The “Theses on Worship” adopted unanimously by the LCMS Council of Presidents of the LCMS on September 19-22, 2009, after two years of study and discussion, has both strengths and weaknesses.

One strength is that the Theses quote many key passages from both the Bible and the Lutheran Symbolical Books. A second is that the Theses recognize the important teaching of the Symbolical Books that faith is the “true worship” of Christ.

One of the weaknesses is that the Theses use a number of technical terms of theology, including ex opere operato, without defining them. That means that many who may want to read the Theses, will not be able to understand them.

Another weakness is that not all of the Bible passages cited support the Thesis for which they are cited.

THE CONSERVATIVE LITURGICAL PRINCIPLE OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION

The major weakness of the Theses, however, is that they nowhere quote or refer to the “conservative liturgical principle” of our church, which is stated in Article XV of the Augsburg Confession. This principle consists of one positive principle and two guiding principles: 

Article XV: Church Usages.

“With regard to church usages that have been established by men, it is taught among us that those usages are to be observed [lehret man halten] which may be observed without sin and which contribute to peace  and good order in the church, among them being certain holy days, festivals, and the like.

“Yet we accompany these observances with instruction so that consciences may not be burdened by the notion that such things are necessary for salvation. Moreover it is taught that all ordinances and traditions instituted by men for the purpose of propitiating God and earning grace are contrary to the Gospel and the teaching about faith in Christ.

“Accordingly monastic vows and other traditions concerning distinctions of foods, days, etc. by which it is intended to earn grace and make satisfaction for sin, are useless and contrary to the Gospel.” (Emphasis added. Tappert 1959 edition, pp. 36-37. Kolb-Wengert 2000 edition, pp. 48-49.

 The official Latin translation uses the translation “should be observed” [servandi sint]. The CPH 2008 edition of the Book of Concord uses the translation “ought to be observed.”

Article 7 does not say that usages established by men “must” [debeat, soll] be observed. Indeed, as Arthur Carl Piepkorn taught , with regard to such usages,  “liberty responsibly exercised is itself a Catholic principle.”  (“The Augsburg Confession for Our Time,” in The Sacred Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions, Volume 2 in The Selected Writings of Arthur Carl Piepkorn, CEC Press, 2007, p. 184. Article 10 of the Formula of Concord, of course, makes it clear that we do not have that liberty in “a period of persecution and a case of confession.”) The key word in Piepkorn’s statement is the word “responsibly.” Pastors and congregations must exercise their liberty responsibly, not arbitrarily and with complete disregard for the conservative liturgical principle of our Church or what other pastors and congregations are doing. (See Appendix A for one reason why we should not make radical changes in our worship traditions and for Piepkorn’s widely misunderstood understanding of the Liturgical Movement. )

 FAITH (ALONE) IS THE TRUE WORSHIP OF CHRIST

A great strength of the Theses is their recognition of the confessional teaching that faith is the “true worship” of Christ.  They cite the following quotations from the Book of Concord in support of that teaching:

 “The liturgy, a true service, is that which aids both the proclamation and the hearing of the Gospel for the sake of faith, that is, true worship.” II.B. (emphasis added) “God wants us to believe him and to accept blessings from him; this he declares to be true worship.” (AP IV, 228) V. B. , sixth paragraph. (Emphasis added.)

“Nowhere do they teach that sins are forgiven freely for Christ's sake and that by this faith we obtain the remission of sins. Thus they obscure the glory of Christ, deprive consciences of a firm consolation, and abolish true worship (that is, the exercise of faith struggling against despair).”  (Treatise, 44) III.B., third paragraph. (Emphasis added.)

Thus the Theses correctly recognize that faith is the “true worship” of Christ.  We could even say “Faith alone is the true worship of Christ” because it gives God his proper due as the loving God he is for Christ’s sake.

But Thesis I.B. asserts something very different. It asserts that “The highest form of worship is faith.” The implication is that there are other forms of true worship besides faith. Indeed, that is exactly what the Theses affirm in Part V by referring  repeatedly to “forms of true worship.”  (V. A, B, C, D, E.  See Appendix B on “the highest form of worship.”)

The position of the Theses, therefore, can be summarized as follows:

 FORMS OF “THE TRUE WORSHIP” OF CHRIST INCLUDE:

“The highest form of worship is faith,” which is also “the true worship” of Christ. All other forms of worship (forms, rites, ceremonies) etc. are “forms of true worship” when they are properly used.

According to the Theses, therefore, faith is just another “form” of worship, albeit the “highest” and the “true worship” of Christ.  Yet other forms of worship such as rites, ceremonies, etc. can be “forms of true worship” if they are properly used.

In contrast, the Lutheran Symbolical Books do not state that faith is a “form” of worship, but  that it is the “true worship” of Christ. We might even say that “faith alone is the true worship of Christ.” The Book of Concord also implicitly teaches that humanly instituted forms of worship are not “the true worship” of Christ at all even when properly used, but are something totally different because they have no command of God.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The shortcomings in the Theses are serious enough that the Theses should be rewritten entirely. But at the very least three changes should be made:    

1) The “conservative liturgical principle” of AC XV should be quoted.

2) I.B. should omit the phrase “form of” and read simply:  “Faith is the true worship” of Christ. This would put faith on a completely different level than “all other forms of worship.”

3) V. A.-E. should omit the confusing phrase “forms of true worship” and use, instead, a phrase such as “humanly instituted forms of worship.”

The Theses under Part V., then, would then read something like this:

A. “Humanly instituted forms of worship must be in accord with the Word of God.”

B. “Humanly instituted forms of worship can help to preserve order.”

C. “Humanly instituted forms of worship ought not to be used in a way that burdens the  consciences of the people of God.”

D. “Humanly instituted forms of worship can be edifying to the local congregation and therefore also to the surrounding community.”

E. “Humanly instituted forms of worship should teach the faith.”

APPENDIX A

One reason for not making radical changes to our traditional  worship practices is that they are a testimony to the fact that our church, which took on its distinctive form at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, is older than what we know as the Roman Catholic Church, which took on its distinctive form at the Council of Trent in 1545-63. Here is a statement of Arthur Carl Piepkorn on this important matter:

 "The [16^th century Lutheran] Reformers are familiar with the Greek rite and with the liturgical pronouncements of the Fathers of the undivided Church, and they cite both in support of their doctrinal position where appropriate. The basis of their liturgical rites and ceremonies, however, is the medieval Western rite as the Church in northern Europe observed it at the beginning of the sixteenth century. Unlike the Anglican Reformers, the Lutheran Reformers are not concerned about conforming their rite either to the Eastern or to the Primitive Church.

“The sixteenth century saw the beginning of extensive innovations in Roman ritual and ceremonial. In general, these had not reached northern Europe by the time the Reformation began. Consequently they exerted only slight influence on the historic Lutheran rite. Where the historic Lutheran rite has been retained or restored, it generally reveals a purer and older form of the Western rite than the reformed Roman Catholic rite of today exhibits. This is significant. It gives us a denominationally and confessionally distinctive rite to which we have historic title and which we have not lately borrowed from alien sources. It gives us a rite which is both older than, and significantly and recognizably different from, the present Roman Catholic rite." (What the Symbolical Books of the Lutheran Church Have to Say About Worship and the Sacraments,” Concordia Publishing House, 1952, pp. 11-12. )

Piepkorn’s own liturgical views have been widely misunderstood. In 1952 he wrote the following to a Minnesota pastor:

 “. . . The liturgical movement, properly so described, is only peripherally and incidentally concerned about vestments, worship decorum and uniformity in the order of the liturgy. Its basic concern is the fullest possible use in our Church of the Gospel in the sense of Article IV of the Third Part of the Smalcald Articles. Its interest in the externals of worship, whether in rite or in ceremony, is limited to the legitimate practical and historical aspects that justify the existence of courses and books in the parallel areas of homiletics, hymnology, and Church  History. If there is a liturgical movement which goes beyond this, I for my part am thoroughly unsympathetic toward it.” (11/25/52 letter to the Rev. B., ELCA Archives, Piepkorn Papers, Box 91, Folder 431. The Papers are hereafter cited by PP followed by the box and folder number.)

Piepkorn  said much the same in different words in a 1950 letter to a Minnesota pastor, adding:  “That there is room for a difference of opinion about the value of a specific procedure, liturgical, pastoral or pedagogical, I grant without reluctance, and I should be quite astonished if on every point I should find everyone prepared to agree with me or with any other individual.” (7/17/50 letter to the Rev. S. PP 88-389)

On the 23^rd Sunday after Trinity in 1933 Piepkorn wrote from Grace Lutheran Church in the iron ore mining town of Chisholm, Minnesota, to his former professor and good friend, Dr. Walter A. Maier, that one of his guiding principles was:

“To refrain from emphasizing form at the expense of the spirit, and to avoid ceremony in those places where it is obviously out of place. When I preach in the [Civilian Conservation Corps] camps or at my [four] preaching stations [in the region surrounding Chisholm] I am as enthusiastic a Methodist (ritually speaking, not doctrinally) as the lowest of Low Churchmen that you can name or imagine.” (PP 18-5.)

In an October 1935 letter to a Minnesota pastor, he described his worship service at Grace as follows: 

“Over a black cassock I wear a black gown and black silk scarf (my privilege as doctor). The order of service which we use is exactly that of the service book portion of the current Missouri Synod hymnal.” (10/7/35 letter to the Rev. E. I am indebted to Paul Robert Sauer for a copy, which does not have PP box or folder number on it.)

 On the relationship of liturgy and evangelism, he wrote to an Oklahoma pastor in October 1951:

“. . . I have observed that parishes which scaled the Liturgy down in the interest of evangelization (abbreviating it, miscegnating it with ‘popular’ hymns, and eliminating the traditional ceremonial) have never been able to return to a really more adequate worship level. My own experience is that my people and I can do more with pagan and Protestant inquirers in a service designed especially for their needs—strongly educational and evangelistic, as informal as possible without vulgarizing the subject matter, and with plenty of give-and-take (achieved through such means as discussion, panel presentations, audiovisual aids, pulpit dialogue, and a question box). After they have been adequately instructed, then they can be brought into a normal Lutheran service and participate in it with spiritual profit.”  (10/16/51 to a Rev. D. PP 89-412)

Piepkorn engaged in a considerable amount of liturgical experimentation himself, but in a second letter to the Illinois pastor wrote:

“. . . I am no foe of experimentation; I have done my share in my time, and please God, I shall keep on doing so. I am profoundly grateful for every valuable insight that I have been able to obtain from the experimentation of other people. After eleven years in the military service, during most of which I occupied a supervisory position where I was compelled to be present at literally hundreds of religious services of all denominations, I am profoundly skeptical of ‘informal’ worship.

“. . . I have repeatedly insisted that one service a week in our churches is inadequate and that we ought to have a considerable variety of services to meet a variety of needs and, what is ultimately probably more important to accomplish, a variety of functions. Part of the problem, of course, is the size of our parishes. This is only one of many areas where we are paying what seems to me to be too high a price for uneconomically small parochial organizations. At the same time, I believe that each ought as a minimum to offer its membership at least one service a Sunday and other major Holy Days in which the Blessed Sacrament is celebrated according to the order of service prescribed by our Church. If this were done, it would seem to me to be quite within the province of the pastor and the parish to engage in as much legitimate experimentation at other hours as the facilities of the parish permit.”  (11-6-52  letter to a Rev. S. PP 91-431)

APPENDIX B

Thesis I.B.’s assertion  that “The highest form of worship is faith” is probably based on the following quotation from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession VI, 154 (Tappert  p. 128; Kolb-Wengert  p. 144):

“The woman came, believing that she should seek the forgiveness of sins from Christ. This is the highest way of worshiping Christ.”

The problem is that the word translated “way” (Thesis I.B. uses the word “form” instead of “way”) does not appear in the original Latin.  Instead, the second sentence reads:  “This worship is the highest worship of Christ.” (“Hic cultus est summus cultus Christi.”)  Cultus does not mean a “way of worship” or a “form of worship,” but  “cultivation,” “care,” “adornment,” “respect,” or, in this context, “worship,” or “reverence.”  The first sentence in the quotation from AC VI tells us what this highest worship of Christ is: It is “believing” in Christ.  The word “highest” (summus) is probably an elative rather than a superlative, because if it is understood as a literal superlative, the statement conflicts with the clear assertion of the Lutheran Symbols that faith alone is the “true worship” of Christ.