(Untitled)
My church canceled services due to bad weather up in Upper, so I visited St. Mark's Lutheran Church in Delaware. This was my first time attending a Lutheran service. Some things were different then what I am used to in Episcopal or Methodist services- the confession of sin was the first part of the service proper, though they sung a hymn before
( Read more... )
That part of the creed is certainly the shakiest. Keep in mind, though, that in liturgical usage it can refer both to the dwelling place of the damned (if they exist) AND to the dwelling place of all the dead (Sheol). In Greek, the term in the creed means "the lowest place", which could easily refer to the kenotic aspects of Christ's death as well.
We just switched from a slightly New Age-y confession ("strayed from your way of love like lost sheep", etc.) to a version of the standard one ("We confess that we have sinned against you in thought, word, and deed..."), and I was mentioning before the service that in the Missouri Synod growing up, I said a version of that confession where after "we have not loved our neighbors as ourselves" came "We justly deserve your present and eternal punishment." Everyone's emphasis is different. :-)
Strangely, though, the ELCA and Episcopalian liturgies keep moving in less gender-neutral directions with some of this stuff; even the LCMS is occasionally more gender-neutral. For instance, during the Sursum Corda, LCMS Lutherans say "It is right to give our thanks and praise", while ELCA and Episcopalian folks say "It is right to give Him thanks and praise". There are a number of similar points, and the version of the creeds used by TEC and ELCA keep repeating "He" over and over, whereas LCMS uses "Who" (as in Latin).
Reply
I wonder if 'our' versus 'Him' is not about gender but about a view of the Eucharist as on God's sacrifice for us, versus a view of the Eucharist as our sacrifice to praise to God. That would explain why the ELCA and the Episcopalians have 'him' while the more protestant UMC and LCMS have 'our' even though the LCMS is much more conservative then the other three denominations.
I also wonder if all the hell-talk was put in to appease the LCMS.
Reply
Well, the truth is both/and, though, so I don't really see that as a legitimate license for the "Him" instead of "our". And beyond that, I just really don't think the ELCA or LCMS liturgical committees have a very clear theology of the Eucharist. (Neither do Independent Catholics - once the missal is done, this is my next book project.)
I also wonder if all the hell-talk was put in to appease the LCMS.
Enh, I doubt it. Lutheran unity involving the LCMS was dead long before the ELCA hymnal was released, back in 1969 when Oscar Harms lost re-election to the Synod's presidency and J.A.O. Preus came in and started the Seminex controversy.
Rather, I suspect it's because the greater Lutheran emphasis on grace licenses a clearer understanding of the dangers of sin. It's a reasonably large part of Luther's project to highlight the fallen condition of humanity to indicate just how powerful God's grace is.
In any case, as I said, hell frequently refers to Sheol. There are notes in the rubrics for the Office of the Dead that mention that, as the word "hell" appears rather frequently there. The idea that "hell" refers to the place of the damned exclusively is a relatively recent notion and doesn't reflect on the Greek katótata. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this were something the fundamentalists have done, but I really don't know the specific history well enough.
Reply
Lutheran Eucharistic theology is a good deal clearer then Anglican or Methodist Eucharistic theology has historically been.
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment