Living Theology in the Metropolitan Chicago Synod
Volume 2, Number 3
Pentecost1997
Reflecting Faith In Worship: The Use Of The Means Of Grace
I had the pleasure of serving Lutheran
churches of different synods as a church musician for nearly a decade. I came to admire the centrality of the Word,
baptism, and the eucharist in their individual and congregational lives. Roman Catholics easily find our eyes of
faith distracted by less central features of the Christian landscape. The Lutherans I have known nearly always
maintained their focus on Christ. A
strong Christocentric focus is equally apparent throughout the statement on the
practice of Word and sacrament, The Use of the Means of Grace, which has been
proposed to the 1997 Churchwide Assembly of the ELCA. From the very first principle, “Jesus Christ is the living and
abiding Word of God,” the proposed statement maintains Christ at the center. He is “read in the Scriptures,” he is the
one into whom Christians are baptized; his body is discerned in the Christian
assembly; his body and blood are received in holy communion.
Roman Catholic liturgical regulations
often use a far more prescriptive and proscriptive language than found in the
ELCA proposed statement. I found the
open, advisory tone of the proposed statement both refreshing—for the large
number of questions left to the discretion of local congregations—and
confusing—being accustomed to the lawyerly style of Roman Catholic documents. I am reminded again that Martin Luther
nearly invented the term adiaphora, and that this principle is well
remembered by American Lutherans. The
Gospel and its reception through faith are essential foci of Christian
faith. In the practice of Word and
sacraments, both carelessness and rigidity, like a Scylla-and-Charybdis, can
threaten the Church’s ability to receive the Gospel and live by its power
(Background 2b).
As Principle 4 so clearly reminds us,
unity among Christians should not be made to depend upon the imposition of
uniform liturgical practices. The unity
of the means of grace originates in God who is One, not in ceremonies of human
invention. In Application 4b the
intersection between the Christocentric focus and the rich diversity of
pastoral application envisioned by the document’s authors is easy to see. Christians are united by their relationship
to a person, not to principles or things.
Christ is proclaimed and celebrated among Christians in a variety of
ways and from diverse perspectives.
Good church order requires only that the center of he Church’s life and
mission remains accessible and in focus.
It does not entail that the Church’s response to the Word, in doxology
and celebration, be identical everywhere and for all time. Whatever uniformity exists among Christians
in worship results from the nature of worship as a response to a single Divine
initiative toward us and all creation.
Lutherans assist their Roman Catholic friends when they speak and live
according to such ideas. They offer a
helpful corrective to Roman Catholic authorities who too easily multiply the
number and gravity of possible liturgical transgressions at the expense of
genuine pastoral considerations.
With chagrin, I heard myself echoing
the criticism of one of my dissertation directors as I read the proposed
statement, “Where is the Holy Spirit in this document?” The role of the Spirit in worship is too
often and too easily over-looked in Western Christian theologies. Lutherans, I am afraid, inherited and share
with Roman Catholics an impoverished pneumatology from our common, medieval
heritage. Ecumenical dialogue with
Orthodoxy has challenged Roman Catholics, Lutherans and others to incorporate
doctrine of the Holy Spirit into all areas of theology. The proposed statement goes far in this
direction, but not far enough.
For example, the connection between
Christ and God’s Word and the reception of God’s Word in the scriptures, as
expressed in Principle 5, would be enhanced if the statement had mentioned the
role of the Spirit in the reception and transmission of divine revelation. The Scriptures, like the sacraments, are
“visible words” for they are visible signs, inscribed on paper, of the
reception of God’s Word by human beings.
As symbols of God’s Word, scripture is made living and active in
people’s lives and in the Christian community only by the power of the Holy
Spirit. Only by means of the Spirit
were the authors of scripture able to hear and incorporate authentic
expressions of the Word into their words.
Only by means of the Spirit could the ancient Church discern the Word in
some ancient texts (the canon of Scripture) and not in others. In comparison to other sections, statements
on the role of the Spirit are well developed in the section on baptism.
More devastating, no significant
reference to the role of the Holy Spirit appears in the section on the
eucharist. (The only statement,
Background 36a, refers to the Spirit as establishing the Church’s koinonia or communion
at the eucharist.) Although Martin
Luther’s modern companions should be encouraged to echo his emphasis on the
Word in discussions of the eucharist, to neglect growing ecumenical consensus
on this point seems ill advised. For
example, the Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry document (BEM), to which
Lutherans and Lutheran churches, contributed greatly, does not overlook the
role of the Spirit in the eucharist quite so glaringly as the proposed
statement.
Lutherans may have difficulty with the
role ascribed to the Spirit in other eucharistic theologies. In churches that have maintained a highly
developed practice of eucharistic prayer, like the Oriental, Catholic and
Anglican churches, the Spirit is always invoked over the bread, the wine and
the Christian assembly so that they may “become the body and blood of
Christ.” Liturgists call this portion
of the eucharistic prayer the epiclesis referring to the “calling down” (Greek,
epikaleo) of the Spirit upon the gifts and people. The epicletic portions of the eucharistic prayers typically
emphasize how the Spirit will change us and the gifts we offer into Christ
himself. Understandably, American
Lutherans may find the transformative language difficult. Though unlikely, I might accept a
description of the role of the Spirit in the eucharist that is not entirely (or
essentially) either epicletic or transformative. However, as a Roman Catholic (and a one-time Calvinist) I have
great difficulty with the minimal role given to the Holy Spirit in the section
on the eucharist in the proposed statement.
Many aspects of the proposed statement
commend it to Roman Catholics. The
statement’s emphasis on the Word, on the role and nature of preaching, and on
the central role of scriptures in worship are admirable features. The centrality of Sunday worship is also
commendable in the midst of a culture that has made Sunday a day for individual
recreation and shopping; where some churches have now transferred “believer’s
worship” to weekdays, Sunday assemblies are given over to evangelism and
Christian entertainment. If anecdotal
evidence is trustworthy, I am confident that Lutheran pastors are increasingly
requested to administer second baptisms.
The background and application statements of Principle 16 will provide
pastors with precise and sensitive words for responding to such requests. Catholics might only suggest that, in the
cases foreseen in Application 16c, the possibility of “conditional baptism” be
offered to pastors. (“If you are not
baptized, I baptize you…)
The careful application of pastoral
sensitivity to special cases of communion was particularly helpful. Sacramental norms should not make baptized
children, those with wheat allergies, alcoholics, and other Christians
strangers at their own table. Rightly,
the document will help pastors greet communicants with sensitivity, discretion,
and with the open hospitality of Jesus, which is the guide and norm for all
Christian table fellowship. God chooses
to meet us in our neediness. The
welcome that Christ offers all who receive him and the preparation of
conscience that precedes the communicant’s faithful acceptance of that welcome
are aptly described in background statement 42b. “Worthiness” to receive Christ depends less upon self-examination,
than on preparedness to receive others as the body of Christ “given and shed
for me.” “for the forgiveness of sins.”
The section on eucharistic hospitality
is lovely. However, I suggest that
belief in the presence of Christ in the eucharist (Principle 49) is not
sufficient alone to warrant hospitality at the altar. To discern the Body of Christ in the body of this assembled
Church is an additional, important condition considering both Paul’s admonition
in 1 Corinthians 11:28-29 and the statements in Background 42b. I profess hope that Roman Catholic churches
may someday exhibit the beautiful and courageous hospitality at the altar which
this statement models for congregations of the ELCA.
Finally, I could grasp at summary
statements, but prefer to conclude with a leading question. While reading the proposed statement, I
sensed hesitation over the ELCA’s understanding of the role and meaning of
ordained ministry. Principles and
applications referring to the role of lay preachers, readers, ministers of
communion, special lay delegates to preside over communion services, and the
role of the laity in the administration of emergency baptism did not seem to
depend upon a single, well-defined distinction between lay and ordained
ministry. Some statements seemed
zealous to guard and maintain the role and authority of the pastor, while
others retained and extended the traditionally Lutheran emphasis on the
priestly character of all Christians.
Many Christian churches, not only in
America and not just Lutherans, now struggle with questions about ordained
ministry; its status and meaning, the pastoral and liturgical practices
associated with entry into clerical state, or the relationship between ordained
ministry and Christ. Is ordination
principally a mark of academic or spiritual achievement (with attached status
and authority in the church) or is ordination first given to the Church for the
sake of Christ’s ministry (with certain educational prerequisites)? Do Lutherans believe there is a difference
in quality between lay ministry and the pastorate or is there a difference in
degree only? I understand that
discussions with the Protestant Episcopal Church in America (PECUSA) challenged
the ELCA to describe the episcopacy in new ways. Will the challenges facing American Lutherans be the catalyst for
similarly reviewed understandings of lay ministry and the character of the
ordained pastorate?
Monastery of Saint Benedict
Center
Madison, WI