concordia university | nebraska's nationally-ranked...
TRANSCRIPT
The Missouri Synod andthe Inter-Lutheran Commission 0n Worship
D. Richard Sfuckwisch
or the Luthcran Church-Missouri Synod, the birth ofthe Lutheran Book of Wor.ship twenty-five years agowas something of a miscarriage. The harsher interpre-
tation has been that it was really more of an abortion: thatthe Synod intcntionally kil led the off.spring of its own de-cisions and actions. Either way, the silver anniversary ofthe book inevitably recalls the decision to decline accep-
tance of it as an official service book and hymnal and, in-stead, to embark upon a revision that was published asLutheran Worship in l 982.
The lines ol'the story are relativcly clear and simple. In
1965, the Missouri Synod had invited the other Lutheranchurches of North America to coopcrate in the develop-mcnt of l i turgical and hymnological resources, in the hopc
that such resources might then be shared and used in com-mon by all of the participating churches. This invitation
led to the formation of the Inter-Lutherirn Commission onWorship in 1966-67. Along with the Missouri Synod, mem-ber churches of the Commission included most prominentlythe Amcrican Lutheran Church and the Luthcran Churchin Arnerica. A decade after its lbrmation. the Commissionsubmitted its finalized proposal fbr the LLttlrcran Book ofWorship to each of the member churches lbr oflicial ap-proval and publication. By that t ime, however, theologicaland polit ical upheavals within the Missouri Synod had ledthat church to question its relationship with the otherLutheran churches in general, including its involvenrent inthe Inter-Lutheran Commission on Worship in particular.As a result, in l91l the Synod chose not to approve the
worship book unti l a closer examination of its contentscould be undertaken. By the time the book was published
in the fall of 1978, the Synod had eff 'ectively removed it-self from the process and had already begun the prepara-
tion and development of a "revised" Lutheran Book ofWorship for the use of its congregations.
Belying this fairly straightforward history, the MissouriSynod involvement in the Inter-Lutheran Commission onWorship was actually a tragicomedy of errors. From theway it began, to the way it ended, and in the wary it pro-
gressed, the relationship was constantly troubled by iro-
nies and disappointmcnts, by frustrating obstaclcs and set-
backs. It is a wonder that anything good came out of the
venture at all; though one must acknowledge that bothLutheran Book of Worship and Lutheron Worship have
contributed to the l iturgical l i fe and worship of NorthAmcrican Lutherans. Thc most compelling qucstion is,
Why did there end up being two books instcad of one?
The End of Missouri's InvolvementWhen the Missouri Synod withdrew itself from the con-
certed effort of the Inter-Lutheran Conrmission on Wor-ship, it was thulted especially fbr abandoning a projcct that
it had ostcnsibly init iated. There wgrc at least a few indi-
viduals, however, who knew somewhat better thc more
complex origins of thc Commission. Edgar Brown andHenry Horn hinted on occasion that others from outside of
the Synod (including Brown and Horn, both of the LCA)had been a n.rajor impetus toward what became the Inter-
Lutheran Commission on Worship. These suggestions werc-
taken up and explored by Timothy Quill in his book ?"heImpact of the Liturgical Movement on Americun Luther-anism (1997). Quil l uncovered some archival evidence
suggesting that Missouri 's worship commission had co-vertly negotiated an arrangement with worship leaders ofthe ALC and LCA, and then orchestrated the synodical
rcsolution (13-01) at the Convention in 1965 that calledfor a cooperative effbrt with the other Lutheran churches.
I have had opportunity to pursue the leads off-ered byBrown, Horn, and Quill in the course of doing research for
my doctoral dissertation at the University of Notre Dame.With extensive archival research, and with access to mul-
tiple sources of additional evidence, the story of the begin-
ning of the Inter-Lutheran Commission on Worship has
become clearer. It is also clear that the role of the Missouri
Synod in those early developments was more ambiguousthan anyone has heretofore supposed. The ambiguity per-
sisted throughout the ensuing decadc of the Comrnission's
LUTHTRAN I -ORUM 43
work; so that, in retrospect, the unfortunate parting of theMissouri Synod from the Commission appears to be a logi-
cal consequence of a tenuous relationship.
There has never been any lack of opinions concerning
Missouri 's withdrawal from the Inter-Lutheran Commis-
sion on Worship and its rejcction of the Lutheran Book of
Wor.ship. There were many people who were pleased to
see an end to its involvement in the pan-Lutheran enter-
prise. Most of these people, apparently, had no qualms about
the way in which that outcome was achieved. On the other
side, those who were committed in principle and practice
to the goals and contributions of the C-'onrnrission were little
intcrcsted in any of the crit icisms that had been raised
against the Luthercm Bookof Worship.There was aclearly
partisan spirit on both sides, each convinced of its own
wisdom and integrity. It was not a situation conducive to
open discussion and objective debate. The Missouri Synod
was deeply and emotionally divided on this issue, as on
other issues pcrtaining to thc Synod's relationship with the
other churches.
On the part of those who supported thc Inter-Lutheran
Commission on Worship and advocated the adoption o1'
the Lutheran Book <l' Wrshilt, it seemed obvious that the
contrary decisions ol' the 19'11 Convention rvere an i l le-
git inrate termination of the Synod's own project. It seemed
erqually clear and offensivc, that such decisions had been
achieved by political nrachinations. Furthennore, and muchto the consternation of those who were eager firr closer
ties with the ALC and LCA, it was apparent that these de-
cisions and actions were driven more by concerns for f'cl-
lowship than by -eenuine concerns for liturgy and hymnody.
It is interesting how similar were the circumstances of
Missouri's separation liom the Inter-Lutheran Commissionon Worship (1917) to the origins of its resolution (1965)
that led to the formation of the Commission. In each case,
action was taken by the Synod in Convention, by way ofits normal polit ical processes. Sr.rch polit ical action was
preceded by a good deal of politicking and propaganda,
both public and private-probably less so in 1917 than in
1965. The polit icking and propaganda achieved its de-sired results in the fbrrn of numerous overtures from thc
constituency of the Synod, which could not be ignored.The pertinent f loor committee of the Convention in each
case was inclined to follow the direction indicated by themany overtures. As it so happened, the rnajority opinion
of the Synod as expressed by the vote of the Conventionwent against the position of its worship commission.
In 1965 Missouri 's worship commission had voiced its
reluctance to enter into a pan-Lutheran hymnal project at
that time, but the Synod voted nonetheless to go that route.ln l9l7 the worship commission expressed its strong and
unanimous endorsement of the Lutheran Bookof Worship,
but the Synod said, No. we're not ready to accept the book,
because there are sti l l unresolved questions and concerns
about it. In each case, the Synod in Convention excrcised
its prerogative not to follow the recommendation of its
worship commission. One cannot applaud the decision of
the 196-5 Convention and at the same time criticize the 1917
Convention fbr wielding such authority.
It must also be said that in spite of thc obvious differ-
ences between the synodical actions of 1965 and 1977,
concerns fbr f-ellowship were an overriding fhctor in each
case-as they werc, in lact, throughout the history of the
Inter-Lutheran Commission on Worship! It is disingenu-
ous to decry those concerns of Missouri in l9ll as though
they werc irrelevant or out of placc with respect to the in-
tentions and ef'forts of the Commission. In fact. "fcllow-
ship concerns" (of a dif l 'crent mind. to be surc) were a
primary motivation for the fbrmation of the Commission
in the first place. Some have gone so far as to hold that
there is no other reason for such a cooperative hymnal
project than for the purpose of bringing the churchcs in-
volved into closer fcllowship with cach other, if not into
union or mcrger . (Consider the conrments of Phi l ip
Pfatteichcr, "Still To Be Tried" in LursrnnN Fonult (Nov.
1993) on the fifteenth anniversary ol'the Lutheran Book of
Worship.') The history of Lutheran service books and hym-
nals in this country demonstrates thc plausibil i ty of such
expcctations, in l ight of the f 'act that such books have pre-
ccded every major church merger among Luthcrans in
North America. (The Comrnon Sen,ice Book of l9l8 pre-
ceded the formation of the United Lutheran Church in
Americzr; the Service Book and Hymnal of l95ti preceded
the formation of both the ALC and thc LCA; and thc
Lutlteron Book of Worship preceded the tbrmation of the
Evangclical Lutheran Church in America.)
For the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, thc implica-
tions of a shared service book and hynrnal with other
Lutheran churches, including the possibil i ty that such a
book might foster outward fellowship among the churches,
did give pause for thought. As a matter o1 principle for
Missouri, church fcllowship properly derives fiom theo-
logical agreement and a common conf-ession of the faith in
all i ts articles. Outward expressions of such fellowship
therefore ought not precede but follow unity in doctrine.
Civen the historic precedents of common service books in
relation to church f'ellowship, it is a pertinent question of
concern whether it may or mzry not be permissible to adopt
44 UNA SANCTA, / FALL 2OO3
and share a common book with those who do not yet sharea common confession. (It bears mention that the Missouri
Synod was formed in large part by Gennan Lutherans who
came to North America in order to escapc the Prussian
Union and its Lutheran-Reformed service books.) Others
may well disagree with Missouri 's principles of fellow-
ship, but it wor.rld hardly be fair to deny it the right to hold
to its own principles and to conduct itself accordingly.
It is true that the Missouri Synod shified in its position
and practice from I 965 to 1917 in relation to other churches,and one may debate at which point it was acting more in
accord with its principles. The fact, however, remains that
the Inter-Lutheran Commission on Worship, as it emerged
and went about its work. was nol what the Convention in
1965 had called tbr. That is to say, the work and the results
of the Commission were no less a shift from 1965 to 1977
than were the attitude and actions of the Missouri Synod
over that same period. It remains to be spelled out the ways
in which the Commission deviated from the intentions of
thc Synod, as voiced in 1965. Suffice it to say that it was
not only concerns about fellowship that raised rcd flags
and reservations for Missouri: it was also a reaction to the
discontinuity between the Comrnission's proposals and thc
Synod's heritage of l i turgy and hymnody.
The Beginnings of the ILCWPopular wisdom has held that the Intcr-Lutheran Commis-
sion on Worship marked the beginning of cooperative pan-
Lutheran etlbrts arnong the Lutheran Church-Missouri
Synod, the Arnerican Lutheran Church and the Lutheran
Church in America in matters of l i turgy and worship. The
impetus behind the Conrmission has long been held to bc
Resolution l3-01 at the 1965 Convention. In fact. the Conr-mission was neitlrcr a Missouri Synod init iative nor the
beginning of coopcration among the three churches.Thc Commission actually diffcred in some striking ways
liom that which the Missouri Synod had proposed and in-tended in I96-5. What is nrore, inasmuch as the Commis-sion was the beginning of something new. it was likewisethe abandonment of prior concerted eflbrts that had bcenundertaken and pursued for several years by the worshipctlmmissioners of the three churches. Those efft>rt.s had laidthe groundwork and prepared the way for what becamethe Inter-Lutheran Conrmission on Worship, but they wereswept aside and forgotten with the beginning of the newinter-Lutheran commission.
Contacts between Missouri's worship commission andthe jointALC-LCA Cornmission on the Liturgy and Hym-
nal, which was responsible for the Sen'ice Book artcl Hym-
nal (1958'), began in a deliberate way as early as 1962.
Afier Henry Horn succceded his brother, Edward T. Horn
lII, as the chairman of that joint commission, he was in
regular conmunication with Walter Buszin, the chairman
of Missouri worship commission. These two mcn. in par-
ticular, were instrumental in establishing a re lationship be-
tween their respective commissions and dcveloping an
arr . rngement fbr mutual cooperat ion. From mid-1962
through 1965, Horn and Buszin made steady progress with
thei r p lans, which, by the t in te o l - the 196-5 Convent ion.
promised to foster serious l iturgical scholarship, theologi-
cal discussion, the developntent of shared Lutheran re-
sources for worship, and an optimistic hopc for even greater
unity in the future. Theoretically, thc Inter-Lutheran Com-
mission on Worship could havc nrovsd fbrward within this
trajectory and built on this foundation. Instead, it started
liom scratch with difl-ercnt people and different plans.
In order to undcrstand the divergencc of the lntcr-
Lutheran Commission on Worship fiom what had previ-
ously been planned and acconrpli.shed, it is necessary to
understand the circumstzrnces in which all ol 'this was hap-
pening. Simply stated, there were differing goals and agen-
das at work and d i f f -erences of opin ion, both wi th in
Missouri 's worship comrnission and in relation to the other
churches, which led to tcnsions and conll icting plans go-
ing into 1965. Where Buszin and Horn had done their best
to accommodate diverse interests and concerns. the Corn-
mission attemptcd to pursue a narrow course.
Since the late-1950s, Missouri 's worship cclmmission
had been planning for and working toward a revision of
The Ltrtheran Hymnal ( l94l ). To that end, several stand-
ing cornmittces had been formed to deal with such l'natters
as the liturgy and hymn texts and tuncs. Thc hynrnody corn-
mittees, howevcr, were really pushing fbr rlorc extrelva-
gant improvements and developments than "revision"
would normally sLrggest or imply. In particular Paul Bunjes,
a member of the worship commission and thc chairman of
the hymn tunes commitlee, was deterrnined to advance an
elaborate multi-volume plan involving a number of hyrn-
nal editions fbr a variety of purposes (for organ, piano,
and choir, in addition to a pew edition). In fact, Bunjes
pursued these plans in opposition to the sintpler and more
straightfbrward efforts of Walter Buszin, his friend and
colleague. Buszin was thereby driven to f-rustration and
eventually compelled to seek alternative approaches to thc
work of thc rvorship comrnission.
Meanwhile, the liturgy committee under the leadership
of Herbert Lindemann was eaqer to learn from and follow
LU TH E RAN FORLINl 45
the example of LCA liturgical scholars, especially as rep-resented in the highly-regarded Service Book and Hymnal.
In harmony with that l i turgical influence, Lindemann andhis committee were also enamored of the pan-Lutheran
ideals represented by that book, which stood at the leading
edge of the "Muhlenberg tradition." In the eighteenth cen-
tury Henry Melchior Muhlenberg had advocated a vision
of one Lutheran service book and hymnal fbr one united
Lutheran church in America. With these perspectlves, the
liturgy comn.rittee of Missouri 's worship colnnrission urgedthat the Synod should abandon its plans for revision of
T'he Lutheran Hymnal and request the assistance and co-
operation of the I-CA and ALC in the development of a
common liturgy. ln l ight of the extravagant pursuits of the
hymncldy committees, and nrildly aware of Buszin's f 'rus-
trations on that front, the l iturgy committec lbrmally re-quested that a pan-Lutheran project be commended to the
upcoming Convention ( 1965). It was f 'elt that such a move,
instcad crf revising I'he Lutlrcrun Hymnul, would resolve
the developing dissension within thc worship commission.
The proposal from thc l iturgy committee n.ret with re-
sistance and was not adopted by thc worship courmission.
There were particular concerns on the part of individual
mernbcrs. Martin Seltz, fbr exar.nplc, a parish pastor, was
especially concerned about doctrinal comprolniscs thatrnight bccome necessary in a pan-Lutheran contcxt. Across
the board, however, an overriding concern was lbr the char-
acter and quality of the hymnody that would dcrive from
any cooperative eflbrt between the Missouri Synod and(lrc other Lutheran churches.
As respected as the Ser)' ice Book and Ht,mnol was
liturgically, its hymnody was a far cry liom the standards
and expectations of Missouri 's rnusical tradition (most dis-
tinctively, though not exclusively, represented by German-
Lutheran chorales). Even I'he Lutheran Hynmal. wltich was
bctter than lhe Servit'e Book and H1'rnnal in this regard,had not been satisfactory-which was one of the driving
lactors in its revision. It was feared that a pan-Lutheran
et for t , instead of promot ing or a l lowing advlnces in
hyrnnody. would actually require r watering down and
cornprornising of the hymnal both in the selection of hymns,
and in the texts, tunes, and hannonizations. In spite ofhis
fiustrations with Bunjes and the hymnody conrrnittees,
Buszin certainly shared these concerns in contemplating
the prospect of any pan-Lutheran ventures.
Buszin pcrsonally was in favor of working with the
Lutherans of the ALC and especially the LCA, in order
that each of the churches might benefit from the particular
strengths and expertise of the others. So, lor example, the
46 UNA SANCTA ,/ FAt-L 2OO3
Missouri Synod could learn something l iturgical from theLCA, which would benetlt the Synod's worship commis-
sion in its work, while theALC and LCAcould surely learnsomething musical from the Missouri Synod. Buszin's de-
sire and goirl were for mutual study, sharing of research
and resources, growth in understanding, and increased unity
of faith and confession, doctrine and practice.
Buszin was ce'rtainly not opposed to the idea of "one
book for one church," but he did not believe that such a
goal could or should be the plnce to start. Instead, the de-velopment of a shared theology of l i turgy and hymnody
must comc flrst; and only then, on that common founda-
tion, could shared resources for worship be developed and
produced. Buszin was not reticent but wil l ing and increas-
ingly eager to begin working toward those long-rangc goals.
But he remained cautious and always very carc-lul about
the way in which the hymnody in particular ought to be
handled. That concern would be a key to what happened in
the summcr ol' l t l6-5.
Buszin's sounterpart, Henry lJorn, did not at all share
the Missouri perspective on hynrnr>dy, but he was syrnpa-
thetic to the dil i ' icult ies and frustrations involved. (Horn
appreciated Angl<l-American hymnody and tendcd to view
Missouri 's nrusical ideals as antiquarian and unneccssar-
i ly purist.) Horn was wil l ing to allow Buszin to pace the
progress of cooperation bctween their worship eonrnris-
sions, though Horn never made any secret of the lact that
his sights were ultimately set on a truly pan-Lutheran ser-
vice book and hyntnal. In the short term, however, he had
a far more inrmediate polit ical concern on his hands. As
thc chairman of thc joint Comnrission on the Liturgy and
Hymnal, he found the commission tied up with dil l 'erencesbetween its ALC and LCA members. Not only werc there
obvious difl 'crences in expcrtise, since the LCA tendcd to
appoint l i turgical scholars to the joint commission, whereas
the ALC followed a more bureaucratic approach in choos-
ing its representatives; what is nrore, the ALC membcrs
had taken to voting as a bloc on every item of business.
Thus, a polit ical impasse was creatcd that preventcd the
.joint commission l 'rom accomplishing its work efl iciently
or eff-ectively. Horn was hopeful that Missouri nright be
drawn into the equation, at least enough to break the dead-
lock between the ALC and LCA in thc joint comnrission.
The strategy that developed between Buszin and Horn
and their respective conrmissions, as i l way to uddress their
sundry hopes and conccms, was the formation ofjoint studygroups, each with two or three scholars liom each of the
three churches. The intention was that these groups would
provide an ideal opportunity and context for the pooling
of resources and expertise in order to achieve and articu-late a conrmon theological perspective and position, and
on that basis to infbrm the development of common rites
and ceremonies, texts and tunes. Early in 1965, joint study
groups in the areas of l i turgical texts and liturgical music
had been established and were set to begin working. By
intention, there had not yet been any attempt to form ajoint study group in the area of hynrnody. ln spite of that
remaining disappointment and frustration, the l iturgical
study groups rcpresented solid steps of progress in pan-
Lutheran cooperation.
Notwithstanding the progress achicved with the fbrrna-
tion of the joint study groups, there were increasing pres-
sures mount ing for more extensive cooperat ion. The
executivcs of the ALC and LCA worship comnrissions,
Mandus Egge and Edgar Brown, agitated for a morc com-prchensive and direct effbrt to achievc the Muhlenberg
dream ofone book fbr one church. On both a personal andprol'essional level, Egge and Brown promoted the possi-
bility of a fuller pan-Lutheran project that would go be-
yond the comparatively nrodest aspirations ol'the study
groups. These mcn worked especially hard to encourage
Buszin and Lindenrann to bring a completc halt to the re-
vision of Thc Lutheran Hymnul, and to advocate an inter-
Lutheran project. Lindenrann was easily convinced, as he
shared the same vision and goals fbr "pan-Lutheranisrn."
Buszin remained nrorc cautious and hesitant to push things
too far or too fast.
On a larger scale, there were other factors contributing
to the push fbr a pan-Lutheran project. Two publications,
Unu Suncta and The Americun Lutherttn, lobbied hard
against revision and tor a coopcrative effort by the three
Lutheran churches. Propaganda ofthis sor-t no doubt con-
tributed to the nunrber of ovcrtures submitled fbr the 1965
Convention that called for the same or similar actions: aban-
don thc unilateral Missouri project and resolve to work
with other Lutherans in cornmon cause.
ln response to thcse increasing pressurcs, couplcd with
growing frustration with Paul Bunjes (and with other as-
pects of the hymnal revision), Walter Buszin proposed a
compromise solution. Missouri 's worship commission had
already adopted and set fbrth a compromise position of its
own in its official report to the Convention. It had stated
suppofi for future pan-Lutheran effbrts and goals, but it
had also expressed the opinion that it was not yet t ime to
move too quickly in that direction. Work on the revision of
The Lutherun Hymnal had already been in progress for a
number of years and was reportedly approaching comple-
tion; hence, that work should not be abandoned but allowed
to make its contribution to the broad field of Lutheran lit-
urgy and hymnody. More pointedly, the worship conrmis-
sion insisted that it would not be f 'easible or advisable to
attempt a pan-Lutheran collection of hymns eiven the di-
versity among the churches in that area. In the main, this
was the official position of the worship comnrission going
into the 1965 Convention. Within a few months of the
Convention, however. Buszin arrived at a new conclusion,
which he advocated before the pertinent f loor committce.
Buszin proposed that the Luthcran churches work to-
gether in the development of a "core hymnal" (Stunm-
ctusgabe)--a basic collection of essential Luthcran hyrnns
(perhaps 200-300). Togcther, the churches would reach
agreement on common texts and tunes for thcse core hymns,
so that all the Lutherans in North American would be ablc
to sing their hymns with one voice. Then, in addition to
this cornnron core. each ol-the churches would havc its
own particular collcction of hymns reflecting its heritage
and ideals. In this way, the Missouri Synod could preserve.
protect, and continue to sing its Gennan-Lutheran chorales
while thc ALC and LCA could pressrve thcir respr-ctive
traditions of Scandinavian and Anglo-American hymns.
This Stammaus.gobe approach was basically that of vari-
ous Gcnnan territorial churches. As far as Busztn was con-
cerned, it offered not only a conrpronrise but the ideal
solution. Thus, he seems to have had in rnind the forma-
tion of a third joint study group with thc ALC and LCA-
one that would begin work on the common core of hymn
texts and tunes. Such was the approach that he advocated
on the cve o l ' thc Convent ion.
Of course, Buszin's voice was not the only decisive fac-
tor in the rcsolution dratted fbr the 19(r5 Convcntion by
the floor committee. That committee had in hand numer-
ous overlures from across the Synod, seeking conlnon
cause with the other Lutheran churches in thc de velopment
of a new service book and hyrnnal. In addition, the f1oor
committee heard fiom many individuals. especially t iorn
military arrd institutional chaplains, who pleaded for pan-
Lutheran l iturgical resources and hymnody. In conjttnc-
tion with these other pleas, Buszin's suggestion of a core
hyrnnal oftered a specific way of responding to the ur-qent
requests of the church. Given his position as the chairman
of the worship commission and his personal relationship
as a close fiiend and senior colleague with Robert Bergt,
who served on the floor committee, Buszin's "'oice
q'as
indeed quite influential. In any case, the resolution put lbrth
before the Convention. and adopted thereby, clearly reflects
the wisdom and input of Buszin. At least, that much is clear
when it is viewed in the l ight of prior developments. If thc
LUTHERAN FORUM 47
resolution is viewed only in hindsight, from the perspec-
tive of what developed in and with the Inter-Lutheran Com-
mission on Worship, then it is far too easily misread and
misunderstood (as it almost always has been since the be-
ginning of the Commission) .
When read carefully in its proper context, Resolution
l3-01 does not decree thc end of hymnal revision or man-
date the creation of a single pan-Lutheran service book
and hymnal. Neither does the resolution specily or imply
thc creation of a pan-Lutheran commission. Rather, it calls
fbr the Missouri Synod (through its President and his ap-
pointed representatives) to invite the other Lutheran
churches to cooperate in the developmcnt of shared litur-
gical resources and a common core of hymns. These shared
resources and common hymns would bc intended fbr the
use of each of the participating churches within its own
publications. Thus, lbr example, the Missouri Synod would
publish, "under a single cover," the common orders of ser-
vice, the common core of hymn s, und "if necessary" a col-
lcction of its own additional hymns. (The "if necessary"
clause does qualify thc point in deference to those who
would have pref'erred to have everything in common. As
the resolution stands, however, the provision is specifically
l-or a Missouri Synod book that would include hoth pan-
Lutheran materials andits own particular hymnody.)
Resolution l3-01 can easily be understood as little more
than a synodical endorsement of the very goals already
established with thc joint l i turgical study groups, but also
including the important addition of similar eflbrts (and
perhaps sirnilar study groups) in the areas of hymn texts
and tunes. Indications are that Buszin himself, and possi-
bly Henry Horn, interpreted the resolution in mclre or less
this way. Yet, neither Buszin nor Horn were able to guide
the lbrmation or direction of the lnter-Lutheran Commis-
sion on Worship in the years that fbllowed thc 1965 Con-
vention. Buszin was involved in a l imited way at f irst, but
his waning health prevented him frorn taking an active or
lasting part. He was also disil lusioned tairly quickly by
the attitude that he observed in Edgar Brown and Mandus
Egge, once they had what they wanted and plans fbr the
Commission had begun to take shape. Horn was simply
bypassed fiom the start and left out of the Commission
altogether (as was the joint Commission on the Liturgy
and Hymnal). The newly-formed joint study groups were
abandoned befbre they had even begun to work.
Within a month of the Missouri Synod Convention,
Edgar Brown began to insert himself into the process and
plans involved in carrying out the synodical resolution.
Although it was Missouri 's worship commission that offi-
48 UNA SANCTA / FALL )OO3
cially invited the other Lutheran churches to cooperate in
the development of common resources for worship, Brown
supplied unsolicited recommendations and advice, and he
worked especially hard to enlist the support of Herbcrt
Lindemann for his ideas. It was clear from the outset that
Brown was intent on something more progressive than any
gradual building upon the previously laid groundwork. He
was likewise interested in moving beyond the already-
shared heritage of the Lutheran past into a modern ecu-
rnenical fu ture. Wi th h is aggressive personal i ty and
approach, and possessing the confldence of Lindemann
within Missouri 's worship comnrission, Brown was instru-
mental in shaping the init ial vision and agenda of the In-
ter-l-utheran Commission on Worship.
In contrast to the apprehensions involved in the pros-
pect of pan-Lutheran hymnody, it was assumed that a com-
mon order and form of the Holy Communion could readily
be developed and agreed upon. In fact, the Missouri Synod
already shared a common liturgical heritage with the ALC
and LCA in the Common Service, represented in both'lfte
Ltttheran Hymrul and thc Sen,ice Btxtk and Hymnal.The
single most important clifl-erence bctwccn those two books
and thcir respective orders of service was the inclusion of
a classical Eucharistic Prayer in lhe Service llook and Hym-
nul. For several years prior to the lnter-Lutheran Commis-
sion on Worship, howcvcr, the Missouri Synod had been
moving toward the introduction of similar prayers. By the
time the Inter-Lutheran Comnrission on Worship began irr
1967, as many as five such prayers-including a modest
revision of the Eucharistic Praycr in thc Scruice Book uul
H,vmnal-had already been approved in principle and
would subscqucntly bc published by the Synod in its Wor-
ship Supplement of 1969. Thus there was every reason to
believe that a common order of service, including a shared
Eucharistic liturgy, would come out of the cooperative el'-
fbrts of the Inter-Lutheran Commission on Worship.
For a variety of reasons, the l iturgical work and devel-
opments of the Inter-Lutheran Commission on Worship did
not progress as init ially expected. Its Liturgical Text Com-
mittee did not begin with nor build upon the Common Ser-vice tradition, but with the new insights and developnrents
of the modern l iturgical movements. Those outside influ-ences, however meet, right, and salutary they may have
been in many cases. were bound to meet with resistance
and opposition-as indeed they did. What is more, that
approach meant building something new from the ground
up instead of growing together out of the shared Lutheran
heritage. In these aspects of the Commission's work, one
may see in part, the early influence of Edgar Brown on the
project, though he did not remain a major player in theinter-Lutheran venture beyond its flrst t-ew years.
Once begun, the Inter-Lutheran Commission on Wor-
ship assumed a polit ical l i fe of its own and proceeded to
chart its own course, which took it well beyond not only
the original proposal and resolution of the Missouri Synod,
but also well beyond the goals of Brown and Lindemann.
In fact, as Walter Buszin and Henry Horn had paved the
way fbr what became the Inter-Lutheran Commission on
Worship, but then were left behind when it began, so did
Brown :rnd Lindemann init iate the Cornmission itself. but
then were sidelined within a f'ew years clf the proccss. Othcr
individuals, such as Eugene Brand, assumed the mantle of
leadership. Practically speaking, the Inter-Lutheran Com-
ruission on Worship was an eminently polit ical organiza-
tion, not only internally, but in its relationship with itsmcmbcr churches; and it was ultimately guided as much
or more by the political process than by any one particular
vision of whcrc it ought to go.
The Lack of Missouri's InvolvementEven though the Inter-Lutheran Conrmission on Worship,
as it actually emcrged, was nol what the Missouri Syncld
had envisioned or proposed. nevertheless, one might have
cxpccted the Synod to play a dccisive role in the work and
progress of the Commission. Yet, in spite of its extrava-gant review process, which gradually came into play and
eventually brought an end to the Synod's participation in
thc projcct, the Missouri Synod was simply not as engaged
in the process-nor was it ever as inlluential-as it could
and should have been.
Missouri 's review process involvcd ten special review-
ers. appointed by the synodical president, J. A. O. Preus,
as called for by the adopted protocol of the Comrnission
itself. In addition, there were several anonymous doctrinalrcvicwers, also appointed by Preus, as required by the by-
laws of the Synod for publications of the church or its pub-
lisher. Following a rcquest frorn its Board of Directors, the
Synod's Commission on Theology and Church Relationsalso took upon itself a review of the Inter-Lutheran Com-
mission on Worship proposals. The theology commissionconcluded that the entire Synod would need more tinlc to
study carefully the proposed Lutlrcrttn Book ol Worship
before the Synod in Convention could give its approval
and authorization of the book. This rccommendation stuck
in the craw of Missouri 's worship commission, which had
previously been understood to have vested authority on
behalf of the Synod to approve and adopt resources fbr
worship. In preparation for the 1977 Convention, the per-
tinent floor committee made its own assessment of the pro-
posed Lutheran Book of Worship and agreed with the
recommendations of the Commission on Theology and
Church Relations. By that point Preus had weighed in with
his presidential opinion, which echoed that of the theol-
ogy commission. The Convention itself, though deeply
divided on the issue, f inally resolved to have a "blue rib-
bon" committee appointed for yct another official review
<tf the Lutheran Book of Worship. Yet, lbr all of that fbrmal
rcview of the proposals, the Synod remaincd almost al-
ways reactive and critic:rl, and very seldom proactive or
constructive, in its relationship with the Inter-Lutheran
Conrmission on Wtlrsh ip.
There are nunlerous reasons ftrr the lack of Missouri's
involvemcnt and input in the work of the Intcr-I-utheran
Comrnission on Worship. For one thing, its worship corn-
mission continued to work on what had been the revision
ol' The Luthenm Hymnttl, which bccarnc instcad a rnore
experimentaf project that finally resulted in the Wtr.ship
Supplement of 1969. Engaged in that work concurrently
with the f-irst several years of the Inter-Lutheran Commis-
sion on Worship, Missouri 's worship conrnrission was un-
able to participate in thc inter-Lutheran project as fully or
actively as it might otherwise have done. There were ex-
ceptions, of course, most notably Hans Boehringer, who
was very much involved on the Commission's Liturgical
Texts Committee for several years of its work. By and large,
however, the members of Missouri 's worship cclmmission
were kept busy with preparations fbr the Worship Supple-
ment f,nd were not contributing a great deal to the Inter-
Luthcran Commission cln Worship. Once the Wor.ship
Supplement was published, many ol thc Missouri Synod
congregations most interested in l i turgical developments
purchased and expcrimented with this new book, and thcy
wcrc therelbre less likely to use and rcspond to the pro-
posed n.raterials of the lnter-Lutheran Comnrission on
Worship when they began to appear a f'ew years latcr.
Meanwhile, the two most outstanding and competent
Missouri Synod leaders in l i turgy and hymnody, Arthur
Carl Piepkorn and Waltcr Buszin, were approaching the
end of their l ives as the Inter-Lutheran Commission on
Worship went about its work. Both men died in the early
1970s. There were f'ew who might have been able to as-
sume the leadership and influence of Buszin or Piepkorn.
As it was, the turbulent circumstances of the 1970s were
less conducive to l iturgical scholarship in Missouri.
In those days, the Synod was so preoccupied with its
own internal conflicts over Seminex and the related exo-
LUTHERAN FORUM 49
dus of those congregations that formed the Association ofEvangelical Lutheran Churches and with its degenerating
church-f-ellowship with the ALC, that the Synod was notmuch interested in the dcvelopment of liturgical rites and
ceremonies. In 1975, a synodical resolution dealing with
thc Inter-Lutheran Commission on Worship never even
made it to the convention floor because the time was used
up with issues related to Seminex. Sadly, the Missouri
Synod was largely under the impression that matters of
worship are more or less tangential to the lif'e of the Church,and that the l iturgy is simply not by any means as inher-
ently important as dogmatic theology. That view and opin-
ion were exacerbated fiom the top down by the example
of the synodical presidcnt, J. A. O. Preus, a capable sys-
tematic theologian who was regrettably apathetic to litur-gical theology and practicc. That sort ol 'Norwegian pictism
in Missouri 's adn.rinistration thcil i tated a pervasive influ-
ence of the Norwegian pietism of the ALC (itself underanother Preus administration). Ironically, at a time when
conservative theology was pull ing the Synod away froml-cllowship with the ALC, it was nevertheless wide open to
the "l iturgical theology" of the ALC.
Missouri Apart from the ILCWWith Resolution 3-01A. the 1917 Convention called fbr
the formation of a "blue ribbon" committee fbr anotherreview o1' the proposed Luthenm Book oJ Worship. This
committee-which designated itself the Special Hymnal
Review Committee-was given a very narrow.and spe-
cific task: evaluate the Luherem Book of Worshrp, in light
of the crit icisms that had been raised against it, and deter-
mine whether the Synod should ( I ) accept the book as is,or (2) accept it with certain changes, or (3) develop a ser-vice book and hymnal of its own. Init ially, the second op-tion was takcn to mean that the oflicial manuscript of theLutheran Book oJ'Worship would be revised to satisfy
Missouri 's conditions (presuming the lnter-Lutheran Com-mission on Worship and the other membcr churches would
agree to those changes). The third option was understoodto allow for a synodical revision of the manuscript of the
LLrtheran Book of Worship for its own unilateral purposes.When all was said and done, the second option was rec-
ommended by the review committee and adopted by the1979 Convention; yet by that point, it clearly involved andrequired the approach originally identified with the thirdoption. There was never much hope lbr the first option.since the review committee was hardly going to find theproposed book to be acceptable "as is." Practically speak-
50 UNA SANCTA / FALL 2Oo3
ing, neither Missouri 's review committee nor the Inter-
Lutheran Commission on Worship were of a mind to ne-
gotiate with each other, especially given the highly-charged
climate of the times. So the second option as it was at f irst
understood was never all that feasible either.
By Dccember l9J7-several months prior to the offi-
cial Report and Recommendations of the Special Hyrnnal
Review Committee, and more than a year and a half away
tiom the next synodical convention-it was already clear
that the Inter-Lutheran Comrnission on Worship would
proceed with publication of the Lutheran Book of Wnrship
without the Missouri Synod, and that the Missouri Synod
would revise the Lutherttn Book of Worship fbr its own
purposes. As of August I 978, a new worship comnrission
had been appointed by the synodical president (since all
but one of the members o1 the previous commission had
resigned), and it began the diff lcult task ol-trying to recon-
cile two diff'erent goals: to correct lhe l.utheron Book of
Wtrship while retaining as much of it as possible.
What the Missouri Synod ended up with in Lutheran
Worship is indeed a revision of the Lutherun Book oJ' Wtr-
ship, bul thcrc arc dif'fcrcnces as well-too many to de-
scribe here. If one considers only the ordcrs of the Holy
Comnrunion, Lutheron Wrship docs include a forrn of the
Common Service (a revision o1'the fbrm in The Lulheran
Hymnal), which is altogether missing in the Ltttheron B<tok
of Worship. Given the original desire of the churches fbr a
common Lutheran order of service, and given the original
expectation that such an order would be readily achievcd
on the basis o1'thc Common Service. it is a shame that the
Lutheran Book oJ'Worship did not incorporate that heri-
tirge. On the other hand, Luthertur Worship may be con-
gratulated for doing so. In the Lutheran Worship version
of Holy Communion taken l-rom Lutheran Book oJ'Wor-
sftip, the principal revision is fbund in the "Great Thanks-
giving." Lutherun Worship has omitted all of the classical
Eucharistic Prayers that the LLrtlrcrtur Iktok of Worship pro-
vides. Of course, Lutheran Worship has also omitted the
option of using the Words of Institution alone, without a
post-Sanctus prayer of thanksgiving, as the Luthe ran Book
ofWorship allows fbr the consolation of critics that reject
any Eucharistic Prayer. ln Lutheran Worship, there is aprayer of thanksgiving (a simple Eucharistic Prayer) fol-
lowing the Sanctus in both of its orders of the Holy Com-
munion. Thus, it is possible that Missouri congregations
using Lutheran Worship have been more consistently "er.r-
charistic" in their celebrations of the Holy Communion
than many of those congregations using the Lutheran Book
of Worship.
In sum, Lutheron Worship includes an order of serviceliom the Lutheron Book ofWorsftrp, which (though some-what revised) is shared in contnton with the vast mujorityof North American Lutherans. Alongside this pan-Lutheran
order, Lrrtheran Worship includes its fbrnt of the CommonService, thus preserving a Lutheran heritage that is bothhistoric and "American" in pedigree. With this combina-tion, Lutlteran Wrship is not fhr from the intentions of the1965 Convention, which envisioned a Missouri Synod ser-vice book incorporating pan-Lutheran worship fbrms.
L ikewise, wi th respect to i ts co l lect ion of hyrnns,Lutheran Wrship may be understood as the combination
of a "core hymnal" in cornnron with the Lutlrcrem Book ofWorship and a selection of r>ther hyntns important toMissouri 's own interests. If that sounds like an echo of theStammausgttbe that Walter Buszin had proposed and rcc-ommended in 196-5, pcrhaps that realization ought to givesome pause for thought. Buszin would l ikely not havc beenplcased at the way in which the Missor.rri Synod and theInter-Lutheran Commission on Worship parted ways un-dcr a cloud of controversy and hard feelings. Yet he mighthave pointed out that much ol'the conlroversy cor-rld havebeen avoided if the Comnrission had lbllowed the sort o1'path that he and thc 1965 Convention had anticipated. Butthere are no "might have been's."
In relation to the churches. there are ironics involved
with both Lutheran Worship and the Lutheran Book ofWorship. Lutheran Worship was prepared and publishedfbr the Missouri Synod alone; and yet, within the MissouriSyncrd. one now finds l lre Lutlrc:ron Ht,ntnul sti l l in use inalmost 40Vo ofits congregations, Lutherun Worship in ap-proximatcf y 60Vo, andthe Lutheran Book oJ-Worship in 5-l0olo. So there is hardly unity of practice, even if one doesnot consider the number ofcongregations that have given
up on using any of these books in exchange fbr "creative"
alternatives week by week. The ELCA has faired l itt le bet-ter and perhaps worse in the latter regard. While itsLutlrcron Boctk of Worship was designed to unify Lutheransin the use of "one book fbr one church," it is nrarked by aplethora of options, some of which represent conrprorniscsintended to satisfy mutually exclusive theological positions
and commitments (as in the case of the Euchanstic Prayers).How would the landscape of Lutheran liturgical lif'e in
the United States be different today if rhe Inter-LutheranCommission on Worship had fbcused on the developmentof a conrmon order of service and a conrmon core of hymnslbr each church to include alongside (or revise accordingto) its own particular tradition, instead of trying to pro-
duce and publish a single book ofall things for all people?
As the Lutheran churches look to the future, there areother questions to be asked and more to be learned along
the way. With that in mind, I oll 'er one final comment. Whilethe Inter-Lutheran Commission on Worship u'as heavily
influenced by the developments of the modern l iturgical
movernent, the Missouri Synod has usually prefen'ed aLutheran confessional approach. What has not yet beenresolved is how a confessional approach rnight also lclrn
from and incorporate the historical and exegetical insightsof thc modern l iturgical nloventent while retaining its ownparticular identity and integrity. It should not bc necessaryto choose between conf'essional integrity and broader schol-arship. At least historically. Luthcran theologians havc beenwill ing and able to learn l ionr and to cttntribute to the bestof scholarship in all aspects of theology.
l). RtcttnHo S'rucxwtscH i.s Pustor of Ennnus EvanT4elicul LutherunChurch in South Rt'nl, Indiana. He rtc<'ntly rct:eiyt,d a dtx'tonttt in litur-gicul studie.s fronr tht Llniversity of N<ttrt' Dultt. His dirs.,rrarr.rrr xrrsent i t ledTruly Mect. Right , and Salutary. . . or Not ' l The Revrsion ol theOrder of the l lo ly ( i rmmunion ol ' thc Lutheran Book oJ 'Wltrship in thcPreparation and Dr-velopnrcnt of Luthcnm Worship.
LUTH ERAN FORLI,\ , I 51