Perhaps before this question is answered, the question of the correlation of doctrine and practice must be answered. Some would suggest that doctrine and practice, that style and substance, that faith and life can be separated, but can they or do they go together hand in hand? Timothy Maschke in his book Gathered Guests suggests that these two things, doctrine and practice, style and substance, faith and life or whatever classification and name you give them, do go together as he writes, “About the middle of the twentieth century, a new interest in liturgy arose throughout Christendom. Liturgical movements flourished among Catholics, Lutherans, and Episcopalians, as well as among several nonliturgical denominations. Many of these movements quickly recognized the close ties between worship and doctrine. Believing that worship could move groups together, the ecumenically-minded leaders in some denominations were especially cognizant of the impact that worship forms could have on the church”1 (Emphasis added).
So, if we do believe that doctrine and practice go together, then how does this or does this affect fellowship? Again, the evidence is quite clear. When church bodies worship using the same hymnal, it draws them together, because the hymnal, their worship practice, informs and educates their doctrine, what it is that they believe and if they begin believing the same things, then what is to keep them from joining together?
Evidence of this joining because of using the same hymn book is clear. Again, going back to Maschke and his writing in Gathered Guests, when church bodies used the same hymnal, “As a result of these efforts, the Service Book and Hymnal of the Lutheran Church in America was produced in 1958. As expected, joint worship practices led to corporate mergers among several Lutheran groups. Of the eight Lutheran bodies that had worked on this hymnal project, four formed the ALC and the other four became the LCA.”2 And more evidence is clear as he continues, “In 1977, the LCMS rejected the proposed Lutheran Book of Worship on theological grounds, though church politics were also involved as an underlying cause of the rejection. The ALC and the LCA, along with the new AELC (a group that broke away from the LCMS shortly before this hymnal was rejected), adopted Lutheran Book of Worship. Ten years later, in 1988, these three Lutheran bodies formed the ELCA.”2
So, if using the same hymnal can bring churches together, what can “disowning” a hymnal do to a denomination? Might we ask this question concerning the disunity of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Might we trace this disunity to the giving up our hymnal? The hymnal adopted and in use in the LCMS in 1982 was the hymnal Lutheran Worship, a hymnal which was an edit of the joint hymnal, Lutheran Book of Worship and a hymnal which was designed to include much variety in worship. It was during this time that some in the LCMS were buying into the paradigm of the principles of the so called church growth movement, a movement using social principles for growing congregations. This movement strived to separate doctrine and practice and suggested that by following certain social principles a congregation could grow. As congregations “threw out” the hymnal and began adapting and adopting various worship “forms,” it became more and more apparent that these congregations did not look like, sound like, or in some cases even care to emulate what it means to be Lutheran.
Might it be that one of the greatest factors in the doctrinal disunity of the LCMS is the lack of uniformity in our divine service practice which should flow out of our theology so that those that are practicing something other than Lutheran services are indeed not Lutheran, but rather are of the nature of their worship practice?
For years in the LCMS, a person could attend a worship service in any LCMS congregation around the country and know they were in an LCMS church, but not so today. To put it in socio-economic terms, if a person were to walk into a Walmart anywhere in the USA or a Target, or Sears, etc., they would know they were in a Walmart, or a Target or a Sears. The corporate philosophy of each store is demonstrated in its running of the store, its design, layout, etc.
At the 2006 Texas District convention, it was stated, and this is a paraphrase, if everyone in our synod purchased and used the new hymnal, Lutheran Service Book, this usage would go along way in bringing our synod back together. Indeed, we practice what we preach and when we all practice something different it is because we believe something different, but when we practice a uniformity of practices, it is because we do believe the same and this similar belief system is what brings us together in fellowship.
So, if we do believe that doctrine and practice go together, then how does this or does this affect fellowship? Again, the evidence is quite clear. When church bodies worship using the same hymnal, it draws them together, because the hymnal, their worship practice, informs and educates their doctrine, what it is that they believe and if they begin believing the same things, then what is to keep them from joining together?
Evidence of this joining because of using the same hymn book is clear. Again, going back to Maschke and his writing in Gathered Guests, when church bodies used the same hymnal, “As a result of these efforts, the Service Book and Hymnal of the Lutheran Church in America was produced in 1958. As expected, joint worship practices led to corporate mergers among several Lutheran groups. Of the eight Lutheran bodies that had worked on this hymnal project, four formed the ALC and the other four became the LCA.”2 And more evidence is clear as he continues, “In 1977, the LCMS rejected the proposed Lutheran Book of Worship on theological grounds, though church politics were also involved as an underlying cause of the rejection. The ALC and the LCA, along with the new AELC (a group that broke away from the LCMS shortly before this hymnal was rejected), adopted Lutheran Book of Worship. Ten years later, in 1988, these three Lutheran bodies formed the ELCA.”2
So, if using the same hymnal can bring churches together, what can “disowning” a hymnal do to a denomination? Might we ask this question concerning the disunity of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Might we trace this disunity to the giving up our hymnal? The hymnal adopted and in use in the LCMS in 1982 was the hymnal Lutheran Worship, a hymnal which was an edit of the joint hymnal, Lutheran Book of Worship and a hymnal which was designed to include much variety in worship. It was during this time that some in the LCMS were buying into the paradigm of the principles of the so called church growth movement, a movement using social principles for growing congregations. This movement strived to separate doctrine and practice and suggested that by following certain social principles a congregation could grow. As congregations “threw out” the hymnal and began adapting and adopting various worship “forms,” it became more and more apparent that these congregations did not look like, sound like, or in some cases even care to emulate what it means to be Lutheran.
Might it be that one of the greatest factors in the doctrinal disunity of the LCMS is the lack of uniformity in our divine service practice which should flow out of our theology so that those that are practicing something other than Lutheran services are indeed not Lutheran, but rather are of the nature of their worship practice?
For years in the LCMS, a person could attend a worship service in any LCMS congregation around the country and know they were in an LCMS church, but not so today. To put it in socio-economic terms, if a person were to walk into a Walmart anywhere in the USA or a Target, or Sears, etc., they would know they were in a Walmart, or a Target or a Sears. The corporate philosophy of each store is demonstrated in its running of the store, its design, layout, etc.
At the 2006 Texas District convention, it was stated, and this is a paraphrase, if everyone in our synod purchased and used the new hymnal, Lutheran Service Book, this usage would go along way in bringing our synod back together. Indeed, we practice what we preach and when we all practice something different it is because we believe something different, but when we practice a uniformity of practices, it is because we do believe the same and this similar belief system is what brings us together in fellowship.
1 Gathered Guests, A Guide to Worship in the Lutheran Church, Timothy H. Maschke, Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, MO, ©2003, p. 97.
2 Ibid., p. 97-98.
3 Ibid., p. 98.
Thanks for the great hymnal article you wrote. What you wrote should be read by all worshipping Lutherans. I forwarded it to my brother David, who used Maschke's book
ReplyDelete"Gathered Guests" in classes he taught at Concordia Nebraska. I also forwarded it to my three children who have devine calls in the LCMS, Jeff, Jonathan, and Lisa.
I have worked with hymnals in my entire professional life. I remember that in my childhood, one summer I played through every hymn in The Lutheran Hymnal. I remember anxiously waiting for the LBW. I served on the introductory committee in the CNH District and had the privilege of introducing it to our teacher's conference at Asilomar. It was hard to concentrate as I looked out the back windows of the classroom and watched surfers riding the waves of the Pacific Ocean. I remember introducing "Lift High the Cross" as a new hymn. I remember dedicating all the new LBWs at Faith. It wasn't easy trying to replace TLH after it had been in our pews for 40 years, but we grew to enjoy the new liturgies and hymns. Then came the bitter disappointment of the Dallas Convention which rejected this hymnal and began developing our own hymnal, LW. This book was very quickly developed and published. There wasn't the same enthusiasm using it. I served on the district introductory committe for introducing that book too. After all, we were still the LCMS and had to move on. We started the joint hymnal project at the Detroit Convention in (1968?), we led in the development of the LBW, and we also rejected it. Both hymnals were used, but it seemed safer for many churches to continue using the TLH. So, depending on what part of the country you lived in and what your theological leanings were, the choice of hymnals helped to split our church body. This is something the developers of the hymnals were not trying to accomplish. It wasn't until the advent of LSB that some unity in worship practices was once again attained. This time we were ready for a new book and it was widely accepted. You are right - we are as we worship. I am thankful that we faithfully use LSB at St. Matthews and am willing to drive a long way every Sunday so that I can be an organist at a church that is truly Lutheran in its worship practices.
Michael Held
After my mom and dad retired back in 1974, they spent their winters traveling in the warmer climates in a small motorhome. They faithfully worshipped at Lutheran churches on these journies. They were happy and also relieved when they could worship at a liturgical church. They enjoyed singing the liturgies and hymns that they had grown to love. Hymnals truly do give us a common denominator as Lutherans throughout the world. A few years ago Jeanne and I worshipped at a great Lutheran cathedral in Germany. Although the service was in German, we could sing most of the hymns and liturgy because we shared them with the German Lutherans. My brother David and his wife are leaving for a Reformation journey in Germany in a few days. I'm sure they will enjoy similar worship expereinces.
ReplyDeleteMichael Held
While not as well-versed as Jeanne, I would simply like to say "I like that one!". Thanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify - The above comments were posted by Michael Held. He is the one knowledgable about worship and hymnals. He just happened to be on my sign-in at the time so Jeanne (his wife) got the credit!!
ReplyDelete