Society for the Preservation of the Evangelical Lutheran Liturgy

Ceremonies in the Lutheran Church

2011-12-13T08:49:00.000-08:00

This is an excellent web page on ceremonies in the Lutheran Church which I highly recommend. Very educational.

http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.manngraebner.html

Do we really need altar guilds?

2011-12-05T19:25:00.000-08:00

No. We don't. We really don't. Most of the problems that I have had in my ministry have come from altar guild members--altar guild members who are absolutely inflexible, completely closed off to change on any kind, and who think it is their personal duty to protect the congregation from the pastor and all this "catholic" stuff. Now please understand, I have known many faithful Christian altar guild members over the years; but I have also known a lot of sharks. The altar is their territory and woe to the pastor who tries to move anything, change anything, or even suggest anything. It doesn't matter if the pastor is the one who has to stand at the altar and do all the things required of him by the Church's liturgy; it is the altar guild's way or the highway.

Many altar guild members are, let's be honest, older ladies. They learned their craft under the well-meaning but incompetent guidance of some protty clergyman a long time ago, one who had little real interest in liturgy; or worse, they were left on their own to make up their own "rules" (not drawn from any official manual) which they stick to as rigidly as any observant monk. You can explain to these altar warriors how the altar should be set up for Holy Communion, but don't expect that they are going to take you seriously. When Sunday comes, you'll see, it will be back to the same old way they learned when Pastor Krunch was pastor forty years ago.

The one serious problem I have with altar guilds is the fact that they often undermine the proper, reverent, respectful treatment of the Eucharistic elements after the Communion Liturgy. I, gladly, don't have little shot glasses in my parish, so I am able to ablute the chalice and the flagon at the altar and consume any uneaten hosts. I have instructed the altar guild to rinse all vessels and dispose of the rinse-water reverently before washing the vessels with soapy water. However, this has always been an uphill battle. Sadly, there are a lot of pastors out there who just don't care what happens to the consecrated elements after the liturgy has been concluded. Altar guilds are just left to do their thing, and when a pastor who cares about liturgy comes along, he gets a lot of opposition from guild members who have "always done it that way."

Lately, I have been giving serious thought regarding the need for altar guilds. Honestly, I don't think we need them. Unless the members are faithful, well-trained, flexible, and have an understanding that their job is to help the pastor do his job, I say disband them. Altar guilds that think they have the final say in liturgical matters are a nuisance at best, and at worst they (albeit unwittingly) serve the devil.

Here's my proposal: Every parish should have a sacristan or two. The sacristan should be very knowledgeable in liturgy. He or she should work closely with the pastor. The sacristan can appoint members of the parish to wash linens, polish brass-ware, etc. He or she might be someone who wants to train for the ordained ministry someday, and being a sacristan would provide much needed training that is usually lacking in Lutheran seminaries.
As far as altar guilds are concerned, keep them if they behave themselves. Otherwise, they are not worth the headache.

Anti-catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice

2011-12-05T12:53:00.000-08:00

I serve as a pastor in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, a Lutheran church body known for its toleration of just about everything. ELCA Lutherans pride themselves on ordaining women clergy. We have a quota system which is suppose to guarantee that the voices of women and minorities are heard and respected, and that women and minorities have access to holding important positions in the church. Since 2009, we have allowed non-celibate ordained pastors "in life-long committed relationships" to serve as pastors of congregations, and several of our synods have guidelines for blessing same-sex unions or performing marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples. We pride ourselves on being at the forefront of ecumenism. We have full-communion agreements with he United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church-USA, the Reformed Church in America, the Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church, and the Moravian Church. Our bishops go to Palestine and demand, "Mr Netanyahu, tear down that wall!" We congratulate ourselves on being a tolerant, open-minded, open-hearted, non-bigoted, mainline liberal Church. Now I am going to withhold my opinion on these issues, for that is not the topic of this article, the purpose of which is to point out that there is still one acceptable prejudice in the ELCA and that is anti-catholicism.

Ask any liturgically-minded pastor in the ELCA and he will share with you the heartache, the frustration, and the sadness he has faced for the sake of a more reverent, beautiful, traditional liturgy. Any practice or custom can be dismissed by a bigoted laity (or by a bigoted 'hierarchy;' and don't think the ELCA doesn't have a hierarchy!) simply by labeling it "too catholic." Exactly what the criteria is for putting something in this category is still a mystery to me after 20 years in the ELCA, 13 as a pastor. However, it seems to me that the criteria is "anything we say it is." It doesn't matter how many Lutheran books that have a photo or drawing of a pastor in a chasuble that you bring to the table, and it matters even less how many passages from the Lutheran Confessions you show them; the Romaphobes, though they know nothing about Scripture, theology, liturgy, liturgical art, or liturgical music, intuitively know "too catholic" when they see it. Ask a Romaphobe about his experience with an actual Roman Catholic Church, however, and he will tell you about being at a cousin's wedding in a Catholic church once.

It is so ironic how I and other liturgical pastors have taken it on the chin for things like the sign of the cross, eucharistic vestments, chanting, sprinkling with water from the font at the Renewal of Baptismal Vows (two or three times a year), putting a drop of water in the chalice at the offertory, elevating the host, genuflecting, etc. (not to mention a little incense!), yet I have many colleagues that play fast and loose with the liturgy (not just gestures, but with the words!), have replaced hymns with praise songs on screens, and basically do whatever the hell they please, all in the name of evangelical freedom and 'growing the church,' and they get away with it--in fact, they are hailed as innovators. I was once told by congregation members how they attended a Lutheran parish while on vacation that has a "country and western" service, and how much they "got out of it." The Lutheran magazine did a big story on a congregation that has "dixie-land services." When was the last time The Lutheran did a story on a high liturgical Lutheran parish or a story celebrating the contributions of liturgical pastors and parishes in the ELCA? Don't hold your breath. It ain't gonna happen.

Have you noticed that evangelical freedom only goes in one direction--the freedom not to do something? It's never the freedom to do something. The Lutheran Confessions make it clear that everything should be retained that serves the Gospel. However, in practice this is a very short list indeed. Let me say this: there is something sick about a church body that makes the permitting of gay marriage and ordination of practicing homosexuals a more pressing matter than having the Eucharist celebrated weekly in all parishes. There is something sick about a church that allows pastors to suffer abuse at the hands of parishioners simply because these pastors want to worship according to ancient, time-tested, confessional, historical norms, in the beauty of holiness. There is something very sick about a church body that congratulates itself for its ecumenical relationships, even with the Roman Catholic Church, and yet openly tolerates anti-catholicism. Yes, it's all very sick, indeed.

Paraments and Vestments for Advent

2010-12-17T08:27:00.000-08:00

Many Lutheran congregations and pastors are using blue paraments and vestments during Advent. However, this was an innovation introduced in the last 30 years. The traditional color for Advent is purple, and in the Roman Catholic Church, the use of blue has never been officially approved for use in Advent. Why then the switch to blue? Today's liturgists tell us that the old penitential emphasis of Advent has been replaced with an emphasis on eschatological hope in the future kingdom of God (or "reign of God" for those who don't like the maleness of the word kingdom). Blue represents royalty (of course, so does purple!) and hope, so they say. These are the same liturgists who have said that we should lose the penitential emphasis in Lent and move to more of a stress on baptism and catechesis. Yeah, whatever. It seems the [post-] modern liturgists have a problem with penitence. I guess this is why the new ELW allows a renewal of baptismal vows to replace the order for confession and forgiveness. I don't have a problem with an order for renewal of baptismal vows with sprinkling from the font, but this should be done as an amplification of the Creed (Easter, All Saints, and the Baptism of our Lord would be good feast days for this). However, I am not for replacing confession and forgiveness with a renewal of baptismal vows. We need regular confession of sins more than ever in our churches.

In any case, back to blue in Advent. It must be admitted that the use of blue in Advent does have some historical basis. In the middle ages, a dark blue (indigo) was in use in England and in Scandinavia where it was more difficult to obtain the ingredients for purple dye. Blue is also used in certain churches is Spain and Latin America, but here it is a lighter blue connected with feasts of the Virgin Mary. Certainly, if blue is used for Advent it should be of the darker indigo variety so that some of the penitential character of the season remains. After all, the new Revised Common Lectionary does focus on John the Baptist's call to repentance. In my own church, we use a Sarum blue. This is something I inherited. When Lutherans spend money on something, they don't like to be told it wasn't right. Anyway, I can live with it, though I prefer the traditional purple.

With regard to the color rose: unfortunately, the LBW altar edition/minister's desk edition gives the colors purple or blue for use on the third Sunday in Advent. LBW makes no mention of the option of using rose vestments and paraments. However, the rose color has a long history in the Church and many churches have a rose-colored candle for the third week in Advent on the Advent wreath. The rose vestments and paraments being brighter than the penitent purple correspond to the ancient introit (entrance antiphon) from which this Sunday--Gaudete Sunday-- gets its name: Gaudete in Domino semper ("Rejoice in the Lord always") from the 4th Chapter of Saint Paul's Letter to the Philippians. On this Sunday there was a reprieve from the strict fasting of Advent when Advent was truly a penitential season. A similar reprieve took place in Lent on the 4th Sunday, the introit of which also begins with "Rejoice (Laetare) O Jerusalem!," thus it is known as Laetare Sunday. It is perfectly acceptable and commendable for Lutherans to make use of rose vestments and paraments on both Gaudete and Laetare Sundays.

Note: It is not appropriate to light the rose candle on the Advent wreath on the 4th Sunday of Advent because "Christmas is almost here." That's a silly innovation. If we are going to reclaim liturgical ceremonies and practices, let us at least use them properly and at the right times.

2010-08-03T22:46:00.000-07:00

New Translation of the Roman Missalhttp://icelweb.org/musicfolder/openmusic.php

2010-04-14T11:03:00.000-07:00

I was just looking at some of the new ICEL translations of the Roman Missal texts, and I must say, they are very fine. Unlike the ICEL translations of the 1970 Missal of Paul VI, these new translations are much more faithful to the original Latin. The texts, along with their respective chants, can be viewed at http://icelweb.org/musicfolder/openmusic.php. The people that serve on ICEL are to be congratulated for their fidelity-- it only took them 40 years to set things straight! Of course, I understand there was a good deal of pressure from the Roman hierarchy to make sure that the translators stuck to the texts rather than promote their own 'sense' of the texts.

It would have been wonderful if the committee that produced Evangelical Lutheran Worship had waited until these new ICEL translations had come out. Actually, however, it wouldn't have mattered since the ELW people were not interested in fidelity in translating ancient liturgical texts but in promoting their own narrow ultra-feminist sectarian agenda. The ELW people had no qualms about surgically removing "Father" and "Lord" from the proper prefaces, or changing the catholic creeds and the Psalms to make them more 'inclusive' (that is, more palatable to feminists). The irony is, in some cases, the Latin texts are much more inclusive than ELW's. For example, the response that has been rendered "It is right to give our thanks and praise" is "Dignum et justum est" in Latin. This should be translated simply as "It is right and just." In the LBW it was rendered "It is right to give him thanks and praise." This was borrowed from the ICEL text of the 1970 Missal. Then the ELW people tinkered with an already poorly rendered text, changing "him" to "our" in order to avoid 'offensive masculine language for God. So now the focus is on us--on our thanks and praise, as opposed to him (God). More liturgical self congratulating! All this could have been avoided, of course, if the Latin had been translated properly in the first place. But as I said, fidelity was not a priority for the ELW crew.

So, when it comes to the highly defective ELW, I admonish you caveat emptor!

Reasons Why I Will Not Use ELW

2009-09-14T21:20:00.000-07:00

1. The altering of the historic creeds of the Church Catholic to appease feminists: no longer can we say "and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord," but now we must say "God's only Son our Lord." The worst sin one can commit in the ELCA is using a male pronoun for God. The altering of the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds is sectarian and obscures the relationship between God the Father and God the Son.

2. The removal of God the Father from the proper prefaces.

3. The altering of the Psalms: for example, changing he to "you" in the 23rd Psalm which now reads "you make me lie down in green pastures," etc. Even the Bible has to be "corrected" in accordance with feminist 'inclusive' language principles.

4. The deliberate omission of the Athanasian Creed.

5. The many 'options' in ELW which allow for alternatives to "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."
Now we may simply say "in the name of the Trinity."

6. The altering of many hymn texts removing words like Lord, King, etc. which are viewed by the revisionists as patriarchal and exclusive.

7. There is a thinly veiled agenda behind the ELW, the agenda of feminist revisionists. The many alterations of Biblical and historical liturgical texts and hymns leads to an erosion of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.

I have listed only a handful of problems with ELW; there are many more. All faithful Lutheran pastors and the people they serve should simply reject this awful heterodox book and continue to use the Lutheran Book of Worship, the Service Book and Hymnal, and other orthodox Lutheran worship books. ELW is a departure from our confessional evangelical catholic faith. It is a sectarian book by and for sectarians.

Incensed by Incense?

2009-05-14T12:24:00.000-07:00

In our Lutheran Vespers we sing Psalm 141: "Let my prayer rise before you as incense, the lifting up of my hands as an evening sacrifice." The Manual on the Lutheran Liturgy considers the use of incense particular appropriate to the singing of this Psalm. But let's face it, how many pastors actually mingle the sacrifice of the Church's prayer with the fragrant smoke which rises Heavenward? Not very many- and that's too bad.
An Anglican priest friend (of the Anglo-Catholic variety) once said to me, "Why is it that no one was allergic to incense prior to the Reformation?" I have been to Eastern Orthodox Churches in which thick clouds of holy smoke envelope the whole congregation, and there is no coughing or gagging. However, the least little puff of smoke from a thurible can cause coughing fits among Lutherans. Why is this?
Before I answer this question, I need first to explain exactly what proper church incense is. It is definetly not the cheap synthetic sticks or cones that can be purchased in convenience stores. Real incense is the precious resin or gum from certain types of aromatic trees which when burned upon a glowing charcoal, give off a wonderfully rich fragrant smoke that is truly heavenly. The most pure form of incense is frankincense (one of the gifts of the Magi), but this is often blended with other ingredience such as myrrh (a gum resin), spices, and floral essences. It's liturgical use is well-established in the Holy Scriptures. In the Jewish Temple there was an altar of incense and Saint John's vision of the Heavenly Kingdom is full of fragrant smoke which represents the prayers of the saints. Its use in Christian worship has its roots in Jewish worship. Incense is used in the Church's liturgical worship as a symbol of prayer, offering, and of reverence to God. So what's the big deal? Why do so many Lutherans get their noses in a knot over it?
Well for one thing, there is perhaps no other liturgical symbol that 'reeks' of Roman Catholocism as much as the smoke of incense! They might put up with the vestments, the sign of the cross, even the Sanctus bell, but when the pastor starts blowing smoke around, that's going too far. The romaphobes cannot stand it. Are their people who are allergic to incense? I suppose so. People with asthma may be effected by it if they breath a lot of it into their lungs. But for most haters of incense, the problem is spiritual, not repiratory. Despite the fact that Luther considered the use of incense a matter of freedom in the Church and we know that it was used in Lutheran worship well into the 18th Century (and later), this does little to persuade the romaphopes. It must be reinterated that the use of incense is a practice of the Universal Church, and is not the peculiar practice of the Church of Rome. We Lutherans are entitled to it and it is certainly an appropriate liturgical practice for a community of Christians who believe that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharistic elements.
The use of incense evokes a sense of mystery and awe (for those who can appreciate it); as one priest I know likes to say, "It smells like God." The modern liturgists like to talk about "multi-sensory worship," but sadly, the olfactory sense usually gets ignored. Those of us who love and appreciate the use of incense in liturgy are often brow-beaten by those who have neither love or appreciation for it. We are accused of being inconsiderate to those who have physical sensitivities to it, even though I am convinced this is far fewer persons than we are often led to believe. Personally, I have often wondered why it is that the same people who complain about vestments, processions, traditional church music, and the sign of the cross also tend to be "allergic" to incense. It seems to be a package deal.
Now for those pastors intrepid enough to re-introduce this ancient practice to the liturgy of the Church of the Augsburg Confession, here are some guidelines.

1. Use a high quality incense. Cheap incense can be choking and unpleasant. Ask your friendly church goods distributor which varieties tend to be easier on people who may have an aversion to it. There are many to choose from. I am very partial to "Pontifical Incense."

2. The traditional censer (thurible) has three chains with a fourth chain for lifting the lid on the incense pot. Although, single chain censers can also be used. Charcoal (which should be lit outside the censer and then placed into the censer with tongs) should be lit at least 10-15 minutes before incense is placed upon it. The charcoal should be glowing with little or no blackness. It is most likely the charcoal and not the incense that bothers some people. If the charcoal is white on the outside and glowing red on the inside, the fuel has been burned off of it and it is ready.

3. Incense is kept in a vessel called an incense boat (a bowl with a lid). Inside the boat is a small spoon. It is customary to put three spoonfuls of incense (not necessarily heaping spoonfuls-it depends on the size of the church building) on the coal before censing (one for each of the persons of the Holy Trinity). After the pastor has placed incense on the coal, he should bless it with the sign of the cross.

4. The thurible should be cleaned out after the liturgical service.

5. The manner of censing the altar, the cross, the eucharistic elements, the Gospel Book, the new fire and Paschal candle, the clergy and people, etc. is described in many liturgical handbooks which are easily obtainable. I recommend the Book Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite by Peter Elliot. For those who have an eastward altar, you might consult Ritual Notes by E.C. Lamburn or Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described by Adrain Fortescue and J.B. O'Connell which has been updated recently by Alcuin Reid. These books provide more direction than that which is given in our Manual on the Liturgy.

6. Introduce incense slowly. Use it at Easter Vigil, the Vigil of Pentecost, Ascension Thursday, and special Solemn Vespers. Then perhaps one of the Christmas Services. All the while, educate in Adult Sunday School, newsletter articles, etc. There will be those who will never accept it, and one has to be sensitive to them also. That's why I think there really does need to be a couple of options for services with different "worship styles" in a parish. All services should be liturgical but some will undoubtedly prefer less ceremonial, while others want the full riches of the tradition. The latter should not have to sacrifice those richesd because of the prejudices of the former.

White-washed Sepulchers: Iconoclasm in Contemporary Church Architecture

2008-11-17T11:40:00.000-08:00

I recently came across an article in the recent issue of my synod's newsletter about the "architectural flow" of a Lutheran church building in a neighboring state. The pastor of this church writes about the "family room" design of the church's interior:

"The design features a semi-circular nave with a center aisle and four sets of pews that fan out wide enough to form a near half-circle around the altar."

He goes on to explain that this enables the worshippers to see each other's faces rather than the backs of their heads as in the traditional arrangement. He then adds:

"The 'family room' design of (name of church ommitted) 's interior is further enhanced by the absence of any lectern or pulpit, which helps erase a line between the worship leaders and the worshipping assembly. Such a format allows for ease of movement during sermons while encouraging closeness between the preacher and listeners."

The article had an accompanying photograph, and I must say this is one of the most artistically impoverished, utilitarian, uninspiring, clinical, and depressing "worship spaces" (to use a buzz phrase of the liturgical elitists) I have ever seen. It is a triumph of iconoclasm. It has all the artisitic merit of a big box store. When I saw this church, the words which Jesus used to describe the Pharisees immediately came to mind; this church is a white-washed sepulcher.

The contemporary trend in Lutheran church architecture is to focus on the "central things" in Christian worship: Word, Baptism, Lord's Supper, the gathered assembly. Okay, I don't have a problem with that. However, my question is why does that mean that churches have to be cold, colorless, and boring? A few years ago the liturgists we're all clamoring for "multi-sensory" worship. One would have thought such advocacy for appealing to all five senses in Christian worship would have created a desire for more artwork in our "worship spaces," artwork of high quality. But instead, this was put into practice as oragami doves being strung up over baptismal fonts, kids' finger paintings being displayed on church walls, and really amateurish banners being tacked up all over the place. But nowadays it's not even "less is more," but "nothing is everything."

What I have always appreciated about the Eastern Orthodox Churches is the high value they place on Christian art, namely icons. When I enter an Orthodox church building, I am overcome by a sense of the holy. Talk about multi-sensory worship! There is beautiful chanting and choral music, the air thick with the fragrance of incense, and every inch of the church is covered in beautiful icons. I am not only surrounded by saints on earth who sit (or stand, mostly) next to me, but I am surrounded by that Great Cloud of Witnesses in the Church triumphant--the Virgin Mary, Saints Peter and Paul, John the Baptist, the Apostles, the Evangelists, the Martyrs, the Church Fathers--along with scenes from the life of our Lord and the lives of the Saints. Over the altar is a large icon of Mary Theotokos holding the infant Jesus on her lap (she is the very seat of Holy Wisdom), and in the dome is the great icon of Christ Pantocrator, Christ the Ruler of All.

The iconoclast finds all this eccelsiastical art a distraction from the "central things." However, I find that I am much more drawn to the Word and Sacraments in a building where there is good Christian art than I am in a worship warehouse like the one featured in this month's synodical newsletter. Luther didn't object to art in churches; what he objected to was idolatry and superstition. He wasn't keen on venerating images, but he was also not keen on the destruction of images as happened under the Radical Reformed. Luther especially approved of Biblical scenes depicted in paintings and stain glass because of their instructional value. He also approved of having Bible verses painted on the walls of the Church. I have seen this in many old German churches; verses from Scripture are painted on the walls in beautiful German Gothic lettering, and it produces a beautiful and inspiring effect.

I am blessed to serve a parish with a lovely church building. It was built by working-class German imigrants in the early 20th Century who wanted to preserve their heritage. I would never want to trade the gorgeous reredos window depicting Jesus walking on the water reaching out to Peter as he sinks for lack of faith, or the intricately carved eastward altar, or the high wine-glass pulpit, or the beautiful font, or the silver and gold altar crucifix for a cold and empty utilitarian temple of rationalism like the one depicted in the synod newsletter. My church has a deep red chancel carpet and aisle runner; the walls of the nave are white, but the chancel is blue and there is a gold band around the chancel arch. We have a fine set of brocade paraments in the appropriate color for each church season (including rose-colored paraments for the third Sunday in Advent and the Fourth Sunday in Lent!). I wear beautiful traditional eucharistic vestments and the acolytes and communion assistant dress in cassock and surplice-- not the 'vanilla sacks' that have become so prevalent in recent times. When you are in my church, you have no doubt that you are in a church! None of these things are a distraction from the "central things." They serve to direct our attention to the central things. I think the "family room" style of the big box store church in which all face each other is a far greater distraction than good Christian art.

What is with this obsession today that the people have to see each other's faces during worship? I am aware of my brother or sister in Christ without having to gawk at him or her the whole time. Furthermore, it is highly unnecessary and undesirable that the pastor should face the people throughout the entire liturgy. The ancient custom is that during the celebration of the Holy Eucharist the bishop or priest along with the people face eastward in expectation of the return of Jesus Christ. I will devote an entire article to this in the future. Suffice it to say that I find having to look at the pastor's face during the entire liturgy to be particularly distracting. Also, I find it interesting that right around the same time the pastor turned toward the people in worship (c. 1965) western society began to turn its back on God.

One final word: the pastor who authored the article about his "family room" sanctuary is quite happy to note that this "worship space" has no pulpit and this erases the line between worship leaders and the assembly. This allows him to move about freely as he preaches. I think that's very symbolic. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America seems to be all over the place these days. Luther's "Here I stand" has been replaced by "here and there and everywhere we stand, or sit, or lay down, or whatever we please with whomever we please." A pastor moving about during a sermon says to me that we don't stand for anything. Moving around during preaching seems consistent with the prevaling revisionism among our clergy with respect to Scriptural interpretation, Church teaching, traditional Christian ethics and morality, etc. That is why we in the ELCA are in such a mess right now. I pray in the the words of Luther's hymn, "Lord, keep us steadfast in your Word."

I close with this question: in this present day situation where the priesthood of all believers has come to mean that every church member is his own pope, when pastoral authority is constantly challenged, and the ordained apostle in residence is looked upon and treated like some hired hand whose "opinion" on spiritual matters is no more valid than anyone else's, is it really such a smart move to erase those architectual lines that have traditionally separated pastor and people?

Dressing the Part: The Liturgical Vestments

2008-09-22T12:12:00.000-07:00

Why are so many Lutheran pastors celebrating the Mass in their underwear?

Yes, the alb is an undergarment, and although Lutheran pastors are free to wear the historic vestments of the Church Catholic (and I would argue that we should wear them), most Lutheran clergy have settled for the "cassock-alb" a kind of mutant vestment invented in the U.S.A. in the 1970's along with a stole, often made with cheap materials and decororated with tacky appliques.

I suppose that the cassock-alb and stole combo is an improvement over the austere and non-liturgical black Geneva gown which is an academic robe, not a churchly vestment. It has absolutely no place in the liturgical services of the Church of the Augsburg Confession, having being forced on the Lutheran clergy by Calvinistic German princes. The black gown is a dour gloomy thing that has nothing of the Easter resurrection in it, and casts upon the Church's liturgy the perpetual shadow of Good Friday. The cassock-alb and colored stole at least brings some brightness and color to the liturgy, but the cassock and surplice worn with a traditional colored stole (of brocade silk, for example) is much more dignified and churchly. For those who choose, for whatever reason, not to wear the historic Mass vestments, the cassock and suplice with a traditonal colored stole is a far better alternative to the cassock-alb and tacky contemporary stole.

However, I see no good reason not to wear the historic Mass vestments. The one bad reason for not wearing them is 'romaphobia.' Just because Roman Catholic priests wear the traditional vestments, doesn't mean they are off limits to Lutheran clergy. Luther never sought to abolish tradtional vestments, and Melanchton, in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession (Art. XXIV), testifies to their continued use in our churches. The traditional vestments belong to the great tradition and Lutheran pastors should wear them as a sign of continuity with the clergy of every generation going back to Apostolic times. For the historic vestments have evolved from the clothing worn by men throughout the Roman Empire of the first century. [Aside: I have always thought that women clergy should wear some version of what women wore in the first century A.D. and not the ancient men's suit from which the ecclesiastical vestments have been derived.] Beautiful tasteful Eucharistic vestments of high quality adorn the celebration of the Holy Eucharist with solemnity, dignity, historicity, and most importantly resurrection joy.

Yes, I know, I know-- vestments are adiaphora, but that doesn't mean they aren't important. It is true, they are not of primary importance; the right teaching and preaching of the Gospel and administration of the Holy Sacraments in accordance with the Gospel are of primary importance. However, the historic vestments reinforce the right teaching and preaching of the Gospel and administration of the Sacraments. Again, if the Holy Eucharist is a foretaste of the Feast to Come, the Heavenly Wedding Banquet, then why would we dress like slobs? Most of people in the pews have gone 'casual,' but that doesn't mean the pastor, assisting minister, and acolytes should mirror this in their own ecclesiatical dress. In fact, the dressing down of most worshippers today heightens the urgency of proper vestements for the clergy, assistants, and acolytes so that the Mass does not completely degenerate into something casual, sloppy, and irreverent. Many pastors who lead "contemporary" services wear plain clothes (sometimes not even a clerical shirt!) because they don't want to alienate those seekers who aren't familiar with vestments and other traditions and customs in the Church. But this is entirely the wrong attitude! What it says to these unchurched people is "Nothing special is going on here. It's just a casual affair. We don't take it too seriously." American Lutherans are not learning this lesson fast enough: Gen X-ers are hungry for tradition, mystery, awe, majesty, beauty, and ritual. That is why the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches continue to gain younger members, but Lutheran congregations continue to decline. One immediately notices when one attends a traditional Tridentine Latin Mass these the large numbers of Gen-X-er's in attendance!

Beautiful, tradtional, historical vestments are the most fitting attire for pastors who lead worship in a branch of the Christian Church that believes that Jesus is truly present in the Holy Sacrament of the Altar. They direct our hearts and minds to the profound "mystery of our faith." They also remind us that we are part of something much greater than ourselves and much larger than our own short span of life on this earth. The Holy Catholic Church spans the ages and when we gather together for Holy Mass we are joining the saints from every time and place in worshipping the Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Historic vestments liberate us from our bondage to the present. They are a treasure from our Christian past which serves to direct us to our future life in the Kingdom of God. The following is a list of the historic vestments worn by priests/pastors (I will deal with the vestments of bishops and deacons in another article) in churches of the Western Rite (ie., Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Old Catholic):

1. alb: the basic full-length white garment which derives from the ancient tunic.

2. amice: a square white cloth with tapes for tying around the neck. It forms a collar which is very handy for keeping neck-sweat from damaging silk and other precious materials from which the stole and chasuble are made.

3. cincture or girdle: a rope-like belt tied around the waste. This serves to hold the stole in place. The proper way to tie it is to double it and wrap it round the waste once. Then take the closed end (non-tassled end) and fold it forward once so that it forms a loop. Then take the two tassles and instert them into the loop and draw them through. Take this knot and bring it around the waste till it is positioned in the center of the waste at the naval. Then take the two tassles and make generous loops on either side of the center knot and allow the tassles to fall down from the loops on either side. The ends of the stole are inserted into these loops.

4. stole: a long scarf-like vestment worn around the neck. Tradtionally it is crossed over the breast, the right side over the left and the ends are inserted in the loops of the cincture. The stole derives from an ancient symbol of high office worn by the Roman senators and other officials.

5. maniple: like a short stole which is worn over the left arm. It is derived from the napkin worn over the arm by deacons as they assisted in the administration of the Holy Communion. It is rarely seen nowadays, except among tradtionalist Roman Catholics and High Church Anglicans and Luthrerans. It is, however, worthy of restoration.

6. The chasuble: the supreme Eucharistic vestment. This is a full poncho-like vestment derived from the overcoat
worn throughout the Roman Empire in First Century A.D. In different historic periods its shape has undergone alterations, but basically it is round with a round whole in the center for the head. When it is worn it drapes the body front and back, but should not be so long as to completely hide the stole which is worn underneath (not over the chasuble!) The back is often slightly longer than the front since historically the back is richly ornamented. Some of the finest needle-work of the Middle Ages adorns chasubles.

*Note: the stole, maniple, and chasuble should match in color and pattern.

Would that more clergy would celebrate the Eucharist wearing full vestments. Personally, I'm tired of seeing pastors in their underwear for Mass!

(see a Luthreran pastor [me] in full Mass vestments in the picture below entitled Chanting the Passion on Palm Sunday.)

On the Proper Treatment of the Lord's Precious Body and Blood during and after the Holy Mass

2008-09-18T06:51:00.000-07:00

Of the Supper of the Lord they [our churches] teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise (CA Art. X).

Q. What is the Sacrament of the Altar?

A. It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under bread and wine for us Christians to eat and to drink, established by Christ Himself (SC on The Lord's Supper)

For Christians who confess to believe that Jesus is truly present in his Holy Supper, we can be very sloppy in the way we treat the Eucharistic elements before and after the celebration of the Holy Mass. I was at a wedding one time in a Lutheran parish (ELCA) where the precious blood of Jesus was poured out into little plastic cups from which the faithful drank, and upon returning from the altar rail they chucked their little cups into waste baskets placed conveniently at the ends of the pews. The message this conveys is clear: "what we just did is a bunch of garbage."

One can find a whole host of distribution practices in Lutheran congregations. The modern liturgists are big on large loaves of what they call "real bread" (as though communion wafers which are made of wheat flour and water aren't "real bread"), so it's not uncommon for a pastor to consecrate a loaf of bread that could easily be used to commune 100 people at a Mass in which there are only 35 communicants. As he breaks off hunks of the true Body of Christ and gives them to the faithful, crumbs fall lighty onto the carpet beneath his feet and he tramples on them as he makes his way down the line saying repeatedly , "The Body of Christ given for you." After he is done with the distribution, he places three quarters of this communion bread on the altar and may or may not cover it with a white cloth (I've also seen napkins from Lutheran Brotherhood used as communion veils!). After Mass, the Lord's Body (which remains the Lord's Body!) will be causally tossed on the ground for little birdies and other critters to eat, or it will be broken up and given to non-communing Sunday school kids (where it inevitably ends up everywhere but in their mouths!), or it's placed on the goodies table next to the Munchkins and the red bug juice for all to enjoy during coffee hour. I remember once attending a pastors' conference meeting which was preceded by the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. The pastor walked into the meeting and plopped our Lord's Body (in, with, and under a loaf of bread far larger than it needed to be for communing a handful of pastors) down on the table and said, "Here, eat bread!" A crusty old retired pastor of the evangelical catholic persuasion looked at me and rolled his eyes. He and I took the loaf back to the sacristy and ate every bit of it. Once, to my horror, I actually saw the eucharistic bread in a sacristy trash bin (not in my own church, of course!).

The way our Lord's blood is often treated is just as appalling. I've already mentioned the wedding incident and the little plastic cups and waste baskets. Glass shot glasses are bad enough, but whoever invented those plastic disposable things should be excommunicated (if he or she is even a Christian). And speaking of shot glasses, exactly when did Lutherans develop this irrational fear of catching cooties from the common cup? Our Lord Jesus gave the (one, singular) cup to his disciples and said, "Take, drink." He did not have prepared pre-filled little shot glasses of wine (let alone grape juice!) which he then handed awkwardly to each disciple. Martin Luther fought so hard for the laity's right to drink from the chalice. Now the lay people and not a few clergy fight against it.

The reason why the chalice was withheld to begin with was because the faithful, out of reverence for the Blood of Christ and for fear of spilling it, asked the clergy if they could receive under the form of bread only. It was with great reluctance that the bishops aquiesced. By the time Luther arrived on the scene, however, this historical situation had been forgotten, and that only the clergy drank from the chalice became a bone of contention for the Reformers. The people were being deprived of the cup. There was a clear line of separation drawn between the holy grace-filled clergy and all the other poor schmucks, so the Reformers were correct in restoring the ancient practice of communing "under both kinds." Today, however, people avoid the common chalice not because they are afraid of treating the Lord's Blood irreverently, but because they are afraid they're going to catch something from the common cup. And so, instead of remaining faithful to our Lord's ordinance, all kinds of clever ways have been devised for distributing the precious Blood. It is not uncommon for Lutheran congregations to have a Burger King approach to the distribution-- "have it your way." So this one drinks from a shot glass, and this one from the common cup, while this one must dip his host or hunk of "real bread" in a totally separate chalice prepared for the dippers. Another can't have alcohol, so grape juice is provided in pre-filled cups on a table next to the first pew...and so on and so on. And all this, instead of emphasizing the unity of Christ's people, just heightens our lack of unity.

Of course, after Mass, the Lord's Blood is treated with the same irreverence as his dear Body. The shot-glasses still containing some of the precious Blood are thrown into hot soapy water, no attempt to remove the Blood having been made first. The Blood in the flagon is poured down the sink or maybe onto the ground outside. Sometimes its poured back into the bottle for reuse. This is a favorite of those who believe that Jesus jumps out of the Sacrament at the sound of the final "Amen." Plastic shot glasses still containing the Lord's Blood go into the trash can-- sloppy, irreverent, and environmentally irresponsible. I remember in seminary a discussion about disposable plastic cups; most were of the opinion that they shouldn't be used, but that was more out of concern for our fragile earth, not because of any concern for the treatment of the precious Blood. Well, abuses abound and I could go on and on. However, this post is already pretty long, so I'll conclude with my proposals for better parish practice:

1. Use only bread made of wheat and only pure grape wine for the Holy Supper. Those who have trouble with alcohol should receive under the form of the bread, and those with gluten intolerance should consume only under the form of the wine. No grape juice or gluten-free wafers.

2. Consecrate only what is needed. The use of unleavened communion wafers (hosts) is the tradition of the Western Church. I have never felt as though Christ wasn't in the Sacrament because I wasn't getting a hunk of "real" bread. It is quite simple to count out the approximate number of wafers needed and then add a few more just to be on the safe side. If you must use "real bread," then use a smaller loaf. Have someone in the congregation bake communion bread that doesn't make a lot of crumbs, and don't break pieces off while communing the people. The bread should be broken during the "fraction hymn" Agnus Dei (Lamb of God). That is the ancient and acceptable practice. When it comes to the wine, the flagon does not need to be filled to the brim. Set aside a measuring cup for use by the altar guild and mark a line showing the amount needed for an ordinary Sunday and another for a crowded feast day such as Easter. This is not rocket science.

3. Educate the people lovingly and patiently on what we believe about the Lord's Supper. Then eventually do away with all the silliness introduced by your predecessors. Get rid of shot-glasses and never ever use disposable cups!

4. For those who will not drink from the common cup I do provide one other option. I administer the hosts from an intinction set (basically a bowl-like ciborium with a small chalice fixed to the center). The people who want to receive from the common cup hold out their hands to receive the host and then they drink from the cup. Those who want to commune by intinction fold there hands (as in prayer); I then intinct the host and place it on their tongues. This way you don't have all these fingers going into the cup which is way more unsanitary than drinking from the common cup. Besides, lay people have no business dipping their own hosts. That amounts to self-communicating and only the celebrant may commune himself. And I have seen time and time again drops of the precious Blood fall to the floor and trampled underfoot when the people are doing the intincting.

5. There are only two options for the Body and Blood of Christ which remain after the celebration of the Mass. The first is to consume everything, at the altar during the ablutions if possible; if not, then in the sacristy later. Gather responsible mature members of the congregation to help if need be. There should be no talking, laughing, or doing other chores while this is taking place. The second option is to reserve the remaining elements in an aumbry or tabernacle to commune the hospitalized and homebound during the week. This is not un-Lutheran; I will discuss the theology behind this in a later post. Finally, under no circumstances should the consecrated elements be return to the container/bottle containing unconsecrated bread/wine. Luther had a young priest banished from Wittenburg for doing just that!

Let that suffice for now. When the Lord's Body and Blood are treated lovingly with respect and honor during and after the Mass, the people will inevitably gain a greater reverence and love for the Holy Sacrament. The fact of the matter is this: sloppiness and carelessness in dealing with the Body and Blood of Christ during and after the Mass will certainly lead to an erosion of faith in the real presence and a lack of respect for and devotion to the Holy Eucharist.

Chanting the Passion on Palm Sunday at Trinity Lutheran Church in Shelton, Connecticut

2008-09-16T18:06:00.001-07:00

Informal Worship?

2008-09-16T06:32:00.000-07:00

In recent years, certain congregations have added to their menu of worship service options something called the 'informal' worship service. This sometimes means 'the contemporary worship service' (you know, little rock bands, words on screens, repetitive praise choruses, clergy in plain clothes, etc.), but more often it just means dressed down, sloppy, and casual (in fact, sometimes these are advertized as 'casual services') to meet the needs of dressed down, sloppy, casual Americans like us. The word informal, however, technically means without form. And isn't formlessness the very thing to which God is opposed? Remember the creation story:

In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
(Genesis 1:1-2)

Informal means chaos, and God hates chaos. God brings order out of chaos. It is, in fact, the devil, who seeks to bring disorder to God's wonderfully ordered creation. The devil is the prince of informality.

We used to speak of 'liturgical formation,' and it's a simple concept; it means that ordered worship will order the lives of God's people-- it will form them in the Christian faith. We stagger into church on Sunday having been beaten up by the devil's chaos, and God re-orders our lives, gives them form, stability-- something formal we can hang onto in this informal world made chaotic by human sin. Christian Worship follows a form-- an ordo, time tested and well worn. This ordo, I believe, is itself a gift of grace. Mess around with it, and you've got chaos. And we don't need more chaos!

"But," the church growthies and advocates of the informal will argue, "But we have kept the ordo intact. We have kept the form." Ah, but the form is not the only element in Christian worship. A case in point: suppose a woman brought what appeared to be a bunt-cake to a covered dish supper. But instead of the usual ingredients (flour, sugar, eggs, milk, cocoa powder, etc), she filled the bunt pan with cow manure and then tried to pass it off as a bunt-cake. "You take a big bite and start gagging, you eject it from your mouth, and choke out, "Ughhh...that's s**t!!!" "No, no," replies the woman. "It's a bunt-cake. Can't you tell? I used a bunt pan." But the mere form of a bunt cake doth not a bunt cake make!

You cannot take the spring-form pan of the Church's sacred ordo and fill it up with whatever! Just because you've retained the form doesn't mean you have the substance of orthodox Christian liturgy. The Church's liturgy has certain ingredients: the hymns, the collects, litanies, canticles, readings, creeds, prayers, actions governed by rubrics. These ingredients have developed organically over many centuries. Each generation contributes, but no generation (least of all our own!) has the right to throw out the orthodox, catholic, and evangelical contributions of the generations which have come before. The historic liturgy liberates us from our slavery to the present moment. That's my whole problem with contemporary worship services in general. Those who advocate this "worship style" want to basically ignore the voices of the past. They don't want to pray and sing with the saints of every time and place. Such services are incurvatus in se, and if Christian liturgy forms us, how can those who have a steady diet of this kind of service not become turned in upon themselves. Some advocate what they call "blended worship," but to me "blended" calls to mind "blender," and when you put a bunch of stuff in a blender and turn it on, you get mush!

We used to speak of liturgical planning. Pastors and worship committees would plan liturgical services; but nowadays they are charged with creating "worship experiences." I heard one celebrated pastor say to a group of first-call clergy that she "get's bored very quickly," so she changes things around every couple of weeks or even week to week. So these poor people are subject to the whims of a pastor with liturgical ADHD. Just imagine the chaos they have to endure!

On Being a Lutheran Liturgist

2008-09-15T20:58:00.000-07:00

I have often said that a Lutheran liturgist is like someone who knows all the positions in the Kama Sutra but can't find a sex partner with which to try them out. Let's face it, liturgical pastors almost always have an uphill battle no matter what your brand of Lutheranism. (Mine happens to be the ELCA, but kindred spirits in the LCMS and WELS have the same complaints). Unless you serve a parish that has a long liturgical tradition (which means that your predeccessors took their lumps for the sake of the liturgy, you can be sure), any pastor who wants to lead a congregation into deeper liturgical waters is walking the way of the cross.

The fact of the matter is the American Lutheran liturgical scene is pretty bleak. I had high hopes for the liturgical life of the ELCA when we entered into a "full-communion" agreement with the Episcopalians. My hope was that Episcopalians could teach us how to do great liturgy and we could show them a thing or two about systematic theology. Imagine, an evangelical catholic church that is highly liturgical and deeply confessional-- this would be a dream come true for us evangelical catholic types. Tragically, however, we Lutherans in the ELCA are losing our theological integrity at about the same time the Episcopalians are losing their liturgical integrity. The Episcopal Church was at one time known as "the church of good taste," but despite pockets of liturgical excellence in the ECUSA, there has been a definite deterioration in the ECUSA's liturgical life over the past decade or more. The church growth movement, radical feminism, and the general sloppiness of contemporary American culture have all taken their toll on the "church of good taste." I always loved worshipping in Episcopal churches when I was on vacation-- whether the parish was considered high or low, I always knew I was going to get the Book of Common Prayer (my preference is for the BCP 1928 or at least Rite I in the 1979) and good hymns. I can no longer assume this nowadays. I don't just drop in on ECUSA churches anymore-- some can leave a very "bad taste" in my mouth. So thank God for the internet! If I'm going to worship at an ECUSA church these days, I check the parish website to make sure I'm not going to get power point and praise bands! If I go to an Episcopal Church, I want smells, bells. I want Cranmer's beautiful prose. I want men in lace albs, fiddlebacks and birettas censing everything in sight and genuflecting every few seconds-- not cassock albs and crudely-woven broad-stoles with balloon-galloons on them. I can get that crap in any garden variety ELCA congregation's worship service-- and at least we Lutherans usually have a better coffee hour!

Anyway, we liturgical Lutherans need to stick together. We are a misunderstood persecuted minority. We know what it is like to be criticized for being "too catholic" by the 'romaphobes' in our congregations. The psychosis 'romaphobia' I define as the irrational fear of all things Roman Catholic. Mind you, most Lutherans have a limited understanding of and exposure to Roman Catholic worship. They are quite unaware that Rome has spent the last four decades dressing down. I have no desire to imitate the worship practices of the average suburban Roman Catholic parish. Believe me, I grew up in one in northern New Jersey, and the liturgy left much to be desired-- well, you know-- it was the 70's and 80's for crying out loud! R.C.'s were experimenting with little praise bands at least two decades before the first guitars appeared in Lutheran worship services. In fact, I was attracted to Lutheranism at first because of the great tradition of hymnody and liturgical music. I was an organ major in college, and at that time Lutherans still appreciated the King of Instruments. I discovered that Lutherans had been doing for five hundred years what Vatican II mandated for the Roman Catholic Church: encouraging "the full and active participation of the faithful." The Roman Catholicism in which I grew up was liturgically quite mediocre. I rejoice to see many of our Roman brethren rediscovering their beautiful liturgical heritage. They are trying to rescue the baby that was thrown out with the bathwater. There's a new appreciation for the traditional Mass among Gen-Xers. It's a good time to a Roman Catholic, liturgically speaking.

However, I have tried to assure the romaphobes that I am not trying to make them into Roman Catholics. I am a serious Lutheran. And as a Lutheran, I am entitled to all the traditions and practices of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church that are evangelical and that do not conflict with the Gospel, namely, that we are justified by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and not by our works and merits. Why, I ask, does justification by grace through faith have to lead to bare, iconoclastic, and, quite frankly, sloppy worship? If I am free in Christ, why am I not free to wear the historic vestments, bow to the cross, make the sign of the cross, cense the altar, carry the Gospel book in procession, chant the proper preface? We traditional liturgical evangelical catholics have a hard climb. All we want to do is share our gifts and our love for the liturgy with the church that is so dear to us, but we are often rejected by congregations, bishops, and our denomination.

And recently, the climb has gotten even harder. We now have the option of adopting a new book which plays fast and loose with orthodox trinitarian theology, tampers with the Church's creeds, barely tolerates the traditional Father-Son language for God, and even goes so far as to change the words of the Biblical Psalms (not an option for me), or we could be like the sectarian church growthies, dispense with the historic liturgy altogether, and just "do our own thing" (also not an option for me), or we could cling tenaciously to the Lutheran Book of Worship and even the Service Book and Hymnal (this is what I have chosen to do) until something better comes along, and we know something better is not going to come along-- at least not something published by Augsburg Fortess, not something with the blessing of the folks at Higgin's Road.

This Society for the Preservation of the Evangelical Lutheran Liturgy is a safe haven for all of us who have chosen the third and final option mentioned above because we believe the first two options are uncatholic and therefore unfaithful (although I suppose you could use the new book and just correct the bad stuff before it makes its way into your parish worship booklet. I realise many of you out there are stuck using that cranberry-colored atrocity). But we the members of this society also want to challenge one another to celebrate the historic liturgy of the Church of the Augsburg Confession with reverence and devotion-- to do it better than it's usually done in our parishes. We want to foster a liturgical worship that is not only high, but also deep and wide like the catholic tradtion itself. We want to plumb the depth of the Great Tradition and recover what has been lost to protestantism, rationalism, and pietism. And above all, we want liturgy that is a true reflection of and response to our unwavering faith in Jesus Christ who is present on the altar in every Eucharist to give himself to every baptized Christian "that He may dwell in us and we in Him, and that we may be filled with the power of His unending life."

In this kind of liturgy there is no room for the casual, the banal, the trite and silly. The usual carelessness and slovenliness will be dispelled only when we (re)-gain a deep appreciation of Who it is who comes among us in the Holy Mass that He may bind himself to us and us to one another.

May our Lord Jesus Christ give us the strength and the courage to perservere. Amen.

2008-09-12T16:25:00.000-07:00

Our Mission

2008-09-12T11:47:00.000-07:00

The Society for the Preservation of the Evangelical Lutheran Liturgy is for all pastors and lay people who believe as the Augsburg Confession states:

We are unjustly accused of having abolished the Mass. Without boasting, it is manifest that the Mass is observed among us with greater devotion and more earnestness than among our opponents. (Augsburg Confession XXIV:9)

We the members of the Society for the Preservation of the Evangelical Lutheran Liturgy cling to the historic catholic liturgy of the Western Rite which was cleansed by Martin Luther and the Lutheran reformers of the 16th Century of medieval accretions in order to set forth more clearly the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to encourage the full and active participation of all the baptized. We resist trends in this present age which denounce the liturgy as irrelevant in "post-modern" society. We refuse to jettison the historic liturgy for the sake of so called "evangelism." We resist every attempt to appease radical feminists who would tamper with the Name of God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in order to make the liturgy more 'inclusive.' And we are dedicated to worshipping the Lord in the beauty of holiness, restoring many ancient practices retained by our Lutheran forefathers, but lost over time to the ravages of rationalism, pietism, and reformed protestantism. We are resolved to reject any innovations in worship, especially those which are trendy, superficial, silly, and irreverent.

This is because we hold fast to the belief that the bread and wine of the Holy Mass are the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ our Savior. Our worship should be reverent and dignified reflecting our love for and devotion to the Holy Sacrament of the Altar. We are committed to treating the Lord's Body and Blood with love and respect not only during the Mass, but afterwards as well. It is scandalous that in so many of our churches, the sacred Body and Blood of Jesus are carelessly disgarded after the celebration of the Mass has been concluded. Liturgical traditions in our churches will only improve when the Lutheran people, pastors and laity, once again develop a profound appreciation for our Lord's real presence in His Holy Supper. May our Heavenly Father grant this for His dear Son's sake. Amen.