Thursday Theology: Thoughts On Liturgy from Last Month’s Table Talk

Co-missioners,

In recent months, our Crossings Table Talk series has featured some especially lively theological conversations. The Table Talk of October 2024 was no exception. Our main speaker was the Rev. Amandus (Mandy) Derr, who retired in 2020 from a long career in Lutheran pastoral ministry. Mandy presented his thoughts on what is and isn’t essential to “the lively use of the liturgy” in our contemporary context, particularly for those making decisions about worship life in the Lutheran tradition.

In this week’s post, our Thursday Theology editorial-team member Carol Braun weaves together some of the speakers’ notes and follow-up correspondence from that conversation, which she moderated. We trust you’ll find food for thought here, whether you missed the Table Talk or attended it and would benefit from a recap.

Peace and Joy,
The Crossings Community

______________________________________________________________

1. A sizeable excerpt from “The Lively Use of the Liturgy” by the Rev. Amandus Derr

To kick off the Table Talk, Mandy Derr presented ideas from his paper entitled “The Lively Use of the Liturgy,” which he wrote to spark the afternoon’s conversation. You can find a link to the entire paper in our Table Talk archive. For now, we invite you to read the following excerpt. Mandy writes:

In the Introduction to the Lutheran Book of Worship, pages 7-8, the Rev. Dr. Eugene L. Brand, LBW project director, clearly articulated the…transformational goals :

An examination of the contents will reveal the several goals toward which the Commission worked in liturgy: to restore to Holy Baptism the liturgical rank and dignity implied by Lutheran theology, and to draw out the baptismal motifs in such acts as the confession of sin and the burial of the dead; to continue to move into the larger ecumenical heritage of liturgy while, at the same time, enhancing Lutheran convictions about the Gospel; to involve lay persons as assisting ministers who share the leadership of corporate worship; to bring the language of prayer and praise into conformity with the best current usage; to offer a variety of musical styles.  (Emphases by Mandy.)

Mandy continues:

This short paragraph in my opinion, clearly and concisely states what makes for “the lively use of the liturgy” in our contemporary context. I believe the goals stated here ought to be considered every time worship leaders creatively shape the worship life of any assembly of those worshiping in a Lutheran tradition that seeks to proclaim Law and Gospel (better, Judgment and Promise) in the assembly of those who gather… “to give thanks, praise, and honor to the God (“we worship One”) who, in Christ, “shows no partiality.” For creative worship planners, this is what proclaiming “the mighty works of God who called us out from the shadows and into the light” is all about. These are the matters I hope we can discuss together.

For example, what does it mean “to continue to move into the larger ecumenical heritage of liturgy while, at the same time, enhancing Lutheran convictions about the Gospel”?

Of highest importance is this: that the Sunday liturgy be a holy communion liturgy by whatever name we call it. (…)

What elements of the liturgy of holy communion are essential ecumenically and enhance Lutheran convictions about the Gospel?

In our current, post-Christian society with increasingly diminishing church attendance, often including many who are new to the faith, it is tempting to make catechesis another essential. Again, my caution, addition often also leads to subtraction. Catechesis in liturgy, like entertainment in liturgy, must not become another essential.

+ + +

2. Some highlights of the first reply, from Rev. Jared Stahler

The designated first response to Mandy’s remarks came from the Rev. Jared Stahler, who is Mandy’s successor as Senior Pastor of St. Peter’s Lutheran Church in midtown Manhattan.  What follows is my summary of some of his points, with quotations from his presentation notes which he kindly shared with us for this post.

On the theme of distinctively Lutheran and ecumenical approaches to the Eucharist, Jared pointed out that Lutherans themselves often misunderstand Luther’s reforms—failing to grasp, for example, that the elements which Luther cut from the medieval Roman canon in favor of the bare verba would never have been heard by those attending the Latin mass. The celebrant, he noted, would always have spoken them while facing the altar, inaudible to the assembly, with “the audible ‘proclamation’ being the Sanctus bells.”

He noted further that Lutherans “are not transubstantionists, nor consubstantionists. Our theology of the Real Presence is richer than this. confessions are rooted in the great breadth of the church, with great echoes of East. And so, in actuality, we come to this question at lot easier than Romans or Anglicans, confessionally; but our practice, however, is confused.”

And he argued in favor of the Eucharistic prayer and similar steps toward an avoidance of sectarian exclusion: “Lutherans are at their best when they think and act maximally, not minimally—and, certainly in this world that wants to limit us to soundbites, broader thinking, richer imagery—to a point where it is accessible so as to not alienate.” To this end, “the wider eucharistic praying we’ve known from the ancient church, certainly from Hippolytan canon (written, remember, in response to bishops who didn’t know how to pray), can help move beyond this unfortunate moment in time.” In reply to Mandy’s stance on not elevating catechesis to the role of a liturgical essential, Jared agreed with Mandy insofar as “the liturgy should not be made catechetical in the sense of instruction: do this, do that; or the reason we do this is xyz.” Yet, he also noted that “the liturgy—with its doxological character, as well as its scriptural/biblical/theological, and sacramental, also has a catechetical/formational element to it.” And he illustrated this point with a formative memory from his worship experiences as a child:

A little pious, but my childhood pastor would come out of his study and kneel at the altar during the prelude—he signaled this was a time of prayer, not chatter—and when he did so the entire assembly settled down. He led without saying a word in “quieting our heart.” Psalm 46:10 did not need to be recited or even referenced, but embodied

In conclusion, he registered the importance, “especially…in a time when our speech is so divided, do and embody,” and “then sit back and reflect: What have I just experienced? What wisdom? What gift? What has the Holy Spirit just done in this community, in this body, in me? We’ll see, and experience, and live life: not a deadly but a lively liturgy. And a lively liturgical, sacramental life.”

+ + +

3. A small taste of the second reply by Rev. Robin Lütjohann and a follow-up exchange of correspondence

I lack the space this week to do justice to the second designated response to Mandy’s presentation, which came from Robin Lütjohann, pastor of Faith Lutheran Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a frequent contributor to Crossings publications and events. Robin deftly and provocatively took on the role of advocatus diaboli, raising, among other points, the question of what distinctively Lutheran gifts have been lost amidst the liturgical reform movement’s drive toward ecumenical unity and a return to forms from ancient liturgies.

Rather than quoting from Robin’s remarks here, I’ll excerpt a post–Table Talk e-mail conversation between Robin and the Rev. Steve Albertin, another Crossings mainstay who often cohosts our Table Talks. I was CC’d on their exchange and found it edifying, and I’m glad they’ve allowed me to share excerpts of it with you here.

Steve wrote to Robin in appreciation of his remarks, noting the importance of focusing on not just

the ‘what’ of liturgical renewal… on the “why“—i.e., that this all is supposed to be for the sake of the gospel. That is necessitating Christ in such a way that comforts the hearers and the receiver s of the sacraments. I can’t help thinking of Luther‘s explanation of communion in the Small Catechism. When he speaks of worthy reception of the sacrament/communion, he focuses on the two most important words: “for you.” In other words, this is all about Christ and his benefits for you. Therefore, this is a question I would have wanted to raise: what is there about liturgical renewal that makes this explicit? That seems to me the fundamental question that Lutherans ought to bring to liturgical renewal. Thanks again for your wonderful response that clearly reflects the Crossings/Lutheran-confessional perspective.

Robin replied:

We can do BOTH meaningful and beautiful liturgy AND proclamation that necessitates Christ.

Someone once described Lutheran liturgy as having twin peaks: Word and Sacrament. Most Protestants emphasize the former over the latter; Roman Catholics emphasize the latter over the former. Our tradition is meant to hold them up together. That’s certainly something to strive for!

And Steve wrapped up the conversation:

Yes, WORD and SACRAMENT but both must be grounded in Christ. Personally, I am very much biased towards the liturgical renewal movement. I love the liturgy and how it embodies the gospel. Liturgical renewal is only important insofar as it promotes Christ. That is THE vocation of Crossings. We must continue to keep making that point central as we move forward.