Have an unglorious Passiontide

It’s also been explained to me – and there doesn’t seem to be agreement – that the Sundays are of Lent but not in it, so to speak. Therefore the Sunday services continue with the alleluias, but Wednesday evening services do not. I suspect this may just be liturgical laziness (we’ve always done it this way, why change now?) but all I can do is point these things out.

“Contrary to those who think that liturgical worship is the same old thing every week. . . .”

I used to think the very same until I studied Anglicanism nearly three years. This past summer I gladly and enthusiastically surrendered to what I came to enjoy immensely: the liturgy.

Kempin, regarding the omission of “Alleluia” during Lent: I heard a comment by someone who worked on a Lutheran hymnal committee years ago. He recalled coming to a meeting determined NOT to omit Alleluias during Lent, for the reasons you stated. However, he heard an older pastor say this: “Why do we omit ‘Alleluia’ during Lent? So we can bring it back on Easter!” In other words, it’s voluntarily giving up a good thing for a time, restraining ourselves a little, so that we can pull out all the stops on Easter Sunday. That’s largely why I’ve followed this custom of omitting Alleluia.

That said, when I’ve inadvertently sung or said Alleluia during Lent (I picked “Thy Strong Word” as a hymn on Lent 1 once) I did not return to my cell and flagellate myself. I just thought “Oops! There are worse things than saying Alleluia too much!” Just don’t call the liturgical police on me.

Jon, #6,

To be clear, I don’t object to the practice. I just want to note for the record that it is not particularly “lutheran.” If you find it a useful tool or a well established custom, then that is awesome. I, too, believe in pulling out all the stops possible for easter, but to me personally it never made sense to find joy in restoring what should never have been removed. “All right, kids, I’m not going to give you breakfast and lunch–but just think how great supper will taste when you are so hungry!” Kind of falls flat for me.

Still, like I said, I don’t object. Go nuts. You are the pastor. If you, like pastor Douthwaite, use these customs as a salutary way to engage and invigorate your people, then I am all for it. It is my own problem if I don’t get it.

Joe,

“Being Lutheran is not about being Not Catholic – its about . . . being as Catholic as possible with teaching false doctrine.”

Just so long as I never hear you invoke “lex orandi, lex credendi.”

And by the way, if lutherans have always used the term “mass,” when did they start using the term “divine service?” Serious question. I don’t see it in any synodical hymnals before 1986. (I will not even point out that you know perfectly well what I meant about lutherans using the term “mass.”)

“to me personally it never made sense to find joy in restoring what should never have been removed.” I hear ya. I don’t get this line of thinking when some have applied it to how often to offer Communion: “If we offer it only a few times a year, it will seem extra special when we do!” I’m more in line with Luther’s view of it as “daily pasture and sustenance.” But you’re right; I do find leaving out Alleluia as a small way to teach about the serious determination of the Savior to go to the cross, a fast before the feast of Easter.

As far as “divine service” — though you didn’t ask me — I think there was something of a rediscovery of the German term “Gottesdienst” (God’s service, service of God), the standard word referring to a church service. But in Gottesdienst is seen a double meaning: it’s both our service to God and God’s service to us. Lutherans understand that it’s the second of those that is the heart and soul of any church service: God serving us with forgiveness via Word and Sacrament. It’s probably an attempt to bring that emphasis of the worship service to the fore that’s behind the resurgence of “divine service.” I don’t object to that. But I am a little leery of packing so much theological meaning into the etymology of a German vocable. Nevertheless, I think “divine service” is maybe as good a term as any to describe a gospel-centered gathering around Word and Sacrament.

Don’t anyone read too much into what I am bantering here. I’m just trying to keep it honest.

I do understand the etymological roots of “messe” and “missa,” though I don’t know that “divine service’ is the best rendering for “gottesdienst.” The use of “divine” (for which I assume there is a german word) instead of “God” seems to make it rather vague and wishy washy to me. But that’s an aside. When I talk about the use of those terms, I am talking about the vocabulary of the english speaking lutheran church in general and the missouri synod in particular. I don’t argue against the basis for those terms, but they ARE rather novel in our context. That’s all I’m saying. I guess I’m blessed/cursed to be old enough to pre-date some of the more recent trends in synod. That’s not a bad thing. I just don’t like to give the impression that “we have always called it mass,” for instance, when that is not true. Are we free to do so? Certainly. It’s the “why” that confuses me. What about the term “mass” communicates better than “Holy Communion” or “The Lord’s Supper?” For that matter, I think those two terms beat out “Divine “Service” as well. (Though Nagel’s introduction is worthy of being the classic that it is.) But whatever. Just an opinion.

As for “Lex orandi,” that phrase has been used to support the point that no ceremony can be introduced without betraying a theological bias, regardless of whether it has been purged of false doctrine. It is generally used against contemporary forms, but strangely I have never seen it applied to liturgical forms from another theological base. I don’t buy it to begin with, but if it works one way, it should surely work the other. How can we incorporate monastic services without being affected by the underlying theology, for instance? But again, it was just an aside, really, directed toward the site that collected those customs and not toward our estimable host.