"I Can't Worship That Way..."

A rebuttal to a rebuttal of Lutheran worship

---

I recently overheard a spirited conversation in the university library between a tutor and their student, and they were discussing the Book of Acts. As it was not my intention to eavesdrop, I put my headphones on and continued with my research. But I caught the tutor’s thesis, which they attempted to defend to their student. Because I do not know which part of Acts they were discussing, nor the substance of their conversation, I cannot provide context or background. Nevertheless, their thesis was:

“I think this [context unknown] is reflected in ‘worship wars,’ where people who have been doing it a certain way for sixty years get offended when change is suggested; but I think we need to be open and willing to change *everything* if it means everyone can worship in their own way, because some people just can’t worship ‘like that.’” 

Again, in the spirit of abundant clarity, transparency, and fairness, I am unaware of the context or background of this conversation; and out of respect for their privacy, I diverted my attention from their conversation. Nevertheless, the tutor’s thesis is not particular to them, for this argument has been made against traditional, liturgical worship for quite some time. 

First, it must be noted that the worship wars about which the tutor spoke were, in our modern American Lutheran context, initiated by “church growth Lutherans,” who were generally influenced by the broader Evangelical Protestant movement. Before this, liturgical worship in the Lutheran Church remained largely unchanged and unequivocally uncontested. Lutherans largely accepted the supremacy and necessity of liturgical worship. Dissent was minimal, and it was met wherever it occurred with appeals to Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. C.F.W. Walther, for instance, demonstrates this wonderfully in the following essay in Der Lutheraner:

“Therefore, as we continue to hold and to restore our wonderful divine services in places where they have been forgotten, let us boldly confess that our worship forms do not unite us with the modern sects or with the Church of Rome; rather, they join us to the one, holy Christian church that is as old as the world and is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.”

(Der Lutheraner, translated from the July 19, 1853, issue, volume 9, number 24, page 163)

The individuals who have been “doing it a certain way” by and large adhere to the ancient Christian tradition. Perhaps generalization is unwarranted, but their “certain way” in this context is almost always traditional, liturgical worship. It follows the same pattern as those who came before us; it is the tradition handed down to us from generations past, originating with the Apostles, Church Fathers and Reformers.

It must also be noted that I have little concern for musical settings, minor corrections to language, or the continued use of novel hymnody. Divine Service III in the Lutheran Service Book (LSB), for example, certainly does not follow the musical pattern of the Church of the Reformation, no less the ancient Church. Yet its structure, pattern, and center are one and the same. Minor alterations to language, including the exclusion of dialectical peculiarities and the inclusion of recent hymnody, wherever they conform to the historic pattern of the Church, are likewise commendable when they are done to serve the purpose of the liturgy—“to teach the people what they need to know about Christ.”

Thus, it is important to consider the thesis’ actual claim: to change everything when it “helps” everyone worship Christ “in their own way.” This language is particular and unambiguous. Whereas minor alterations to the liturgy, without altering the structure, pattern, or theology of the liturgy, often serve their purposes in themselves, this claim rather advocates for the destruction of the liturgical structure altogether. Mere alterations are not enough; destruction, decimation, and reestablishment are necessary.

This thesis plainly advocates for the removal of “antiquated” hymns from the hymnal. Consider, then, the beautiful melodies of the Church, all of which beautifully and poetically witness to Christ and His suffering on the cross for our sins. They would be forgotten. Faithful and prolific hymnwriters like Paul Gerhardt, Paul Speratus, and the Latin Church Fathers would be abandoned. The anthems that have unified the one holy Christian and apostolic Church throughout time would be discarded. 

Liturgical worship would likewise be dispensed, for such practices often hinder true, authentic worship of the heart. And this is the heart of the tutor’s thesis; it not merely speaks of style, but rather of structure. The tutor was speaking of theology. It is not that minor alterations must be made for the spiritual welfare of the Church; rather, a complete inversion of the Church’s theology of worship must take place in order to accommodate the desires of the masses. “We must be okay with changing everything if it means people can worship in their own way.” For certainly we all must know better than the Church of old. Indeed, we are far more informed than those whose scholarship, study and love of Scripture, and incessant prayer and devotion to biblical worship laid the groundwork for the beautiful liturgical tradition that has been given to the Church.

This claim furthermore denigrates the sort of “evangelism” for which it apparently advocates. Burnell Eckhardt wrote an excellent piece concerning this very topic for Gottesdienst, but the point is simply that the desire to reach more people and make them feel comfortable in worship settings–hence, a brand of “evangelism”--deprives the Church of the Gospel’s glory and distances Christendom from its historic and apostolic roots. To this point, Eckardt writes:

For that was of course the very thing that was under attack by the evangelistic Gospel reductionists and their minions: the preaching of the Gospel. Who needs preachers, when every layman can do the same thing by personal “witnessing”? By their reckoning, every layman should do it: just tell everyone what He has done! It’s simple. All you need to do is tell your neighbors what Jesus means to you, how He lives in your heart, and how He is somehow now the guiding light in your life. Whether it’s a Gnostic or Docetic Jesus or the Jesus of history is irrelevant, for what matters is what happens in the heart. By this sleight of hand, centuries of battles over the biblical record and its eyewitness record of the Person of Jesus, leading to the ecumenical councils with their great creeds and confessions, are swept away. “Witnesses” are no longer eyewitnesses; hence, no need for eyewitnesses of the resurrection, and for that matter, ultimately no real need for the resurrection itself. This was always the ultimate diabolical push behind efforts to reduce the Gospel in its fullness.

–“How the Missouri Synod’s Brand of Evangelism Denigrates the Gospel,” in the Michaelmas 2024 issue of Gottesdienst, also uploaded to Gottesblog.

While the circumstances about which Eckardt writes are irrelevant to this article, his point nevertheless remains that opponents to the historic practices of the Church – be it the pastoral office and its traditional functions or the liturgical practices of authentic Christian worship – often serve the same end: reduction of the Gospel for the sake of the heart. Whereas the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod once advocated for “lay preachers” for the sake of “evangelism,” which in their timely estimation flowed primarily from the heart, so also many claim that worship practices must be changed entirely for the sake of “evangelism.” It is self-fulfilling and self-satisfying. It finds its meaning and fulfillment from the heart; its end is also its foundation.

This speaks clearly to the motive behind this novelty: everyone must be able to worship in their way because the chief concern must be the worshiper. In charity, it must be noted that this may not have been the intended implication of the tutor’s thesis, yet it demonstrates that this is nevertheless the underlying foundation of such a claim. Lesser concern is owed to Him whose love and mercy have drawn us to His side. The emphasis is taken from the One whose suffering and death guaranteed our salvation and is placed on those whose lovelessness and faithlessness necessitated our Lord’s suffering and death. We whose desires caused the fall into sin have been given a greater say than Him whose righteous and just commands were broken.

The perceived hindrance that traditional worship places on the worshiper is that it directs us away from ourselves, and places our attention on the One whose love and mercy calls us from the darkness of sin into His marvelous light. Many who “cannot worship that way” are often uncomfortable with the notion that worship is not merely an inner act, but a reception of God’s glorious Word and the life-giving Sacraments.

Traditional liturgical worship also necessitates a confrontation on the part of the worshiper with their guilt and sin. We must come before God in humility to confess our sins to Him. Thus, the reception of God’s Gospel and the Sacraments requires self-examination and confession. We must first present our sins so that we may receive the gifts of grace in Word and Sacrament. 

Thus, the historic liturgy and its pattern and structure of worship is based on Law and Gospel. It finds its foundation, lifeblood, and meaning in the Scriptures. It is patterned on the grace of God and molded by the love of Christ as administered in Word and Sacraments. Authentic Christian worship cannot be based on the desires of the heart. One must “worship that way” because it is the pattern and structure set forth in the Scriptures. It does not matter if one “can’t worship that way” because that very premise necessitates a focus apart from God’s means of grace. Let us instead gather around Word and Sacrament, and the scriptural pattern by which our worship is molded.