In my last post I mentioned that there were a couple movements that have changed the way that people in the late twentieth century (and our current one) worship. Neither movement originated in Lutheranism. Consequently, they operate with their own distinct theology and address issues that Lutherans do not necessarily face. However, we Lutherans know that we often can learn from other Christians. The only stipulation is that we will be selective in what we accept and will look at everything through the lens of our confessions.
One of the main movements was the Liturgical Movement that came out of Rome. That movement does not make any sense unless one has an understanding of how Roman Catholics were conducting their masses around 1800. People went to mass, but rarely communed. Not only was the mass conducted in Latin, but there was nothing like Read Mass with the Priest (a bi-lingual missal for lay people to follow), as would become popular in the early twentieth century. Technically, it was not contrary to canon law to print them, but most bishops frowned on the idea. Preaching was poor or non-existent. There was catechesis for the youth and scholastic theology for the experts, but neither took place in the context of the mass. In addition, the rubrics were set by late Gothic tastes and its flair for the overly dramatic. In such a context, the liturgy was what the priest did and the people ignored; moreover, it seemed to have nothing to do with the theology of the church.
This began to change somewhat in the nineteenth century, as bi-lingual editions of the mass for the laity were printed and weekly communion was encouraged. The Liturgical Movement fostered further reforms. They devoted scholarly attention to the liturgy and discovered that Rome had not always had the same practices as in the Tridentine Rite (the Roman liturgy from the mid-16th to the mid 20th century). They encouraged people to at least follow along with the liturgy and, even better, to have the liturgy in their own language. They noted that earlier centuries had seen several people involved in the liturgy besides the priest—deacons, lectors, doorkeepers, to name a few—and they stressed that the liturgy was the work of the people instead of one man. They argued that the primary theology of the church was not to be found in the church’s catechisms or dogmatic textbooks, but in the liturgy. And they convinced many people with their arguments. By and large, Roman Catholics have been celebrating mass ever since the 1960’s in a way that the Liturgical Movement envisioned it.
Many Lutherans have admired the Liturgical Movement in the Roman Catholic Church, and it has affected many particular rubrics within Lutheran liturgies of the past four decades. Lutherans saw that Rome was at last agreeing with Lutherans when they began worshipping in languages other than Latin and when they removed some unnecessary clutter. They applauded when Rome began to emphasize the Scriptures in worship and to connect theology and catechesis with worship. It is no surprise, then, that many Lutherans adopted some of the other practices newly adopted by Rome: heavy involvement of the laity in worship; a 3-year cycle of readings instead of a 1-year cycle; a stress on liturgy as the people’s work (“everyone a minister” became a popular slogan); and the stress on the liturgy at the cost of “academic” theology.
But as I said at the beginning of this blog, the Liturgical Movement was addressing some concerns that Lutherans never had to face, and it was giving some answers that Lutherans could not accept. Even when the pastor conducted the entire liturgy, Lutherans had never been bystanders as Roman Catholics had been. Lutherans worshipped in their native language and were expected to participate by listening attentively and by joining in hymns and in various liturgical responses. (In the Roman Church those responses were spoken in Latin by acolytes, not by the people.) Moreover, preaching and liturgy in the Lutheran Church had never been separated from systematic theology, or vice versa. Pastors learned theology so that they could teach it in worship, and the Lutheran liturgy was seen as a tool for teaching sound Lutheran theology. But some (such as Aidan Kavanagh) in the Liturgical Movement envisioned an even deeper connection between worship and theology. They advocated that the liturgy be the source of the church’s doctrine, a notion that Lutherans cannot accept, since our doctrine comes from the Scriptures and is given form by the gospel, not by the liturgy. The Liturgical Movement was showing its Roman roots in deferring to a tradition (the liturgy) as a source of doctrine rather than making traditions conform to sound doctrine.
Without a doubt the Liturgical Movement gave Christianity the most serious scholarship of the liturgy since perhaps Carolingian times (ca. 800 A.D.). For that reason Lutherans will have to take it seriously and will thank it for its helpful analysis and suggestions. But since the Liturgical Movement came out of Rome and shares many of its presuppositions, we will have to take some of its conclusions with a grain of salt. We will have to imitate Martin Luther, who accepted much of the Roman Rite of his day, but altered whatever was an impediment to the gospel.
© 2010 James A. Kellerman
No comments:
Post a Comment