

A Warning to Lutherans to Avoid Evangelical Errors

I have noticed in certain strains of Evangelical Catholicism some tendencies which tend toward some of the same errors as American Evangelicalism. I don't mean that we have suddenly started singing 7-11 choruses or having our Pastors preach on the latest popular movie in his "Jesus is my homeboy" t-shirt. However, I have noticed a certain strain of emotionalism and obsession with aesthetics which mimics that of mega church culture. Let me explain.

I have, for example, heard some Lutherans say that they "feel more worshipful" when the Pastor is wearing a chausable, or when incense is used during the service. This is then the justification for those practices. Or, I have heard of some who claim to be Lutherans simply because they appreciate the aesthetics of liturgy over dull evangelical worship styles. I have heard faithful Lutheran churches denigrated simply because they don't have enough chanting during the service, or the Pastor chooses an alb and stole over a chausable. Is this not simply buying into the same emotionalism which drives evangelicalism? Stating that you feel God's presence through the beauty of the liturgy, vestments, and church architecture, is not all that different from the concept of feeling God's presence through the emotionally manipulating music. Sure, its a heck of a lot more classy than the contemporary version of it. I'm emotionally moved far more by Bach or Handel than Chris Tomlin or Michael W. Smith. However, the same error can be mimicked.


I'm not saying that emotion shouldn't be part of worship. The beauty of the liturgy is certainly one of the great benefits of being a Lutheran. Beautiful music does and should move us emotionally. Vestments and architecture do convey a sense of the presence of the Holy that isn't present in many modern churches. However, there is a danger when this becomes the overriding concern. That which drives a Lutheran should be the gospel as presented in the Lutheran Confessions, and the administration of the sacraments. The beauty of the worship is a secondary concern. God is present just as much in the small country church with 20 congregants, a Pastor who can't carry a tune, an organist who can't play in an ugly sanctuary, as He is in a beautiful Cathedral full of candles, icons, and incense.

I love high church services with all of the smells and bells. However, I think we have to be careful where our priorities lie. If I were to worship solely according to the beauty and emotion conveyed in worship, I'd be Eastern Orthodox, not Lutheran. But the central concern of ours should be the gospel, which is proclaimed more clearly in the Lutheran church than any other. That is what makes us Lutheran and should keep us Lutheran.

Lutherans and the use of images Part 2

Having explained what the Lutheran view of images is, I will now attempt to give a brief defense that this is a Biblical understanding.

The main Reformed objection is of course from the second commandment (first for Lutherans). The commandment states:
"You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments." (Exodus 20:4)

The main thrust of the command is against worship of images. In the ancient middle east, it was common for religions to venerate statues of false gods. As many other laws given to Israel, this law served to protect the people from Israel from the corruption of the false religions of surrounding nations. It is not opposing using images for any purpose whatsoever.

This is clear from the fact that Israel was actually commanded to make images.

"You shall make a mercy seat of pure gold. Two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth. And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end. Of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be. And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give you. There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you about all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel." (Exodus 25:17-22)

If it was acceptable to use images in the worship setting in the Old Testament (the ark was of course the most holy place for Jewish worship), why is it assumed to be wrong in the new?

One may object that images of saints and angels are permissible, but images of God are not. But must this be the case for the incarnate God, who willfully took an image upon himself? Sure, images of God in his glory cannot begin to approach his majesty in the heavens, but how can one argue against an image of a real historical event on this earth? Crucifixes are not meant to give an exact image of what Jesus' face looks like, but to be a visual reminder that God became an actual man, in real history, and truly died a bloody death for the sins of the world.

Lutherans and the use of images Part 1

One of the things that initially scared me away from Lutheran churches was the crucifix placed in the front of the sanctuary behind the preacher. Doesn't that violate the second commandment? Do Lutherans venerate icons?

This is a common apprehension Reformed Christians have about Lutheran worship. I would look to clear up a few misconceptions.

Lutherans do not venerate icons. At the second council of Nicea in 787, the issue of images was at hand. One side, called iconoclasts, were against the use of images altogether. Churches should not be adorned at all with pictures of Jesus, or the saints. The other position, represented most adequately by John of Damascus, argued that icons of Jesus, Mary, the Angels, and the Saints, should be displayed and churches and homes. One could venerate (in distinction from worship) the icons. When one venerates the icon, he is not venerating the picture, but what it represents.

While the Reformed have traditionally accepted the "iconoclast" position, Lutherans have not whole-heartily adopted the Damascene position on the issue either. There are a couple of reasons for this.

First, we do not venerate the saints. The saints should be commended and remembered for their great faith and example in this life (Hebrews 11 displays this rather well). However, we do not pray, or perform any act we conceive as worship to the saints.

Second, scripture does not imply that icons are a window into the heavenly realms. Believing in sola scriptura, we simply can't hold to this view.

So what do we use images for?

We use them as tools to instruct and remind us of our faith. The crucifix is a constant reminder of the gospel. It is often placed in the sanctuary to remind both the pastor and the congregation that Christ, and his cross are the center of the church's worship life. We use images of saints to remind us of the great faith of those who have come before us, and remind us of the unity of the church in heaven and on earth.