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