On Authenticity
“Authenticity” and “authentic” are front-burner words today. And this is true especially for us confessional Lutherans at this time of great debate about Lutheran identity. Given that we are bombarded 24-7 by ads, marketing, and propaganda, the quest for authenticity is a big deal in our day, especially in matters of worship.
So what constitutes authenticity in Lutheran worship?
I think a way to navigate this is a bit counterintuitive. The best way to learn English grammar is to look at it with fresh eyes by means of a foreign language. This has traditionally been done through studying and mastering Latin, as it is a so-called dead language, and its grammar is highly inflected. Learning Latin takes the student out of thinking about English grammar in English - for by thinking about how English works by thinking in English, there is a very real risk of not seeing the forest for the sake of the trees.
So to think about authentic Lutheran worship, I would like to look at what is authentic in matters of nondenominational worship.
For there is a general style of nondenominational worship that is typified by the Neo-evangelical megachurch. And for all of the rightful criticisms we could offer, it is true that there is great authenticity in how they worship: how it is tied to their theology. For lex orandi, lex credendi is a universal principle, especially among the various shades and contours of the Christian churches across confessional lines. The differences in worship really do reflect differences in belief.
The starting point for nondenominational worship is its theology, its confession. Like its historical forbears, especially in Western Christianity, the nondenominational church confesses the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, and the doctrine of the atonement. Like its Reformational forbears, nondenominationalism confesses Scripture as the Word of God, and accepts its doctrinal primacy over and against tradition and the capricious dictates of the hierarchy. Some nondenominational churches may vary with one another in matters of revelation, as there is a streak of Pentecostalism running through some strains. For the purposes of this exercise, I’m going to focus on the more mainstream, less charismatic, churches.
What mainly distinguishes nondenominational churches creedally from their antecedents in the historical communions is their rejection of sacraments. For them, baptism is only a public affirmation of salvation, the Lord’s Supper is only a symbolic rite, and confession and absolution is simply not practiced. In their worship, certain traditional and historical liturgical practices - such as kneeling to receive the Lord’s Supper, baptizing babies, and limiting preaching to the pastoral office - would be inauthentic, as such practices would be incongruent with their confession.
Given their “real absence” theology, the sacramental piety and practice that is typical in other confessions, will be missing. Without the Sacrament of the Altar, the Service of the Word is going to be emphasized. Sermons will be more dominant and didactic. The Lord’s Supper will be far less formal and less frequent. Given that there is no confession of a miraculous, incarnate Presence of God Himself manifest by our Lord Jesus Christ being truly in the midst of the people, the sense of the holiness of space will also be missing. This will lead to the doffing of vestments by the ministers, and a “come as you are” casualness on the part of those who attend worship. Instead of being covered by clerical garb, the pastor may seek to be accepted by the people by being stylish in clothing, hair styles, and in external matters like piercings and tattoos. Of course, these styles change with increasing rapidity, requiring the pastor to keep up to speed regarding such ephemeral matters. The important thing about the nondenominational pastor becomes his personal qualities rather than the office that he holds - and the lower view of the office is also a hallmark of nondenominational doctrine and practice. Without vestments, his personal tastes in matters of style are more important to authenticity than for a pastor cloaked by the uniform vesture of his office.
Since the transcendence of sacraments is not there, there is a kind-of vacuum, which is filled by means of emotion - especially in the form of music. And since the music is a means of emotional release, the more intense, objective, confessional, and theologically rigorous hymnody of times past will be replaced by something more visceral, expressive, and emotive. This leads to the leaders of the music to emote more by means of facial expression, gesture, and musical ornamentation and improvisation. This leads to less vocal participation from the worshipers, as it is more difficult to sing together, in unison or in harmony, as a congregation, and may lead to more of a sense of one attending a concert. The organ - which, for centuries, facilitated participatory congregational singing in harmony, is no longer very useful, except for perhaps an occasional nod to nostalgia. It is replaced by instrumentation that is more contemporary and fit to convey and deliver an intensive emotional experience. Thus the objective means-of-grace-based confession is replaced by a subjective, feelings-based experience. The use of certain chords as a “drone” in the background during prayers and exhortations has a psychologically and physiologically manipulative effect in the way that old-fashioned hymnody does not.
Moreover, given the emphasis on individual experience, connection to the ages past is also a mark of inauthenticity. The ancient ways that Christians have greeted one another for centuries: “The Lord be with you” and “And with your spirit,” as well as the ancient Paschal greeting (“Christ is risen. He is risen indeed, Alleluia”) is likely to be replaced by a more contemporary call-and-response of something more focused on the worshiper’s immediate felt needs, something less incarnational (“God is good, all the time. All the time, God is good”). Notice that “risen” emphasizes the objective nature of the Resurrection, whereas “good” - in the modern context - is all about personal, subjective preferences. And given the individualistic nature of nondenominational worship, connection to ancient hymnody also is not a mark of authenticity, such as chanting the fourth century Te Deum Laudamus or singing the corpus of sixteenth century chorales. Even modern nineteenth and twentieth century hymns will likely be considered too old, and if used at all, will be altered. While severing ties to generations and centuries of sacred compositions delving the depths of human experience, it is simply more nondenominationally authentic for the music to have a much shorter shelf life, so as to reflect the immediate tastes and preferences at any given time over and against a catholic and incarnational sense of connectedness to the larger body of Christ, the church of ages past. It is the elevation of style over substance.
Given the more casual nature of the worship, and the lack of the need for sacramental furniture, the service is led from that which more closely resembles a stage. There has to be room for band equipment, speakers, and wiring. Pulpits are too formal for this setting, and only interfere with the pastor’s walking around. A permanent altar makes no sense, as this would be a kind of sacramental confession. Nor would a crucifix placed on the center of the altar - a fixture of historical and sacramental Christian worship - be authentic in a nondenominational setting . This is because the crucifix is a reminder of the incarnational nature of sacramental worship. The centrality of the crucifix also calls to mind the Mercy Seat within the Holy of Holies, in which God’s miraculous presence hovered between the cherubim in the tabernacle, and later the temple. Once again, that kind of incarnational Real Presence altar would not be authentic in nondenominational worship. Perhaps a small, portable table is brought in when the Supper is celebrated on occasion. Since baptism is downplayed, the font has no place on the stage. And in fact, since infant baptism is rejected, immersion baptisms are a bigger and better opportunity for high emotional impact. Some churches bring in tubs or kiddie pools on an ad hoc basis to perform baptisms.
Without the Service of the Sacrament, the liturgical flow is also simplified and casualized. There is a severance from earlier worship forms, especially those that are more formal. Thus one is far less likely to see the sign of the cross, or bowing. Instead, more emotional responses - hands in the air, waving, swaying, and making ecstatic faces - are more authentic. The celebrant of the Lord’s Supper will most certainly not chant the Words of Institution. He (or she) may instead improvise them, rush through them, or even delegate them to a layman of either sex to say. The idea of consecrating bread and wine in one place, and then distributing the elements from there, is simply unnecessary. It is much easier to give out individual cups and crackers, where everyone just remains seated. Communicants coming to kneel at a rail is clearly inauthentic. Kneeling would be an inauthentic confession of a divine Presence. Some churches have gone to a kind-of convenience pack, with elements prepackaged and wrapped for individual usage. There is no need for fastidiousness about the elements, since they are only symbolic. Grape juice is therefore a better option, as it accommodates those who don’t like, or don’t want, actual wine. The use of a beautiful crafted metal chalice is also superfluous, given the symbolic nature of the communion.
Since the atmosphere is casual, there is no need for reverence. Pastors are free to use gimmicks in their delivery of the “gospel message.” Hence, he may crack jokes, wear funny clothing, or engage in antics that would be inauthentic in churches that do believe in the Real Presence. Screens may dominate the visual landscape, as they provide focal points for leading the emotional response of the audience. Screens also add to the ambiance of entertainment, matching their ubiquity in the ordinary places of our lives. Prayers are going to be casual, emotional, and spontaneous rather than making use of formal litanies and historic Trinitarian collects.
Similarly, authentic preaching is going to be non-sacramental. Sermons are not considered supernatural, not engaging in the actual forgiveness of sin, but are rather conveyances of information: expressions of rationality combined with emotionalism. They may be a kind of theology lecture, but more often will be more of a pep-talk that one might hear from a life-coach or motivational speaker. Stories from the daily life of the preacher are authentic in this context. And once again, given that the sermon is simply information, it makes no difference if the preacher is ordained and rostered, or not.
The nondenominational church service looks very different than its predecessors in Rome, Wittenberg, or even Geneva. For style follows substance, and that substance feeds back into the style, hence lex orandi, lex credendi. We should commend the nondenominational churches for their authenticity. The way they worship reflects what they believe, and does so with integrity.
And that is what authenticity is really all about.
