In the past number of years, we as a Church body have seen an ever increasing tension developing between those elements of our worship fellowship who appreciate and desire to retain traditional forms of liturgy for Sunday morning, and those elements who see liturgy as, at best, a gray area in our traditional and confessional lives and have been open to accepting what others would consider "profane fire" (Lev. 10:1) into the worship service. New forms of "liturgy", the introduction of Reformed hymns and Pentecostal "ditties" during the distribution of Holy Communion as simply "filler", an overly enthusiastic emphasis on spiritual gifts and moral lessons from the pulpit all have worked together to force a wedge in the unity that we as a worshiping fellowship have found irritating and somewhat difficult to diffuse.

Why are we suddenly, after one hundred and fifty years of right confessing and right practicing in the Missouri Synod, being literally torn apart from within our own body over the question of whether or not to accept new structures of worship? Is it such a problem that it needs to be addressed or can it be left simply to its own applications in order to seek out its own level of acceptance within our churches? Isn't the question truly one of adiaphora and better left to each individual congregation to deal with as it sees fit?

These concerns are what this paper will address. What we see happening today in our body of believers is an invasion of thoughts and beliefs which are not Lutheran or sacramental in nature, but rather oriented in human nature and incorporate the worship of man. This presentation will deal primarily with a general discussion of Pentecostal theology and the application of both Pentecostal (or Reformed) and Lutheran teachings in the area of worship and liturgy and the conclusions, or outward confessions, which can be drawn from their observance. The writings encountered on this topic are quite extensive but reflect a complete lack of respect on the part of the Pentecostals for what has gone before. Interestingly enough, the writings of the Lutheran theologians reflect a deeper sense of awe for what they see as simply recapturing what was once orthodox, and this will become very clear as the evidence unfolds.

Pentecostal practices and doctrines are quite varied and hard to pin down. The number of books available on the subject are numerous, but in accordance with their beliefs that "experience" is the epitome of their faith⁽¹⁾, detailed works involving systematic explanations of their practices are not readily found. "How-to" books are the general rule; how-to experience the Holy Spirit, how-to speak in tongues, how-to heal, and so on. Positive references are sometimes made to Pietists like Philipp Spener and Friedrich Schleirmacher, but without too much explanation as to how their teachings relate to modern day faith except as examples of pietistic living. There are some writers, however, who have joined the Pentecostal movement and at one time were trained in the science of theological expression and have tried to bring their training to bear on the issue of theologizing Pentecostal faith and practices.

One such writer, on the subject of liturgy, comments:

Liturgy is an outline for worship. . . questions of spontaneity and structure are caught up into the greater awareness that we are encountering the living God, and that he is in control.⁽²⁾

One might be hard pressed to find much to argue about in this quote, but when the brown paper wrapping is taken off of this type of statement and the essence of understanding is unveiled and meanings are put to such words as "structure", "encounter", and "awareness", it becomes quite evident why this line of thought and belief is in direct conflict with not only that of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, but also attacks the very roots of the early Christian Church and its faith.

As stated above, there is an air of disrespect which pervades the minds and hearts of those who speak and write on the modern liturgical thoughts and practices of today. The idea exists that the,

traditional worshiper is grasping at a form of worship that goes back only fifty or a hundred years. Even the roots of this limited history are lost. The original meanings are often totally lost. . . A ritual or symbol once dead cannot be authentically revived as it was.⁽³⁾

Traditional worship forms are considered to be the irrelevant influence of the past upon the more enlightened faith of the present. Historical worship is merely a lesson in the past and in the mind of the worshiper represents nothing more than nostalgia. An interesting observation can be made in the statement by Benson that current liturgical expression is "built on a support system which no longer exists."⁽⁴⁾ While he sees it as simply a change in historical expression, it is in all actuality a denial of the foundational teachings of God's Word, a denial which stems back to the time of the Reformation and the same aberrations of faith and practice Martin Luther and the Lutheran fathers had to deal with.

Perhaps it would be best at this juncture to take a look at the concept of "worship" in the minds of the Reformed and Pentecostal theologians. In reviewing their statements on the subject, we see an inordinate amount of emphasis upon human response (works) and the working of the Holy Spirit in a very subjective way. Ralph Martin of Fuller Theological Seminary defines worship as:

the dramatic celebration of God in his supreme worth in such a manner that his "worthiness" becomes the norm and inspiration of human living.⁽⁵⁾

While there is really nothing present in his statement that one would want to criticize, it is the absence of several key points that make his statement quite plain and lacking in substance.

That seems to be a universal problem among the Reformed. Worship has no place in current "reality", but rather is only a reflection of historical nostalgia, a remembrance of a past event, motivating one to live an exemplary life, using Jesus as a role model. How is one then to accomplish this? By the inner work of the Holy Spirit. Thus worship,

sums up and confirms ever afresh the process of saving history which has reached its culminating point in the intervention of Christ in human history, and through this summing-up and ever-repeated confirmation, Christ pursues His saving work by the operation of the Holy Spirit.⁽⁶⁾

The opinion, however, that the Word of proclamation merely points to the salvation in Christ's work which the hearer must follow to gain contact with the work of Christ, which is separated from us by space and time, and that he must find this contact beyond this Word and in an imperceptible sphere of Spirit, is foreign to the testimony of the New Testament message. The Reformed force themselves into a corner by separating the Word of proclamation from the work of the Spirit. The problem encountered, then, is "how" does this happen and what is the "evidence" of this separate operation?

The Pentecostal (or Charismatic view) also points to an inner operation of the Holy Spirit. A spokesman for the Pentecostal idea of worship is Larry Christianson who states that:

Worship is the experience of God. In worship, the Holy Spirit causes us to experience the presence of God in praise . . . and the power of God through prayer. For people who experience this kind of reality, worship becomes a way of life.⁽⁷⁾

What's the operative word here? Experience! Compared to the Reformed idea of worship, there doesn't appear to be a lot of difference in this statement and those previously encountered. The problem of the "how" has led to a more intense teaching of the Spirit's inner illumination of the individual resulting in the manifestation of the "gifts" of the Holy Spirit as the "evidence." The primary gift which Christianson and many, if not most, of the Pentecostal movement extol is that of speaking in tongues.

All of this leads one to question these teachings as to their objective stance. Everything having to do with objective doctrines of faith (fides quae creditur) seem to fall into discredit and are abrogated in favor of a total subjective faith (fides qua creditur) and experience. This subjective quality leaves outsiders in the dark.

Nowhere have we said what we essentially mean by "charismatic renewal." Is that surprising? The fact is, it must be experienced. A binding definition is not possible - each individual can only define it from his personal experience.⁽⁸⁾

Without the benefit of such an "experience", one is led to believe that he is not attaining to a proper level of "Christianity." This promotes the idea that one should desire more than what one already enjoys as a redeemed child of God and earnestly pray for an experience and the gifts which the Spirit has not as yet endowed. Richard Jensen states:

By meeting the conditions, by doing the more than is required, we can move from the realm of Christ to the realm of the Spirit. We can move from sin to holiness. We can move from justification to sanctification, from first faith to total faith, from water baptism to Spirit baptism.⁽⁹⁾

One is not called to live by grace alone but is specifically to live beyond the need for grace alone. We are called to live out of our own strength rather than out of the strength of God's gospel. Speaking in tongues in this system almost becomes a sign that we have moved beyond Christ and his grace to a higher and more advanced state.

The desire to do the more also fosters a spiritually unhealthy attitude toward God's creation by setting up a dualistic tension between that which is material and that which is spiritual in order to enhance a perverted belief in the transcendence of God:

Transcendence cannot remain a matter of mere faith or probability, but must be marked and signaled by the comparative degree, by a something more, an unequivocally identifiable "plus" calculated to drive a wedge between the sacred and the profane, between what is of God and what is of this earth.⁽¹⁰⁾

In our time, the urge to get free of this perceived ambiguity has come to reflect itself in the re-emergence of glossolalia which is simply a reintroduction of pagan dualism into Christian thought.

Such attitudes also lead to a legalistic view of the practice of gifts which becomes nothing short of Romanistic "work righteousness." Theodore Jungkuntz, a major character in Lutheran charismatic renewal, states that charismatic gifts are not merely options,

they are necessary manifestations simply because of God's command and promise, and active openness to them is our proper response.⁽¹¹⁾

It might be thought here that the Charismatic looks upon the gifts as any Christian might look upon good works as being the evidence, not the cause, of faith. Jungkuntz' statement, however, must be called into question because the gifts of the Spirit, unlike good works, are never commanded by God and no specific promises for the Christian are connected to them. If one does not possess them, however, according to the Charismatic, faith must be called into question or "steps should be taken to rectify the matter."⁽¹²⁾ This is nothing short of legalism and a religion of man and leading to salvation by works.

Where, then, does all this lead? The Pentecostal or Charismatic believes that all of this is leading to a higher plane of spirituality, or perfection, which is a prime teaching of the Arminian church bodies and has spread throughout the Reformed, Catholic and Lutheran denominations. It is indeed that attaining to a position where grace is no longer the prime focus, but works. William Hordern sums it up this way,

The person who strives to achieve a deeper, more vivid feeling of faith is, as Luther sees it, as much engaged in finding salvation within the self as the person who performs a number of outward works to attain salvation. In short, the reliance on one's feelings to give assurance of salvation is just another way of putting the self, instead of God, at the center.⁽¹³⁾

He also states that, "where religious experience becomes the center of attention, it is easy to fall into a work-righteousness in which one gets those experiences of God which are earned or deserved."⁽¹⁴⁾ Again, works are central, not grace. There is generated also from this type of practice and false teaching an attitude of spiritual pride. Pieper comments,

Another very repulsive concomitant of the Reformed false teaching is spiritual pride. Because of those who harbor the conception of an activity of the Holy Ghost apart from the means of grace are dealing with an illusory, man-made quantity, they regard themselves . . . as the truly spiritual people and first-class Christians, while they consider those, who in simple faith abide by the divinely appointed means of grace, "intellectuals", having a mere Christianity of the head, second-rate Christians.⁽¹⁵⁾

The Scripture knows no "level" of Christian faith or salvation. No one has ever been "half saved" or "almost saved" based on the achievements of experiences or works. To the Lutheran, faith "comes by hearing, not by experiences, even successful ones, which put the burden of proof upon the person. . . faith is hope, not a possession."⁽¹⁶⁾ Neither does the Scripture teach that individuals should look for the operation of the Holy Spirit in the heart and life of mankind outside of the appointed means of grace.

This is where the rub comes. This is the crux of the entire question of who God in Christ Jesus is and how we are expected to worship Him. Is worship a work on the part of man? With their emphasis on experience and the immediate operation, that is without means, of the Holy Spirit, the Pentecostals find themselves forced into a doctrine of good works because, according to Pieper, "there is no such immediate operation and man is therefore left to his own efforts, which he then mistakenly regards as the product of the Holy Ghost."⁽¹⁷⁾ Pentecostal worship theology is highly anthropological, centering in the experiences and actions of individuals and not on God in Jesus Christ. This is because the very means by which Jesus imparts the Holy Spirit are denied. In short, it is a religion of man. As Pieper states,

If we abandon the divinely appointed means of grace and look for an immediate inner illumination and operation of grace, Christianity is converted into unstable subjectivism. Instead of planting man firmly on the immovable rock of the Word of God, we teach him to rely on himself . . . we direct him to commune with himself and his own thoughts, moods, and endeavors.⁽¹⁸⁾

True Christian thought calls into suspicion any analysis of feelings or experiences for the assurance of faith. One is to seek knowledge of God at the source, the means of grace, not one's experiences. The Christian's aim is to find out what God is doing through His Word and the Sacraments, not how we are feeling.

The absence of the means of grace in Reformed and Pentecostal theology has led to a void which needs filling, that being the necessity of assuring individuals of their salvation. This has led to seeing the gifts as the "evidence" for such assurance. This of course is like someone securing their faith on their wealth or their health for their salvation; making faith the foundation of faith. This is quite absurd and Roman Catholic and leads to this observation by Pieper;

Both theologies [Reformed and "experience"] further deny that saving grace is generated solely through the means of grace and has the means as its object (the thing believed). Both therefore are standing on Roman ground in soteriology, that is, they both agree in this, that man must become sure of his being in grace by reflection on his subjective state, on his experiences, his renewed and God-pleasing life, etc.⁽¹⁹⁾

This is not the assurance of faith we see reflected in Holy Scripture. God's Word teaches that faith comes from hearing that Word (Ro. 10:17) and not by some supposed inward revelation of God's Holy Spirit. Carter Lindberg observes,

But the Holy Spirit is not given except in, with and by faith in Jesus Christ . . . Faith, moreover, comes only through God's Word or gospel which preaches Christ, saying that He is God's Son and a man, and has died and risen again for our sakes.⁽²⁰⁾

It is the Gospel of Jesus Christ which works and sustains faith in the heart of man. It is in the Word that man is confronted with his sin, sin which condemns him before a just God. It is also, according to Martin Luther, that gospel which is "a declaration of the love and forgiveness of God - of what God has done for us."⁽²¹⁾

In the Roman Catholic and Pentecostal theologies, there is a preoccupation of what we are doing for God. According to the Lutheran Confessions, "we must constantly maintain that God will not deal with us except through His external Word and sacrament. Whatever is attributed to the Spirit apart from such Word and sacrament is of the devil." [S.A. III, VII, 10] These are strong words in such a pluralistic society as ours today, but they are words which ring of biblical truth, no matter what the century, because God's Word will not stand for being changed and edited because man's taste in social attitudes mutate. In the Word and Sacrament, therefore, we are confronted with the good news of justification. It would be expected, then, that liturgical forms should be concerned to convey this. If they contradict it, then there is a conceptual problem, one which nips at the heels of a goodly number of our worship fellowships today.

Why should there be such an intense focus on liturgical structure? Why the emphasis on "right worship?" As stated in the beginning of this paper, there is a flow of thought which courses through our structures that an individual congregation uses when it gathers to worship; one which projects a confession, both to the world and the members of that body. A quote from Der Gottesdienst an Sonn - und Feiertagen states,

There is no area in the life of the church where the formative power of the confession is more clearly evident than the order of worship. It is not only significant that certain creeds form part of the liturgy but the whole liturgy represents an actualized confession. Liturgy is dogma prayed and confessed. The dogmatical decisions of the church become concrete in her liturgy and in this way have caused divisions as well as mergers in the church.⁽²²⁾

Luther and the Confessions of the Lutheran Church reflect this particular understanding of liturgy. It is true that Luther classed liturgical ceremonies as things indifferent (adiaphora), but this did not mean that he himself was indifferent to liturgy and its different forms.⁽²³⁾ Luther, as well as the early Christian Church, desired that one thing be emphasized and brought to the fore in Christian worship; the fact that man has been justified before God on account of the merits of his Son Jesus Christ and it is in worship that we continue to receive His gifts for the strengthening of faith.

There are different Holiness bodies and Pentecostal organizations that have spoken out and claimed their particular style of worship or faith to be a duplication of that of the early Church. Many claim that early worship consisted of Bible study groups and that worship structures were not formulated until the apostate church of Constantine took control. These claims are easy to make where church history is not something that's well known. This would include, of course, most of the general public, if not a goodly number of Seminary students. The claim, however, is false and a simple reading in any work dealing with liturgical history will show quite plainly that the early Christian Church did not enter into worship ignorant or devoid of liturgical structures. Peter Brunner writes,

In I Corinthians 14, Paul teaches that, by reason of its relationship to the congregation, the Word in worship is subject to very special conditions of form.⁽²⁴⁾

From this, one can rightly judge along with Luther that the one controlling principle in every liturgical application is the centralization of and the approach to the Word.⁽²⁵⁾ To insist that primitive Christian worshipers could not have grasped this "highly developed" relationship between Word and worship is insulting to the Spirit's working among His people in the personage of His Apostles.

There are many scholars who advance the idea that, in the mind of the early Christian, worship was not something new, but simply a continuation of that which they had experienced in the rituals of the synagogue. This would seem to speak against the idea that "charismatic" spontenanity was a characteristic of early Christian worship and lead one particular scholar to write,

It should be noted here in passing that the confirmation of this structural dependence of Christian upon Hebrew worship destroys the argument of those who are inclined to deny the existence of any "order" whatever in the early church. The opinion has been held that early Christian worship was "charismatic" by nature and had a sort of ecstatic, fluid character which excluded the possibility of any fixed structure . . ."⁽²⁶⁾

Pentecostal philosophy contends that anything having to do with "rule" in some way weakens the power of the Holy Spirit's working in the worship setting. Such scholars as Alexander Schmemann, however, have quite ably shown that early forms of worship did not exclude "rule" and that there was a general sense of liturgical structure.

And what was the goal of such structure? To allow the Word to work freely, unhindered by the subjective feelings of those it was there to strengthen. The Word of God is the objective revelation of His plan of salvation. It isn't hidden in some subjective anthropological philosophy of inner illumination, rather it is revealed and made plain in the very flesh of God himself, Jesus Christ. It is this Jesus who is the focus of Christian worship. It was this Jesus whom the early Church came to participate in. "They celebrated the 'breaking of the bread' in various homes suitable for the purpose in which there was a large dining room - for the meal was the principal object of the gathering."⁽²⁷⁾ Interestingly, we see here in the early Christian understanding of worship that it was not primarily a work for God, but a work of God in the giving of himself in the meal. More on this concept will be addressed later.

Luther too saw a need for a liturgical "form" which would provide a framework for the proclamation of the Gospel and administering of the Sacraments.⁽²⁸⁾ At the time of his liturgical reform, he did not have at hand all the wonderful "finds" from early Church history which we have today. Luther was forced to make his decisions regarding what made good liturgical structure on the basis of his theology, which we all know, was justification by grace through faith.

One could also say that righteousness is the continual subject of Luther's preaching, that is, the righteousness which Christ obtained and . . . offers to men through the preaching of the Word.⁽²⁹⁾

Even in a letter to Staupitz, Luther once stated that he thought that "men should trust in nothing save Jesus only, and not in their own prayers, or merits, or works, for we will not be saved by our own exertions but by the mercies of God."⁽³⁰⁾ This was the driving force behind Luther's view of what liturgy should reflect.

This theology affected his anthropology also. Man was never the creature who possessed the infused grace of the Romanists and was made able to effect salvation through good works. Neither did man become the creature of the Enthusiasts; perfected and holy through an inner illumination of the Holy Spirit. According to a good biblical exegesis of the book of Romans, Luther found man to be truly depraved, unable to effect any spiritual good, and fully dependent on a loving God to work all that needed working on his behalf. To know Christ, then, meant to renounce the desire to be anything other than a sinner, "for Christ dwells only among sinners."⁽³¹⁾ Because of this view of man and the evidence of God's comfort in taking on mortal flesh, Luther never questioned the idea that the "experience of God in and under the conditions of worldly reality"⁽³²⁾ corresponded to the Incarnation itself.

One will search in vain in Pentecostal or charismatic literature for the type of anthropological analysis expressed by Luther. Instead, one will find the teaching that mankind is self-perfectible. One might paraphrase this teaching by saying that "the potential for self-realization lies within the person awaiting the various processes for actualization which are popular in our day."⁽³³⁾ This type of teaching sets up a dualistic notion between spirit and flesh (inner and outer man) and results in a separation of sanctification from justification and defines the former in terms of what has been observed previously, advanced spiritual experience.

Lutherans believe that Scripture is very plain in its presentation of the Christian as both a sinner and a new creation in Christ (Ro. 7). The false doctrine which leads one to think that self-perfection through sanctified worship or living destroys the tension which exists between the person as imago Dei and sinner. "In Luther's terminology this is the collapse of the person as simul iustus et pecator into the person as partim iustus, partim peccator for whom sin is being displaced by righteousness."⁽³⁴⁾ This is a theology of progressive sanctification which introduces a third use of the law in place of the dialectic Law and Gospel and emphasizes the growth of the individual over the community. Such faith is, as Luther describes, incurvatus in se, curved in on one's self and reflects in one's idea of worship.

The Reformed and Pentecostal bodies, because of their dualistic tendencies toward creation, deny the efficacy of the means of grace. Attached to this also are their false teachings on the person of Christ. Just as the Romanists err in localizing Christ in the elements, the Pentecostals err by localizing Him to spatial heaven.⁽³⁵⁾ Vilmos Vajta further states regarding the Enthusiasts of Luther's day,

Nor could they see the relation between the earthly elements and Christ glorified . . . Again it was their picture of creation - or rather the lack of it - that prevented them from accepting the presence of Christ in the elements. Theirs was a deistic notion of a god enthroned in lonely majesty, far removed from his creation. This unbiblical idea perverted their Christology. To Luther the real presence was a corollary of the Incarnation . . . but the deism of the Enthusiasts allowed no other presence of Christ than the mental process of remembering him.⁽³⁶⁾

In their denial of the presence of Christ and His Holy Spirit in the sacraments, the Pentecostals seek to obtain the Holy Spirit on their own. They fail to understand that it is the Holy Spirit that "bridges the chasm between the past works of God and men living today, for men cannot appropriate the works of God by their own reason or strength."⁽³⁷⁾ It is here that the spiritualism of the Pentecostals fail. They would replace the function of the Holy Spirit by the works of man and his "inner light."

Lutherans, however, trust what God has instituted and commanded - baptism, absolution, and preaching the Gospel. Luther maintains the sovereignty of the Spirit to act when and where He wills. Therefore, when Luther emphasized the relationship of Spirit to Word and Sacrament, he is not thinking of any inner metaphysical connection which would lead to ex opera operato perspectives. Rather, Word and sacrament are the sign of revelation. "God's majestic presence is veiled for our protection under the humanity of Christ . . . God's presence under the veil of outward things such as the Incarnation and Word and sacrament reveals God as He who is for us in Christ."⁽³⁸⁾ In the Supper, Christ is himself present and coming to man. There is no need for the flight of religious fantasy by which man would leap the alleged gap between heaven and earth through inner spiritual revelation.

Lutherans can also speak of the certum signum. The activity of the Spirit through these signs is certain and public. This is in direct contrast to the uncertainty of human speculation and experiences which are always ambiguous and hidden. Eric Gritsch and Robert Jensen write,

Lutheran Sacramentology moves within the dialectic of "promise" and "faith": God made His Word of promise visible in specific rites, and man participates in these rites by faith alone, without the condition of human merit.⁽³⁹⁾

The Pentecostal faith cannot grab hold of this certainty, for it is one of ambiguity and uncertainty; hidden away in one's subjective experiences and questionable as to its completeness, for progressive improvement is a must for one's continuing relationship with God.

And so, the Christian's posture towards worship is not one of an obligation that he present his works to God, but that he be eager to accept that which God has to offer. Vajta again writes,

On the other hand, faith is infinitely more than worship spiritualized. It cannot be confined to the "inner" life of man for it depends on the "outward" means of grace. True and false worship are distinguished, not by their respective degree of "inwardness", but by their relation to the work of God.⁽⁴⁰⁾

Luther was very cognizant of the relationship between worship and liturgy and the work of God. He became convinced that we can never have an assurance of salvation from looking at ourselves and our works. We must look to what God has done and is doing for us. Assurance thus comes, not from looking at our works, but from looking at God's works.

And God's works for us are presented in Word and Sacrament. "These great and mysterious realities define, constitute, and shape the whole nature of Christian worship."⁽⁴¹⁾ The desire to receive God's gift, the forgiveness of sins, is, as the confessions declare, the highest way of worshiping Christ [AP IV, 154]. "Thus worship does not become an act performed by us, but a gift placed in our lap, which we may take into our hands and use as our doing."⁽⁴²⁾ This, according to Luther and the theologians, becomes our sacrifice of worship, our service to God, to simply receive from his abundance apart from any worth we may see in our accounts. Again, in Article IV of the Apology we read,

This is how God wants to be known and worshiped, that we accept his blessings and receive them because of his mercy rather than because of our own merits. This is the greatest consolation in all afflictions and our opponents take it away when they despise and disparage faith and teach men to deal with God only by works and merits.⁽⁴³⁾

God wants us to believe him and to accept blessings from him. This he declares to be true worship.

The opposite side of the worship coin, so to speak, is that fulfilling of the law we as God's children communicate to him with our gifts of love. This is the response God's gifts arouse. Bryan Spinks writes,

Luther charged the Roman Church with having made the mass a sacrificium directed towards God, whereas the Gospel sacrament is a divine beneficium directed towards humanity, and our offering of praise and life can only be a response to God's gift.⁽⁴⁴⁾

We must agree in part with those who complain about the coldness of faith reflected in many churches today; but we do not blame God's gifts for this lack of response on the part of some individuals, but rather our old man must bear the blame. Those gifts which God offers are not rendered questionable by our condition; but our approach to God is questionable from the beginning. Peter Brunner writes,

The congregation's service before God becomes real by reason of the fact that God himself presents the congregation with the act of service as his gift. If God does not arouse us to His service through the Holy Spirit, all that we do in worship remains dead.⁽⁴⁵⁾

All participants in worship are compelled to concede that their worship is constantly endangered by their old carnal essence. This shows even more clearly that worship becomes possible only as an act of the new obedience imparted by the Holy Spirit, not by one's own effort found in a spiritual experience outside of the gifts which God brings to us in the means of grace. "First and last, God alone makes worship a possibility: the gift of God evokes man's devotion to God."⁽⁴⁶⁾

Our Lutheran liturgy reflects this idea of God coming to us with gifts, gifts which are objective in their communication and certain in their efficacy. It also provides us with times within the worship service to bring our gifts before God in thanks for the many things he has done and continues to do through His presence in our lives. Our Lutheran hymnody - not our hymnal's collection of hymns - but the hymns of the Lutheran faith down through the centuries, has always reflected the proper balance between objective faith and subjective response. In total, they seek to draw attention and direct us to the Gift which God has given and continues to give; His Son Jesus Christ. It reflects the truth of the eschatological reality we all participate in at the Table; the marriage feast of the Lamb. Such wonderful reflections should not be scorned and trampled underfoot as mere symbols or signs of that which Christ has already done, nor should they be tainted with the emptiness and self-serving images of the world. To do so is to draw one's attention away from what we truly worship and place focus on the novelty or creativity of man's works.

Even within the ranks of the Pentecostals and Reformed, there is, and possibly always has been, a remnant which craves for something more than what is currently possessed in the way of liturgical practice. Sadly, the answers they continually come up with miss the mark for they continue to deny the substance of faith which they search for within their worship, the true sacramental presence of Jesus. To fill the void which they feel, they insist on new creative ways of worship, ways which will stimulate and impress. One such writer, in regard to highly paid ministers of music and hired choirs, states, "If worship is a showcase to impress God, why not put the best up front?"⁽⁴⁷⁾ In reply, we hear Luther,

Now if you want to engage in a marvelous, great worship of God and honor Christ's passion rightly, then remember and participate in the sacrament. In it, as you hear, there is a remembrance of him, that is, he is praised and glorified.⁽⁴⁸⁾

When man attempts to worship God by impressing Him with what he has done or can do, he has departed from the biblical concept of true worship. Unfortunately, such liturgical structures are also slowly finding acceptance in our fellowship today.⁽⁴⁹⁾

What is the answer? While I am not an expert in such matters, it only seems reasonable that our congregations might simply not understand the role that liturgy plays in our sacramental worship. Chatechesis, both of those entering the church for the first time, as well as our children, and ongoing reminders throughout the church year for long time members might be very conducive to a healthy appreciation of what we do and why we do it. At the same time, sacramental preaching is a necessary element in stimulating a right attitude of worship on the part of our people. It has been stated that,

using outward form and aesthetic appeal as excuse or cosmetic for vapid, incompetent, dogmatically wobbly preaching is an empty parody; it is mere ritualism. Good, sound, solid preaching is by far the most important and the most demanding task of the ministerial office.⁽⁵⁰⁾

This demands not only appreciation for that which has gone before in the form of liturgical theology and its accompanying traditions, but also a Christian love and understanding for those who haven't had the good fortune of seeing it all from the perspective of the person who has studied it and seen its blessings in action. Education is primary, and patience and love are those gifts we seek from God as we endeavor to share His entire counsel with our fellow redeemed.

Benson, Dennis C. Electric Liturgy. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1972.

Brunner, Peter. Worship in the Name of Jesus: Englis Edition of a Definitive Work on Christian Worship in the Congregation. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1968.

Christianson, Larry. Welcome Holy Spirit: A Study of Charismatic Renewal in the Church. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1987.

Creative Worship for the Lutheran Parish. 3 vols. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1988-90.

Die Ordnung des Gottesdienstes an Sonn - und Feiertagen. Der Gottesdienst an Sonn - und Feiertagen. Guetersloh: 1949.

Gritsch, Eric W. and Robert W. Jensen. Lutheranism: The Theological Movement and Its Confessional Writings. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.

Hordern, William. Experience and Faith: The Significance of Luther for Understanding Today's Experiential Religion. Minneapolis: Augburg Publishing House, 1983.

Jungmann, Josef A. The Early Liturgy: To the Time of Gregory the Great. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1959.

Lindberg, Carter. The Third Reformation? : Charismatic Movements and the Lutheran Tradition. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1983.

Luther, Martin. Luther's Works, Vol 38. ed. Martin Lehmann. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.

Martin, Ralph P. The Worship of God: Some Theological, Pastoral, and Practical Reflections. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982.

Phifer, Kenneth G. A Protestant Case for Liturgical Renewal. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1965.

Pieper, Franz. Christian Dogmatics, Vol. 3. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950-57.

Schmemann, Alexander. Introduction to Liturgical Theology. London: The Free Press LTD, 1966.

Sherrill, John L. They Speak in Other Tongues. New York: Mc Graw-Hill Book Co., 1964.

Spinks, Bryan. Luther's Liturgical Criteria and His Reform of the Canon of the Mass. Bramcote, Notts. [England]: Grove Books, 1982.

Vajta, Vilmos. Luther on Worship: An Interpretation. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1958.

von Allmen, Jean-Jacques. Worship, Its Theology and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965.

1. Carter Lindberg, The Third Reformation? (Macon, Ga.:Mercer University Press, 1983), 220.

2. Larry Christianson, Welcome Holy Spirit (Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1987), 318.

3. Dennis C. Benson, Electric Liturgy (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1972), 13-14.

4. Ibid., 9.

5. Ralph P. Martin, The Worship of God (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. House, 1982), 4.

6. Jean-Jaques von Allmen, Worship: Its Theology and Practice (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965), 33.

7. Christianson, 324.

8. Lindberg, 26.

9. Ibid., 262.

10. Roy A. Harrisville, Speaking in Tongues - Proof of Transcendence? Dialog 13, no. 1 (1974): 17.

11. Lindberg, 232.

12. Ibid., 225.

13. William Hordern, Experience and Faith: The Significance of Luther for Understanding Today's Experiential Religion (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1983), 72.

14. Ibid., 34.

15. Franz Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, Vol.3 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950-57), 162.

16. Lindberg, 264.

17. Pieper, 182.

18. Pieper, 156.

19. Pieper, 177.

20. Lindberg, 49.

21. Bryan Spinks, Luther's Liturgical Criteria and His Reform of the Canon of the Mass (Bramcote, Notts. [England] : Grove Books, 1982), 31.

22. Die Ordnung des Gottesdienstes an Sonn - und Feiertagen, Der Gottesdienst an Sonn - und Feiertagen (Guetersloh: 1949), 10.

23. Spinks, 22.

24. Peter Brunner, Worship in the Name of Jesus (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1968), 264.

25. Martin Luther, Works of Martin Luther, Vol. 6 (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1932), 13.

26. Alexander Schmemann, Introduction to Liturgical Theology (London: The Faith Press LTD., 1966), 45

27. Josef A. Jungmann, The Early Liturgy: to the Time of Gregory the Great (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1959), 13.

28. Spinks, 22.

29. Ibid., 15.

30. Lindberg, 28.

31. Ibid., 297.

32. Ibid., 269.

33. Ibid., 280.

34. Ibid., 283.

35. Vilmos Vajta, Luther on Worship: an Interpretation (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1958), 97.

36. Ibid., 97.

37. Ibid., 70.

38. Lindberg, 295.

39. Eric Gritsch and Robert Jensen, Lutheranism: The Theological Movement and Its Confessional Writings (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), 5.

40. Vajta, 128.

41. Kurt Marquart, Liturgical Commonplaces, Concordia Theological Quarterly 42, no. 4 (1978), 334.

42. Brunner, 199-200.

43. AP IV, 60.

44. Spinks, 15.

45. Brunner, 197.

46. James F. White, Introduction to Christian Worship (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1980), 18.

47. Benson, 13-14.

48. Martin Luther, Luther's Works, Vol. 38, ed. Martin Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 106.

49. Creative Worship for the Lutheran Parish, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1988-90).