Living Theology in the Metropolitan Chicago Synod
Volume 2, Number 3
Pentecost1997
Reflecting Faith In Worship: The Use Of The Means Of Grace
Mark
Alan Filbert
Along with my ordained colleagues,
fellow Associates in Ministry, and many lay members of my congregation, I
awaited the publication and revision of The Use of the Means of Grace: A Proposed Statement on the Practice of Word
and Sacrament, with great anticipation.
As Chair of the Metropolitan Chicago Synod Worship Committee, I was
hoping for a document which would “foster common understanding and practice”
(Principle 4, p. 7) among the congregations of our Synod while also recognizing
that “Our congregations receive and administer the means of grace in richly
diverse ways” (Principle 4b, p. 7).
As Cantor for Ashburn Evangelical
Lutheran Church and School in Chicago, I was hoping for a document which would
affirm those practices in my own congregation which reflect “concern for
healthy pastoral action and strong congregational mission” (Principle 4a, p. 7)
and, at the same time, challenge those which may reflect “either careless
practice or rigid uniformity” (Principle 2b).
As a Lutheran Christian who grew up in
an American Baptist household but was drawn to the Lutheran Church by its
liturgical worship and confessional theology, I was hoping for a document which
would not only “encourage common practice…consistent with Lutheran theology”
(Preamble, p. 3), but also speak a prophetic word “to ground the practice of
our church in the Gospel and to encourage good order within our church”
(Principle 4b, p. 7).
In many ways the second draft of the
proposed sacramental practices statement, published last November and recommended
by the ELCA Church Council for adoption by the 1997 Churchwide Assembly, has
met these hopes and expectations. It
does in fact reflect concern for “common practice among the expressions of this
church, as well as freedom for appropriate diversity” (Preamble, p. 4), and
thus it should serve as a valuable resource for the richly diverse
congregations in the Metropolitan Chicago Synod. Similarly, the document does both affirm and challenge
sacramental practices in my own congregation as we seek to re-evaluate our
mission “to give and receive God’s Word and sacraments as full and reliable
signs of Christ” (Principle 2c, p. 6).
Nevertheless, from my point of view,
there are three areas in which the statement misses the opportunity to speak a
strong prophetic word when the word might encourage “good order” and one area
in which the statement fails completely to give voice to an important prophetic
word which might better ground our practice “in the Gospel.”
The first area in which the statement
might offer a more compelling prophetic word is found in its three references
to weddings and funerals (Principle 6a, p. 8; Principle 13 a, p. 11; Principle
49b, p. 32). In each instance, the
document takes an entirely neutral position with regard to placing these rites
in the context of Holy Communion.
Indeed, the document goes no further than to indicate that “the
celebration of weddings and funerals within services of Word and Sacrament in
the congregation are appropriate traditions” (Principle 13a, p. 11).
Though the document may simply be
reflecting the fact that most Lutheran congregations, at least in my
experience, are also rather neutral about this issue, a more prophetic
sacramental practices statement would have joined with the Manual on the
Liturgy in proclaiming, “The centrality of the Eucharist as the Christian’s
principal act of worship is underscored by the inclusion of…Marriage and Burial
within the liturgy of Holy Communion” (p. 199). Such a proclamation to encourage the practice of celebrating the
Eucharist at weddings and funerals would seem to be a next logical step in the
liturgical renewal movement. Some forty
years ago, most Lutheran worship resources were also rather neutral about
weekly Holy Communion; in The Lutheran Hymnal (1941) and in the Service
Book and Hymnal (1958), the observance of the Lord’s Supper in the Sunday
service was the exception rather than the rule, and even in the Lutheran
Book of Worship (1978) the Sunday liturgies quite clearly offer the option
of concluding the “Service of Holy Communion” without actually serving Holy
Communion! Now, as a result of a
gradual return to our liturgical roots, the newer liturgies in With One
Voice assume the inclusion of the Eucharist in the Sunday service, and the
proposed sacramental practices statement further emphasizes that “All of our
congregations are encouraged to celebrate the Lord’s Supper weekly” (Principle
35b, p. 24). The exception has now
become the rule. I think it is time for
the celebration of Holy Communion at Lutheran weddings and funerals to become a
“normal” practice as well, and a stronger prophetic word about this topic in
the proposed document would be most welcome.
The second area in which the statement
might provide a more prophetic voice relates to lectionary usage in
congregational worship. I fully agree
that the “use of ELCA-approved lectionaries serves the unity of the Church, the
hearing of the breadth of the Scriptures, and the evangelical meaning of the
church year” (Principle 7a, p. 9).
Therefore, I think a sentence or two supporting the common utilization
of the Revised Common Lectionary in all Lutheran churches would be an
appropriate addition. A sentence to
that effect did appear in the first draft of the document (“Our congregations
make use of the Revised Common Lectionary” [First Draft, S1.2, p. 6]) but was
omitted from the second. Instead, the
proposed version mentions both the “Revised Common Lectionary” and the
lectionaries in the Lutheran Book of Worship…” (Principle 7a, p. 9),
without recommending either, while also leaving room for the possibility of not
employing a lectionary at all. That
approach seems counter-productive to the unifying purpose of a lectionary, and
if the original statement in the first draft was deemed to be too “non-inclusive”
in the revision process, then surely, for the sake of maintaining a prophetic
voice, the following modification would have been preferable to complete
deletion: “Our congregations are
encouraged to make use of the Revised Common Lectionary.
The third area in which a more
prophetic word might be spoken by the proposed statement appears in its
discussion of worship environment.
Although it does declare that “Music, the visual arts, and the
environment of our worship spaces embody the proclamation of the Word in
Lutheran churches” (Principle 11, p. 10), and that “The visual arts and the
spaces for worship assist the congregation to participate in worship, to focus
on the essentials, and to embody the Gospel” (Principle 11b, p. 10), the
document only offers guidance as to what comprises such spaces in a single
reference in Part II to the design and placement of a font:
A baptismal font filled with water, placed in the assembly’s worship space, symbolized the centrality of the sacrament for faith and life. As congregations are able, they may consider the creation of fonts of ample proportions filled with flowing water, or baptismal pools which could allow immersion. The location of the font within the church building should express the idea of entrance into the community of faith, and should allow ample space for people to gather around (Principle 27 and 27a, p. 19).
However, there is no mention of the
pulpit, a lectern, or a reading desk in Part I; there is no mention of the
altar in Part III; and there is no mention of the relationship between the
font, pulpit and altar anywhere in the document. Perhaps the authors felt that further treatment of the subject
was beyond the scope of the statement or that any comments they might make
would be largely self-evident. Yet,
there are many Lutheran churches which still do not have a free-standing altar,
and there are many that could likewise benefit from even a brief discussion of
pulpit/lectern, reading desk placement in relation to the font and altar. A few more paragraphs on the topic in the
appropriate sections of the document would certainly allow for a more prophetic
word about the spaces we set aside for worship, since all too often our spaces determine
our sacramental practices rather than our sacramental practices shaping
our spaces.
While the above issues constitute
missed occasions for the proposed sacramental practices statement to present
Lutheran congregations with prophetic words of a beneficial nature, the final
area of concern for me is much more consequential and speaks directly to our
understanding of sacramental theology and the ways in which that theology is
acted out in our assemblies. Apparently
for the misguided purpose of inclusivity, the document in some places supports
the concept that “Congregations of this church may establish policies regarding
the age of admission to Holy Communion” (Principle 38c, p. 26). Yet, it also states quite clearly that at
other times “Admission to the Sacrament (of Holy Communion) is by invitation of
the Lord, presented through the Church to those who are baptized” (Principle
37, p. 24; reiterated in Principle 49a, p. 32). This internal inconsistency in the proposed statement, in my
consideration of the issue, is a direct reflection of the larger theological
discrepancy between a Lutheran theology which champions the concept that
sacraments are a sign of the gift of God’s grace and consequently function
independently from human action or merit and a Lutheran practice which requires
baptized Christians to achieve a certain age or to pass a certain course or to
develop a certain understanding in order to be welcome to receive the Sacrament
of the Altar.
My discomfort with the conflict
between theology and practice with regard to Holy Communion runs much deeper
than simply wishing for internal congruity in the proposed ELCA sacramental
practices statement, for it arises out of the theological shift I needed to
make some years ago in order to come to terms with being a Lutheran Christian. The practice of “believer’s baptism” in the
American Baptist church in which I was raised very quickly becomes categorized
as a form of “works righteousness” in Lutheran circles. I was baptized at the age of eight, after
reaching the so-called “age of accountability.” I was baptized because I decided when I was ready
to make a commitment to Jesus Christ and the Church, and I attended the
required pre-baptismal conferences with the pastor who determined whether or
not I really understood the step I was taking. Then, and only then, was I permitted to be
baptized, but as a baptized believer I was immediately welcomed to the Lord’s
table. Having made the shift from
considering Holy Baptism as an ordinance of the church to be received only
after meeting certain requirements to understanding Holy Baptism as a sacrament
of the church to be received as a free gift from God at any age, I continue to
have great difficulty in accepting the varying human “customs…on the age and
circumstances for admission to the Lord’s Supper” (Principle 37b, p. 25) are in
any way theologically appropriate or acceptable. Even the statement itself acclaims that Paul’s cautionary words
to the Christians in Corinth to “Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the
bread and drink of the cup, for all who eat and drink without discerning the
body eat and drink judgment against themselves” (1 Corinthians 11:28-29) are
“addressed to those in the community who are eating and drinking while
excluding from the meal others who belong to Christ” (Principle 42b, p.
29). If God makes us God’s own, “seals
us by the Holy Spirit and marks us with the cross of Christ forever” (Principle
14a, p. 12) through the Sacrament of Holy Baptism, then who are we—as a church
charged with preaching the Gospel “in its purity” (Principle 3, p. 6) and
administering the sacraments “according to the Gospel (Principle 3, p. 6)—to
deny any baptized Christian the baptismal right to receive the Sacrament of
Holy Communion on the basis of age, knowledge or understanding?
The document is correct in its
assessment that “The age for communing children continues to be discussed and
reviewed in our congregations” (Principle 37b, p. 25) and, no doubt, it will be
so for some time. That fact
notwithstanding, it seems to me that this statement at this time in the life of
the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America needs to take the risks that every
good prophet must take and forge ahead through the congregational discussion
and review to proclaim prophetically in no uncertain terms that, as quoted earlier,
“Admission to the Sacrament (of Holy Communion) is by invitation of the Lord,
presented through the Church to those who are baptized” (Principle 37, p. 24;
reiterated in Principle 49a, p. 32).
Period! Twenty-five years ago
Lutheran sacramental statements and liturgical materials began to take a
similar risk in prophetically affirming the long-lost Lutheran normative
practice of celebrating the Eucharist weekly.
Now, with this statement, the ELCA needs to join with the Evangelical
Lutheran Church in Canada, with the Orthodox communion, with the early Church,
and with Jesus in the Gospel According to St. Mark in saying “Let the little
children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the
kingdom of God belongs” (Mark 10:14).