A Word from Indiana District President Stuckwisch on the distinction between low and high church

Low Church? High Church? Whose Church?

I’ve been rather bemused by the recent flurry of online discussion and debate in response to a recent YouTube video entitled, “Low Church Missouri,” from one of the professors at our St. Louis Seminary, Rev. Dr. Joel Biermann. It’s no surprise that the topic of worship practices and styles would garner such attention, as that has persistently been the case to varying degrees for the past three or four decades. What is equal parts amusing and frustrating in the present conversation is the way in which the terms are being used and understood, and the sort of misleading dichotomy that is consequently perceived.

Dr. Biermann is absolutely entitled to his own observations and opinions, and I can certainly resonate with his nostalgic recollections of the past. My own childhood and young adult experience was largely similar to the sort of worship practices he remembers and describes. And I frankly track with some of his statements expressing a desire for a focus on God’s Word and the faithful receiving of His good gifts. By the same token, I rejoice that our LCMS congregations are generally celebrating the Holy Communion far more regularly than they were in generations past. I regret that we have meanwhile lost the consistency with which the congregations of our Synod all used The Lutheran Hymnal, as Dr. Biermann describes. In every age there are both strengths and weaknesses within the life of the Church on earth, and we ought always to be willing to learn where and how we might better preach the Word and practice the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ. As such things are the very heart and soul of the Church’s worship, I cannot agree with the assertion that “the way that we worship is always an adiaphora.” The Formula of Concord, for example, identifies, discusses, and explains various ways in which worship practices are not adiaphora. More importantly, the true worship of the Holy Triune God depends upon His Word and Holy Spirit, and it is guided and governed by the Gifts Christ freely gives through the Gospel, which are not up for grabs.

But let me simply focus here on the distinction between a “low church” and a “high church” approach to worship practice. This nomenclature is not Lutheran but Anglican in origin, but I suppose it can be used in a helpful way, so long as there is agreement and consistency in respect to definitions – which is often not the case. In my estimation it can be useful in distinguishing between a simpler or more formal use of ceremonies in the conduct of the Divine Service, whether the Service is spoken or chanted, for instance, or whether the celebrant wears a chasuble or not; whether he makes the sign of the cross, elevates the Sacrament, genuflects at the Altar, processes with the Holy Gospel, or not; and whether he has assisting ministers or not. Other examples could also be given. And while there may be exceptions here or there, I know of no one who would argue that any of these ceremonies are necessary for a right administration of the Divine Service. To do so would clearly contradict our Confessions. And while I do believe that such ceremonies are generally helpful in adorning the sacred things of Christ Jesus and promoting reverence in the presence of God, I also believe there are conditions and circumstances in which they would be out of place and distracting from the One Thing truly needful. Pastoral discretion and discernment are vital to the appropriate conduct of the Service in caring for God’s people. Speaking for myself, I’ve never used the same level of ceremony in visiting the homebound or hospitalized as I have within the congregation; neither is every Sunday the same over the course of the Church Year, nor are festival days observed in the same way as a typical Sunday morning. Speaking more broadly and generally, a small country church is not the place for the ceremonies which are very much at home in a large city church. I’ve witnessed dignified and reverent Services in homes and other humble spaces in Siberia, Sri Lanka, Singapore, and Indonesia, with very little in the way of “high church” ceremony. And along the same lines, our LCMS congregations might all be using The Lutheran Hymnal, as they once did, or one of the five settings of the Divine Service in Lutheran Service Book, with diverse degrees of ceremony, from “low” to “high,” without violating our bonds of fellowship or deviating from our common confession of Christ Jesus.

The thing is, such differences in ceremonies are not the point at which our Synod has been increasingly divided over worship practice. I’m not suggesting that there are no disagreements over this or that ceremony – there are those differences of opinion and practice, to be sure. But the dividing line is much more between those who use the traditional orders of Service included in our Synod’s hymnals and those who have adopted what is typically described as “contemporary worship.” I make the caveat that the terms “traditional” and “contemporary” are used in a rather wide diversity of ways, which adds to the confusion. I’m not aiming to create divisions where there are none, but these are the distinctions that I not only observe, myself, but also hear described in such ways by proponents (and detractors) of both approaches. Indeed, these are the distinctions that are made by congregations that offer both a “traditional” and a “contemporary” option on Sunday mornings. Similarly, the district presidents are expected to indicate (in their communications with each other for the sake of the Call process) whether their district pastors are “flexible” or “rigid” with respect to “traditional,” “high church,” “blended,” and “contemporary” worship. I am not the only one who finds these categories to be almost impossible to use clearly and consistently. We do the best we can, and my point is not to criticize the tools we have in place. In some ways, these categories do reflect the divisions that have developed among us. I note that “low church” is not a category offered in comparison or contrast with the four that are. Perhaps it is to be included under “traditional,” as compared with “high church,” but in practice those two categories almost always go together – just as “blended” and “contemporary” almost always go together – in our efforts at assessment. In my approach, I use “traditional” to mean the use of the orders of Service found in our Synod’s hymnals, “high church” to mean a preference for more formal ceremonies, “blended” to describe the use of contemporary songs within an otherwise traditional (sometimes simplified) order of Service, and “contemporary” to indicate the adoption of orders, forms, and music from outside of our Synod’s service books and hymnals (and outside the historic trajectory of Lutheran worship practices).

I’m well aware that I’ll not resolve the Synod’s “worship wars” in an Earthen Vessels article! Consensus in these matters will only come through rigorous pastoral and theological conversation among brothers on the basis of the Word of God and our Lutheran Confessions. But my goal at present is simply to say that differences between a “low church” and a “high church” approach to ceremonies in the Divine Service are not the point at which we are divided or at odds – nor do they need to be – nor should they divide us. It will come as no surprise to anyone that I believe a greater consistency and continuity of practice would be edifying and helpful to our catechesis and confession of Christ Jesus and His Word. But I have never imagined that every pastor and congregation should have exactly the same degree of ceremony. All manner of factors figure into what is most appropriate and beneficial in the exercise of pastoral care and in the reverent conduct of the Divine Service within the rhythm and routine of parish life. But aside from the most basic rubrics of “faith” and “love,” “reverence” and “courtesy,” which ought to guide and govern all that we do in all of our callings and stations in life, I personally bear in mind and take to heart the wisdom I have learned from two of my own dear fathers in Christ:

Wilhelm Löhe famously quipped that the Church remains the Queen that she is, even when dressed in beggar’s rags; yet we do not deliberately clothe her in rags when we are able to adorn her in a manner more becoming of her royal dignity. Similarly, I recall Dr. Weinrich sharing with us, many years ago, that when he had been accused of being “high church,” he replied: “I think very highly of the Church. She is, after all, the Bride of Christ, and she ought to be treated like a lady.” As often as I have repeated that cherished anecdote over the years, I do not believe that I could ever say it more succinctly or better. The fact is that we pastors – we ministers of the Word of Christ Jesus, we stewards of the Mysteries of God – are entrusted with the care of another Man’s Wife, and we dare not take liberties with her, but conduct ourselves as gentlemen above reproach in treating her with the dignity and honor of her Lord and ours. The question is not whether this or that is “low church” or “high church,” but whether we unequivocally acknowledge that we are called and ordained to serve the Lord’s Church, the Body and Bride of Christ.