Traditionalism is not Legalism

George Carlin once quipped that anyone driving slower than you is an "idiot" and anyone driving faster than you is a "maniac."

Of course, this is because the sinful nature sees itself as, like the third bowl of porridge: "just right."

In the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, especially exacerbated by the multiplicity of electronic media, there is a real culture of trying to bully people into being Just Like Me. You will see it pretty often these days, be it on blogs, in social networking sites, or on e-lists. The self-styled "confessional Lutherans" often berate the emerging movement, the contemporary worship faction, or the church growth industry for not being reverent and traditional enough. Their opponents often reply by playing (in the words of Rev. Todd Wilkin) "the Pharisee card." In other words, the "confessional Lutherans" are denounced by their less liturgical counterparts for "legalism" and for being "Pharisees." Of course, the characterization is unfair and a poor substitute for rational and churchmanly debate and discourse.

But, the game goes the other direction. There is a movement of traditionalism, not only in Lutheran circles, but also among the Roman Catholic, Reformed, and even neo-Evangelical branches of the Church Catholic. Creeds and confessions are being dusted off. Churches that have been hesitant to use the traditional church year and the lectionary are taking them out for a spin. Chasubles and incense are cautiously being reintroduced in liturgical churches - even in America where minimalism and anti-Roman hysteria has skewed Lutheranism and Anglicanism in a more Protestant direction than the confessional writings and tradition of those communions confess on paper.

But the traditionalist movement is being ridiculed as legalism by the "confessional Lutheran" faction in the same way that the "confessional Lutherans" are often mischaracterized by their opponents. And the impersonality of the internet emboldens a sense of rudeness that is far less likely in a more personal forum.

One example I've seen recently involved a pious Lutheran lady who blogged about her decision to adopt what was, until the sexual revolution, almost a universal practice among Christian ladies in worship - the wearing of a head covering. For this, she was mocked and ridiculed by "confessional Lutherans." A pastor even went so far as to post pictures of women wearing Muslim burkas on her website, and to question her motives.

Another "traditionalist Lutheran" layman was explaining some of the rationale for the traditional Lutheran practice of receiving communion on the tongue. He was by no means saying this is a requirement, but was rather explaining why this was customary and nearly universal among Lutherans for centuries - until very recent times (when communing in the hand became common in the post-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church). The dialog went on to discuss the way pastors have traditionally been taught to hold their hands while distributing communion, and he made a cogent and calm argument in favor of the traditional practice. In response, this educated layman was openly mocked by pastors, who themselves tried to tag him with the accusation that he was "scorning" them and not showing enough obeisance to the pastoral office. Of course, namecalling never refutes a good argument. I know the fellow in question, and you will not find a more gentlemanly, churchly person. He is scholarly and genteel, and has profound respect for thr holy office. Some of his opponents simply sought to silence him through bullying and playing loose and fast with the facts. Again, the traditional position was mocked and associated with legalism.

Sadly, people seem to forget that these "rubrics" (specific instructions about worship) are ancient, appear in Lutheran hymnals and/or liturgical guidebooks, are nowhere taught as meritorious for salvation and are never touted as such today by any Lutherans, and simply give direction about how to do things.

They are, in short, etiquette.

Etiquette is not a priority in our culture these days. It is denigrated as some kind of pompous self-aggrandizing trivia about which fork to use at a fancy dinner. Today's movies and TV shows routinely celebrate rudeness. Even children's movies are filled with burping and flatulence. Anyone who displays etiquette is portrayed as effeminate - when in fact, the correct way to describe this ethos is "chivalry", which is at its core, a manly Christian deference for women, for children, and for those who are weaker or disadvantaged in any way. And even among those who are not weaker, politeness is simply striving to treat others the way we ourselves would want to be treated - which, in spite of its seemingly un-Lutheran "legalism," sounds vaguely familiar for some reason.

Of course, etiquette and chivalry would preclude mocking a lady with pictures of women wearing burkas. Etiquette would also dictate gracious disagreement rather than misstating the opposing view and trying to destroy a person's reputation.

I can't help but think of the story of the Southern lady who went to Manhattan, and her rude and obnoxious hosts wanted to rub her nose in the fact that they had conquered her home state in the "late unpleasantness." So, they took her to the St. Gaudens equestrian statue of General Sherman which includes the figure of an angel (portrayed in the feminine) walking alongside. The Southern lady got the upper hand, though. When asked for her reaction, she replied: "Isn't that just like a Yankee to make the lady walk?" Unfortunately, these days, there is little or no deference shown to ladies, Christian or otherwise. It's as though "confessional Lutherans" have surrendered the premises of feminism unawares.

The other nice thing about etiquette is it prevents distraction and embarrassment. For example, my fifth grade music teacher, who was rather eccentric, had the habit of putting a record on for the students and then sitting on the piano bench, mindlessly burying her index finger two knuckles deep in her nose, digging wax out of her ear, picking at her scalp, then rolling the amalgamated bio-matter around in her fingers, and eating it. You can imagine the reaction of her students, who observed this trainwreck tableau with rapt attention. No doubt, she had no idea that she was doing this. She had no "rubric" to suggest a proper place or procedure for her hands. So, she did what came naturally.

A liturgical rubric about hands developed over many centuries (a rubric mocked by some of the "confesisonal Lutheran"faction) involving the celebrant. When communion begins, the ancient custom is for the priest to place his index finger and thumb together. This keeps his fingertips and thumbs clean, since he is placing the hosts into the mouths of his parishioners. It also keeps him from brusing his hair, picking his eyes, or imitating the rhinotillexial rituals of my fifth grade music teacher - which would certainly detract friom the Gospel (and yes, someone will, no doubt, claim that he will deliberately be picking his nose during next Sunday's service to express his freedom in the Gospel...). The rubric allows a habit to be formed - a good habit, a hygenic habit, a helpful habit. This isn't legalism, it's common courtesy. It's like the rubric of brushing your teeth or not wiping your nose on the altar linens.

Now, I find that particular rubric (keeping finger and thumb together, that is) difficult to master (I don't have liturgical assistants), but I do make the effort to keep in in spirit. When I am celebrating the Mass, I try very hard not to touch anything - especially not my face - with my right forefinger and thumb. I bless the children with my pinky instead (since I use my thumb and forfinger to give communion). Does this merit something for me? Of course not. Is it a good habit to foster? I think so.

The rubric is not only good hygiene, it promotes protection of the Lord's body from desecration. Most rubrics are rooted in a desire for good order in worship, or common courtesy and hygenic considerations. These are good things, not bad. This isn't legalism, but rather a loving attention to propriety and detail. Often the celebrant in Christian churches is seen with hands folded. Again, this is a habit that continues to protect the hands from picking up foreign substances which will then be placed into people's mouths. And yes, it is a way for the pastor to focus on something other than wondering what the heck to do with his hands so that he doesn't draw undo attention to himself. We don't have to reinvent the wheel out of some misguided Romaphobia or desire to look as slovenly as possible so as not to appear overly catholic (a seminary professor once said that Dr. Nagel suggested, tongue in cheek, that the pastor should make sure his stole is a little crooked so as not to appear too "high church").

Another example: the custom of the pastor turning to his right (instead of his left) dates back to the days when we had deacons (that would be "male deaconesses" for some of our modern LCMS folks unfamiliar with the term) assisting at the altar. The priest would turn to his right so as not to turn his back on the deacon. Now, I don't have a deacon, but I do usually have a lay elder assisting me, and I do try to avoid turning my back to him - whether he is on my left or right. That little matter of etiquette will not merit salvation, has no effect on the efficacy of my preaching or the validity of the sacrament, but it is the polite thing to do. I don't insist others do this, but I might mention it if I were teaching a course on liturgy - and I'm sure someone would interpret it as legalism, and suggest the Christian thing would be to turn one's back on him in order to express Christian freedom. Sigh.

Traditionalism is filled with polite actions. And that's not a bad thing, especially in the face of people coming to church with bare midriffs, nearly exposed breasts, ball caps on the head, and chomping on bubble gum (I'm thinking mainly of funerals and weddings here). Propriety is not legalism, and mocking those who strive to go back to practices rooted in reverent tradition doesn't add anything to the discussion. In fact, it just fuels the fire of criticism among "liberals" that the "conservatives" are cads, rubes, troglodytes, and barbarians. Maybe it's also a matter of Christian liberty that we may indeed rise above these impressions? Maybe Christian freedom includes the freedom to not to confirm to the bottom-shelf stereotype asserted by our opponents?

I do think it entirely compatible with the Gospel not to mock and humilate Christian ladies who cover their heads nor those who place their hands in such a way as to maintain hygiene and respect. It seems to me quintessensially Lutheran to honor our forebears rather than presume the worst of their motives in handing down rubrics to us.

And if you want to disagree, please feel free. But at the risk of being called a "legalist," I insist that any discussion of this topic will be conducted as ladies and gentlemen. I'm a fan of Robert E. Lee's single rubric concerning the behavior of his students at Washington College: "Be a gentleman." If you're not, your post will disappear and not be addressed.

That's my rubric, and I'm sticking to it.