The Way to Unity in the LCMS?
The Texas District President, the Rev. Michael Newman, wrote a recent piece called “The Way to Unity in the LCMS.” In it, he makes the case that when it comes to vestments and liturgy, anything goes. His argument is based on the “satis est” of AC 7: “For the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree about the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. It is not necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies instituted by men, should be the same everywhere,” as well as FC SD 10:31: “So the churches will not condemn one another because of differences in ceremonies when, in Christian liberty, one has less or more of them.”
He argues, based on these two passages, that whether we are vested or not, whether the clergy are wearing “albs, cassocks, or polo shirts” has no bearing at all on our unity.
Moreover, his statement “But are those elements the foundation of true unity? Does the ‘look’ and ‘feel’ of European Lutheranism provide the basis of true unity in the Lutheran Church?” is a straw man. Nobody says that our vestments and liturgical forms are the “foundation” or “basis” of our unity. But it is true that externals are expressions and confessions of - our unity, or lack thereof.
Here is an analogy: the guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. There is a ritual involved. There is a unity expressed by that ritual and its continuity across time. No matter which soldier is guarding the tomb, the same reverence and affection are shown toward what this tomb and its unknown occupant represent. That unity is not based on mere externals, but is rather about something deeper and more profound. That said, it would indeed be an act of disunity for a soldier to take it upon himself to wear a pair of jeans and a polo shirt while performing his duty at the tomb. One could indeed argue correctly that true unity is found in the patriotism in the heart of the soldier, and that the externals are not the “foundation” or “basis” of that unity. And yet, it would confess something different if a soldier were to adopt casual vesture and gesture in the execution of his ceremonial duties at the tomb. It would indeed communicate something different. It would be an act of disunity.
It is absolutely true that “it is not necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies instituted by men, should be the same everywhere.” We see this even in variations between the congregations of the Gottesdienst editors. Some of us are on the three year series, some on the one year. Some of us use blue for Advent, some violet. My congregation uses green for Pre-Lent, while others use violet.
I chant the collect according to the scheme laid out in LW. Others chant according to TLH. Some pastors speak it. The Words of Institution likewise can be chanted or spoken. The level of ceremony is higher at Zion-Detroit than it is at my congregation. I typically celebrate with a deacon, while most of our pastors do not. Some have celebrant, deacon, and subdeacon - and some have additional servers. Most often, I suspect, the pastor is serving at the altar alone.
There is also great variation in vestments. Some congregations have copes and chasubles and maniples, while others have only albs and stoles.
Some of our congregations have kneelers, some don’t. Some have east-facing altars, some have free-standing. Some have the pulpit on the left, some have the pulpit on the right. Some have candles, while others have oil lamps. Baptismal fonts vary greatly between congregations. Some churches have statues, while others do not.
My congregation has daily Matins. Others offer Vespers (mine does not). Many of our churches don’t offer any of the liturgical hours. We offer a Wednesday Night Mass, while other congregations do not.
None of these differences are confessions of disunity. But that is not to say that disunity is impossible. It would be an act of disunity to deliberately get rid of the altar, the font, and the pulpit, to abolish vestments entirely, and to do away with liturgical worship itself. For these reverent forms are confessions of the Real Presence, and they set us apart from churches that are not sacramental, and thus, worship in a more casual way because of their confession of the Real Absence.
And while their liturgy is not identical to ours, when I was in Siberia, it was obvious that we have liturgical unity with our Siberian brethren. This expression and confession of unity should not be minimized and sacrificed. Rather, it should be encouraged. Using the same hymnal and singing the same hymns is a blessing, not a curse. We should be encouraging unity, not watering it down and redefining it. For the liturgy confesses the faith.
President Newman, even though he is downplaying vestments, omits one crucial part of our confessions that specifically mentions them: Article 24. “The usual public ceremonies are observed, the series of lessons, of prayers, vestments, and other such things,” for “we do not abolish the Mass, but religiously keep and defend it” (Apology 24:1). Vestments are specifically mentioned as something that we retain as normative in our worship. This is right in our Book of Concord, which is, per President Newman, “the basis for our confession along with the Holy Bible.” Isn’t it odd that he omitted any reference to Article 24 in a discussion about worship forms?
Of course, it doesn’t mean that our vestments must be identical, as I argued above. But eschewing them in toto in favor of “polo shirts” is not an act of unity. Moreover, Formula 10 isn’t about just doing whatever we want, it’s about being in a “state of confession” (in statu confessionis), such as when state authorities compel us to vest or worship in a certain way. This is not happening today.
Nor is it an act of unity to have a female vocalist “consecrate” the elements by singing a paraphrase of the Words of Institution while the pastor tears off a pop-top communion gadget that looks like a Mini-Moo coffee creamer. In fact, Formula 10 does not count “foolish displays that are not profitable for good order” as an expression of unity, and avers that changes in ceremony should be done “thoughtfully and without giving offense.”
President Newman is wrong that the flexibility we enjoy in our Christian liberty translates to a belief that anything goes, that abolishing the Mass and ditching the vestments are expressions of unity. For we still confess that “our churches are falsely accused of abolishing the Mass. The Mass is held among us and celebrated with the highest reverence” (AC 24:1). I don’t know that all of our churches can say that. And not being able to make that confession is not an expression of unity - not with other congregations in the Synod, not with five centuries of Lutheran practice worldwide, and not with the Book of Concord.
Externals are not the foundation and basis of unity. And externals can indeed vary greatly. But externals are manifestations of internals. What we believe in the heart is confessed in word and deed. And our confession is taught by means of ceremony, for ceremonies teach people what they need to know about Jesus (AC 24:3).
We should be honest and acknowledge that we have had disunity in our synod for quite some time. We all know this. Nobody can just attend the local LCMS congregation in a given location. For you don’t know if you’ll get a liturgical service, or rock music and dancing girls. If we had actual unity, we wouldn’t have to scope out the LCMS congregations in a given area before showing up on a Sunday morning because we have no idea what the service will be. What we have now in the LCMS is not natural, organic variation due to local custom or tradition. Rather, what we have now is chaos. Maintaining, defending, and encouraging that level of discordia is not the way to unity in the LCMS.