Transforming Church

I think Haugen is doing some good work in the traditional Lutheran worship setting. Much of his work resembles what Roman Catholics were doing in the 60s when Vatican II ushered in liturgical renewal in its church. Nice stuff but still joined at the hip, so to speak, with very traditional denominational worship styles. Like everybody else's thoughts and feelings about worship, I have my own. Here are a few:

1. Haugen does not mention in this article the bath - Baptism. I think this is a glaring weakness or omission in his article. I think the "ordo" or "foundation" of our worship is always 3 things: the Word, the Meal, and the Bath, often traditionally referred to as Word and Sacrament. Today only about 50% of the Lutheran Churches in the USA have communion at every service, a continuing, troubling, Lutheran habit or custom, in my opinion. With all of the wars we've had about communion rails, video screens, pianos and electric guitars and drums next to the altar, we've had these fights while often leaving out the meal. Go figure!

2. Haugen says, "However, if liturgy does not begin and end with the proclamation, celebration and evocation of God's love in Christ there can never be authentic worship. Worship renewal that begins with the focus anywhere else (for instance, on musical style or instrumentation) strays from the fundamental mandate that, when we gather, we do so "in memory of me."

He is, of course, right on target here. But he is not careful enough, in my opinion, to mention that often the reference to or criticism about "musical style or instrumentation" is really a criticism of anything in Lutheran worship except organ and 500 year-old hymnody.

We (at Apostles) spent more than 1/4 of a million dollars a few years ago on renovations that imbedded in our worship space a style of worship that was appropriate centuries ago, and we left no room for meaningful and respectful renewal in worship. We have a quarter of a million dollar tracker organ that takes up 30% of the available worship space, a hugely oversized pulpit, and a communion rail that severely restricts any movement in the worship space. And today folks are leaving behind years of relationships when they bolt from the church because of issues around pianos, altar rails and screens. My only problem with Haugen's remarks here are that they sound like a veiled appeal for the same old way of worshiping.

3. Haugen also says in defense of the Lectionary that, "The lesson for us today is "Preachers, musicians, readers, congregations-you stray from the Lectionary or omit readings at your own risk." It is true enough that there are always risks associated with liturgical change or renewal. But I most strongly disagree with his underlying premise that because "The Lectionary is a gift to us from the ancestors" we ought to be careful of the risks. That's like arguing that because the horse and buggy was a "gift to us from the ancestors" we ought to be very careful stepping into the automobile. Just because something is old does not necessarily make it right or beneficial or the only way we have to live life today.

My point is that if we are proclaiming, reading, and preaching the Word, the Lectionary is not necessarily all that sacred a gift from the past. I have not used the Lectionary for 12 years and I have never preached the Word more strongly than I am today. Who says that there is a gift in the format of an Old Testament lesson, a psalm, and a reading from an Epistle, followed by the Gospel? Are we really so naive to believe that this is some kind of a sacred schema of organizing the texts? The Lectionary leaves out a lot of Biblical text, and it also combines texts on any given Sunday that have little or no Biblical connection whatsoever. Where is the Holy Spirit in all of this? The Lectionary is not all that it is cracked up to be, in my opinion. Tom Bandy has written his own modified Lectionary, which is a better one, I feel, and I like it better than our age-old beloved Lectionary.

And isn't that the point! Why do we all have to march to the same old tune? Why can we not have different texts read, proclaimed, and preached on from Sunday to Sunday?

I think we really need to quiet down.

4. Haugen also says, "Pastor, teacher and author Dan Erlander suggests that, before we make changes to the skeleton of this ancient Christian liturgical tradition, 'we need to have a long argument with the ancestors.' Amputation, knee surgery, hip replacement-anytime that we mess with our skeletons, there are serious and long-lasting implications. Sometimes, indeed, amputation or surgery is necessary-but it is always a last resort."

This is a grossly unfair assessment of what liturgical renewal is all about. Erlander, like many others, creates his own liturgical skeleton, and assumes that everyone else should see his skeleton as their own. Again, as long as we figure out a way to gather the assembly, celebrate, proclaim, and preach the Word, join in the meal and the bath, and send the assembly on their way to serve, we ought to be able to do these things in different ways that are respectful of the very best in our culture and locality, and the very best in our Tradition. Good liturgical renewal today is indigenous to the people, the place, and the cultural realities and Tradition

It seems to me that the challenge today in traditional Lutheran denominational worship is that the skeleton has no heart in it anymore for a growing percentage of the population, because we've worshipped these same bones to death. Nobody is coming to worship under the age of 50. My point is that it's more than just the skeleton - it's the heart and soul too - it's the emotions and feelings - it's the experiences of Christ that should also be included, if not put at the front and center of our worship.

I happen to preside at and lead two very different styles of worship every week. Both have their place; both are very different; both appeal to different kinds of people. The Traditional Lutheran service is, for me, still too slow and laborious. We continue to sing 500 year-old hymns with language that is often unintelligible to me. So many times I sing these songs and have not one clue as to their meaning. But as long as it is in the green or blue book it's "okay" to sing, so many Lutherans continue to believe.

In my opinion liturgical renewal in the Lutheran Church so far lags behind that I cannot often even call it liturgical renewal. There are some wonderful examples of liturgical renewal-but very few!

The best word on this that I have heard is from Gordon Lathrop, who writes something to this effect: "We do ourselves a great injustice if we believe that nothing from our past is relevant to our worship today. But to do an old thing in an old way in a new time is also to denigrate the meaning of worship."

It seems to me that we must keep the "ordo" in place: The Welcoming or gathering of the assembly...the proclamation of the Word (without obsessing about the Lectionary)...the Meal and the Bath...and the sending of the assembly out to serve. And we must incorporate great prayer and music, and then always try to fuse the very best in our culture with the very best in our tradition. The worship must be felt deeply. It must change people. People ought to come expecting to experience Christ. We should be able to clap and dance too!

How much longer are we going to continue doing an old thing in an old way in a new age? We need to really open up worship while always keeping the foundational elements present. I hope in my lifetime we can go from church to church and from denomination to denomination and experience great variety in worship experience.

I don't pretend to have definitive answers to these questions. But I do feel that we must let churches experiment and come up with their own unique ways of worshiping, always keeping the foundational elements present in the local context.

Paul

P.S. I look forward to the day when the Lutheran Church will stop publishing these mammoth, hard-bound worship books. Such publications set us back hundreds of years. We ought to be using every available means of communication besides 20lb. books in hard oak pews!