P<\/span>opular cliche is that Lutherans and Anglicans are high-church, Reformed lower. Lutherans and Anglicans are sacramentally-minded, Reformed less so. Lutherans and Anglicans take liturgy serious; Reformed do not.<\/p>\n There\u2019s reason to think this isn\u2019t right. In fact, there are reasons to think that the opposite<\/em> is the case.<\/p>\n Consider the \u201csecond reformation\u201d struggles between Lutheran and Reformed in post-Reformation Brandenburg. On Christmas Day 1613, John Sigismund, the Elector of Brandenburg, communed in a Reformed church in a Reformed manner, a signal that he wanted to pursue further reform beyond the Lutheran that had dominated Brandenburg in the previous century. He didn\u2019t impose his convictions on his people, and so Brandenburg became a locus of ongoing debate, centered on liturgical issues like the fractio panis<\/em> (breaking bread in communion, which Lutherans didn\u2019t do and Reformed did) and the baptismal exorcism (Reformed didn\u2019t, Lutherans did).<\/p>\n Bodo Nischan summarizes their respective theologies of ceremony in an article from the Sixteenth Century Journal<\/em>:<\/p>\n \u201cLutherans regarded most of the things that the Reformed wanted to see removed as adiaphora<\/em>, or matters of indifference, that could be freely used or omitted in the worship service. In the mid-sixteenth century they themselves had debated this issue in the \u2018adiaphoristic controversy.\u2019 This controversy, which was born out of the conflict over the Leipzig Interim and involved divergent interpretations of Luther\u2019s message, however, had been settled by the Formula of Concord in 1577. The Formula defined adiaphora<\/em> as \u2018ceremonies and church rites which are neither commanded nor forbidden in the Word of God.\u2019 It specifically excluded \u2018ceremonies which give or are designed to give the impression that our religion does not differ greatly from that of the papists.\u2019 \u2018True adiaphora<\/em> . . . are in and of themselves no worship of God or even a part of it.\u2019 Churches therefore should \u2018not condemn each other because of a difference in ceremonies, when in Christian liberty one uses fewer or more of them\u2019\u201d (185).<\/p>\n Note: If a ceremony gave the impression that Lutherans were tilting back to Rome, it was no longer adiaphoric.<\/p>\n On the other hand, \u201cthe Reformed wondered if Lutherans themselves actually meant what they said about adiaphora. <\/em>If certain liturgical practices really were as non-essential as they claimed, why, then, had they made them mandatory in the Mark? \u2018What has happened to the adiaphoron<\/em>?\u2019 \u2018Indifferent means\u2019 actually had come to be legalistic requirements. This not only distorted the Reformation\u2019s true evangelical heritage but jeopardized Christian freedom itself. Even worse, the seemingly unimportant liturgical practices retained by the Mark\u2019s Lutherans were far more dangerous than most people thought. What Lutherans still tolerated as \u2018adiaphora,\u2019 the Reformed viewed as \u2018papal\u2019 or \u2018superstitious ceremonies,\u2019 as \u2018Catholic idols,\u2019 \u2018relics of popery,\u2019 or \u2018anti-Christian insignia.\u2019 Summarized Fussel: \u2018Even though vestments, burning candles, and similar ceremonies are in and by themselves unimportant . . . they actually are not adiaphora<\/em> but anti-Christian abominations since they are the tools . . . of anti- Christ\u2019\u201d (186).<\/p>\n For the Lutherans, ceremonies could be inert or only mildly potent: Vestments might enhance worship, but their use would not have a large impact on the worshiper either way. For the Reformed, ceremonies were invariably powerful, whether for good or evil, both because they pleased or displeased God and because they might edify or mislead worshipers. Especially when ceremonies have a history<\/em>, they cannot be treated as neutral adornments. Such ceremonies almost function ex opere operato<\/em>: Whatever Lutherans might intend with their Popishness, the ceremonies have a life of their own and do<\/em> things to the church and its members.<\/p>\n I am not judging the rights and wrongs of the debate. But this vignette supports the claim that the Reformed attributed more<\/em> potency to liturgical ceremonies than Lutherans.<\/p>\n (Nischan, \u201cThe Second Reformation in Brandenburg: Aims and Goals\u201d, Sixteenth Century Journal<\/em> 14:2 [1983]: 173-87).<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Popular cliche is that Lutherans and Anglicans are high-church, Reformed lower. Lutherans and Anglicans are sacramentally-minded, Reformed less so. Lutherans and Anglicans take liturgy serious; Reformed do not. There\u2019s reason to think this isn\u2019t right. In fact, there are reasons to think that the opposite is the case. Consider the \u201csecond reformation\u201d struggles between Lutheran […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3021,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[104,1142],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18735","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-liturgy","category-reformation"],"yoast_head":"\n