CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Volume 42 Number 3 JULY 1978 The Future of Confessional Lutheranism ........................ in the World Samuel Nafzger 221 Confessional Emphasis on Law and Gospel for Our Day ................... Eugene F. Klug 241 Christian Apologetics in the Light of the Lutheran Confessions. ... John Warwick Montgomery 258 A Survey of Protestant and Roman Catholic Confessional Statements in the Twentieth Century. ............... C. George Fry 276 Theological Observer ................................ 305 Books Received. .................................... 326 Theological Observer The recently proffered of the "Special Hymnal Review Cornmitt.&' (SHRC) indicates that further work is required to reach acceptable liturgical goals. On the one hand, every Page of the critique makes it clear that the members of the ComInit* do not like th new Luthemn Book of Worship (LBW). Yet the nature and scope. of th critique appear to indicate that evidently the Committee members believe that, even though the LBW ~JS not quite what we had in mind, it certainly is on the right track- and given a number of specific deletions and insertions the Lutheran Church -Missouri S od can and will have something very much like the LWB in short order! $%e reviewer assumes thst this is wht the Cornmi- members are saying, for the only obvious alternatives would have been for them to state clearly either that (1) the whole project must be junked (what has been produced is not at all what we have had in mind); or (2) we really do not like the LBW but given the material and financial investment, we have no alter- native but to make some superficial correctiom to a production which ie fundamentally unsound. Since the members of SHRC make neither of these statements, we must in charity assume that they are fundamentally in sym- pathy with the LBW. This writer remaina unimpressed by either the forthcoming LBW (in both the corrected and uncorrected vmiom) or the superficial and yet overly specific and detailed critique offered by the Review Committee. The foundation of a valuable and valid criticism of the LBW really ought to begin with an examination and evaluation of the destination sought and the goal proposed. What, after all, have our liturgical commiseions been up to all this time? Independent scholars and commissions in past ages proposed two rather clearly defined goals of new books of Lutheran worship: (1) to salvage and reclaim the heritage of a rich liturgical tradition in Evangelical Lutheranism, and (2) to present the congregations with reasonably workable documents for public worship and private devotion. (The Common Seruice Book of 1888, for in- stance, gives evidence of the thhking of those who "retrieved" our Common Service for us.) Until well into the seventeenth century, Lutheran Christianity seems to have understood herself to be standing within what might be called the "catholic" worship tradition. Excepting where the hds of Reformed influences were already evident, no narrow dogmaticism was permitted tn deprive Lutheran congregations of rich and meaningful worship forms, ceremonial, or hymnody. Lutheran theologians mnde no attempt to proscribe or prohiiit the singing of th Stabat Mater (so abhored by SHRC) or the Ladz Sion Sulvatorern (written by Thomas Aquinas for Corpus Christi Day). In point of fact, Lutheran theologians warmly commended these and other medieval and even post-Reformation hymns from non-Lutheran sources. An examhation of Calvoer's monumental Riftcalis Eccfesiastica (Jeaa, 1704) and older Lutheran hymnals from Germany and Scandinavia bear eloquent witness to a warmly catholic wangelica.bm. Nor did our theologian8 narrowly insist upon a specific biblical warrant for every poetic or ceremonial allusion, for they understood that only what mitigates, obliteratm, and obfuscates the tenor of Scrip- must be eliminated. The requirement of specific and particular biblical wanant for words and actions was well understood as a requirement peculiar to Reformed theologians, rulers, and congregations, and an evidence of Calvinistic chauvinism. Neither the compilers of the LB W nor the members of SHRC seem to share the Lutheran mentality of catboiic evmgekbm. In fact, thorn who think in such terms today might well expect to be analyd and diagnosed as euff- from an obscure and harmful syndrome which renders them theoiogidy 306 CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY impotent and evangelistically sterile. They clearly are not "with it" in an age in which being "with it" is everything. "Our people want something new and different!" is a statement heard with alarming frequency. It is difficult to escape the impression that what it means is "Our people don't know much about worship, and we are either 3-informed or disinclined to teach them-so let's give them what they want!" There has never-so we are being told-ever been a generation anything like our own since the dawn of creation. We use electricity; therefore, we must develop an electric worship. We live in a technological age; so let ue develop our worship techniques. We think dif- ferently and speak differently, and eertaidy we bahave differently from any previous age; so we must, of necessity, worship differently as well. We cannot so much as say the same prayere our fathers and their fathers said-at least not until we have managed to render them unrecognizable! Henry Ford put it succintly: "History is bunk!" Before a new and worthy book of worship can be produced, we must come to the clear realization that. our age negates the real significance of worship and the redeemed man as a worshipping creature. The purpose of worship is, after all, not to create moods or sacramentalize concerns, but to fear, love, and trust in God above all things else. The purpose of theology, David Hollazius put it two and half centuries ago, is to teach us how God in Christ is to be wor- shipped. At the same time, we must recognize both our debt to and our continuity with the past. It is precisely the contemporary abrupt break with the catholic past which has created such great confusion throughout the modem Christian world. The writer does not gainsay the need for a new and more comprehensive book of Christian worship. But before it can be produced, we will have to recognize that what is needed is not something completely new and in tune with the secular mentality. Nor do we require a comprehensive dogmatic theology in song and verse! We do need to rediscover and clean up our heritage, which is solidly liturgical, sacramental, and theologically sound. We need further a book of worship which is suitable for use in private and family devotions, for preparation for private or public absolution, for the remem- brance of Holy Baptism and the approach to the Table of the Lord. The Small Catechism and Augsburg Confession ought once again to be included, along with the occasional services in which the Congregation participates. We must begin with the first and second generation reformers (Luther, Chemnitz, Chytraeus) and move back to the great patristic authors whom they knew well enough to quote copio~~ly (Irenae~~, Basilmrs, Chrysostomus, Gregory), the Apostolic Fathers, and the Apostles themsehres. This would represent a return to (more than just the pad) a fuller understanding of the place of worship in the life of the Church. Who knows, even the Eucharistic Prayer may yet prove to be not altogether objectionable. What will be needed is study, education, effort, and a little wiUingness to h. Charles 3. Evanson