Lutheran or Anabaptist source sought

I've been tracing the history of daily church & home services in the early church... testing the theory that derives both from Jewish practice - possible but unproven. Which got me wondering why daily church services were suppressed in the Reformation. I have found some statements from Luther complaining about actual practice as he saw it, but nothing from a theological or a liturgical line of argument. Anyone know of a theological or liturgical argument by a Lutheran or Anabaptist as to why daily worship was dropped? I am excluding the Reformed tradition simply because I lack the background to put their theological arguments in context.

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

GaoLu

Are you assuming that the practice was dropped rather than having never been assimilated?

I don't have time to research now but it comes to mind to search out the Lutheran pastor

MJ. Smith

Are you assuming that the practice was dropped rather than having never been assimilated?

There is sufficient evidence in the history of Jewish and Christian worship, to say that daily services were the norm. For Judaism, Temple services were daily, daily synagogue services appear to be a post-destruction of the Temple development. As for Christians, the earliest records are scanty attesting both daily meetings and weekly meetings in different locations and contexts. What we do know is that the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholics all had established daily services no later than the 4th century and that Anglicans and Lutherans retain an optional daily service routine. High-church branches of Methodists and Reformed sometimes retain the daily prayer service tradition. Historically, the evidence of the worship patterns of the Arian Church is difficult to track down. I find the Paulicians and the Cathars to also have insufficient evidence of their practices to make a judgment i.e. the evidence of a parallel weekly schedule cannot be excluded or proven. All of which boils down to approximately 3 out of 4 Christians worldwide today having theoretical access to daily services and assuming the practice was dropped is simply choice of a starting point in an argument line that has already been taken and decided. I have my suspicions as to the cause of the change but have just started gathering the data to study it seriously.

Lutheran pastor Philip Jakob Spener who sort of founded Pietism.

The Lutherans with which I have the most experience are the pietist Laestadians of the Sámi people (Laplanders). As their preachers are lay, I would be surprised if their structure ever supported daily services.

GaoLu

I suppose that daily worship as a practice initially ceased due to small nascent groups forming such as Lutherans, and later many others, due to lay leadership as you mention. simplification of worship services, a shift away from the liturgical calendar. But that is speculation.

I am very interested in your findings.

Olli-Pekka Ylisuutari

Anyone know of a theological or liturgical argument by a Lutheran or Anabaptist as to why daily worship was dropped?

My theory (not by any means sure knowledge):

I suspect that the dropout (or, rather: the decrease) of public daily prayers in Lutheranism (and in other protestant churches, as well) has a lot to do with antimonasticism during the early years of reformation and since.

In my understanding, daily prayer moments (Laudes, Vesper, Completorium etc. etc.) were held mostly in monasteries, just as they are today, rather than in parochial churches. As monasteries were shut down with the reformation, this tradition withered away – sadly, I might add.

In ELCF, where I work as a minister, we have still these public daily prayer moments as an option (a direct quote from the Service Book of the ELCF, my translation):

“Among the traditional daily prayers are morning prayer (Laudes), noon prayer (Ad sextam), evening prayer (Vesper) and a prayer at the end of the day, that is Completorium. Instead of these, a prayer moment can be conducted according to the scheme of Small Prayer Moment. The prayer of Light (Lucernarium) can be added to the Vesper and Completorium. The prayer moment is conducted by a priest, an employee of the church or a member of the church. The parts marked as to be sung can also be read.

Here are the Prayer Moments of ELCF (also in English [:D]):

Päivän rukoushetket - Jumalanpalvelusten kirja - Kirkkokäsikirja | Suomen ev.lut. kirkko (kirkkokasikirja.fi)

MJ. Smith

In my understanding, daily prayer moments (Laudes, Vesper, Completorium etc. etc.) were held mostly in monasteries, just as they are today, rather than in parochial churches. As monasteries were shut down with the reformation, this tradition withered away – sadly, I might add.

I suspect you may be correct and that the reason it was dropped was not theological although I have a couple of theological candidates. The reason I am looking for the "why" of the dropping of the Liturgy of the Hours in the West, is that the Didache prescribes praying the Lord's Prayer three times a day (much like the Amidah). This is normally Morning Prayer, Mass, and Evening Prayer. With all three services dropped, the early practice of the Didache is completely lost. However, since I am still mad at the clerics/monastics for stealing the liturgy of the hours from laity and making it too complex for laity to continue the practice, I may be a bit biased. However, I am delighted to see the Lucernarium in the ELCF list ... when our parish does Vespers (usually because the music director wants a chance to sing the beautiful music) we precede it with Lucernaium but I rarely see that in other churches.

Ken McGuire

I wish I had a good source for you. The best I am aware of is some of the overview/introduction to the trial Daily Prayer services published by Augsburg-Fortress c. 2005. One thing to remember for Lutheranism is how important the University Faculties were for the Lutheran Reformation. I am curious about the history of worship services at University of Wittenberg and Jena in the 16th and 17th centuries... It also might be worth looking through Arndt's True Christianity and what all it says. But I have not done so, so can't say what you would find. But in some respects with how much Arndt was based on Medieval piety, it would be interesting if it ISN'T there.

MJ. Smith

I reviewed

Beeke, Joel R., and Brian G. Najapfour, eds. Taking Hold of God: Reformed and Puritan Perspectives on Prayer. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011 Gibson, Jonathan and Mark Erngey.
Reformation Worship: Liturgies from the Past for the Present Greensboro, NC: New Growth Press, 2018
Maag, Karin. Worshiping with the Reformers. Reformation Commentary on Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2021.

The no liturgy of the hours/daily worship argument appears to belong to those who go the farthest towards individualism (a big issue at the time considering humanism) and away from the church as communal action. What is interesting is that I still have not found anyone providing a theological argument against daily worship or the Divine Office (the name that implies that Liturgy of the Hours is the work of the Church). What I do find is arguments which have the suppression or devaluing of daily worship as a secondary effect. Given the difference is the assumptions behind the arguments, the argument make sense. I suspect that just like the issue of sola scriptura, my difficulty in finding the theological arguments is that the disagreement is several assumptions back. Just for fun, here's a preacher's arguments for the retention of set form prayers - a separate but related question.

[quote]

In his sermon, Browning highlighted the historic roots of set prayer in communal worship from the time of the early church onward and condemned extemporaneous prayer in church services. He rhetorically asked, “How many idle words, irreverent, unmannerly, ridiculous, if not blasphemous passages fall from many, in their suddenly conceived prayers?” Not surprisingly in the light of his chosen text, one of Browning’s main concerns about extemporaneous prayer in public worship was its inordinate length, in contrast to the much shorter set prayers. Indeed, Browning set out nine reasons why using shorter set prayers in public worship was the right approach, both theologically and practically:

1. That the weakest devotion of the meanest Christian may not be oppressed.
2. That the people might have space and place to joyne with the Priest, and give their assent to their owne prayers.
3. That by their often responds, the mind of the people may be kept from wandering.
4. That their devotion (thus) might be the more excited and stirred up.
5. That their attention (thus) might be kept waking, by their often responds, which were expected from them.
6. That hereby they might shew their confidence in God’s mercy by CHRIST’s merits, as contrary to the Heathen practice, Mat. 6:7.
7. That by such means the Priest also might in such spaces be both eased, and refreshed in the time of prayer.
8. That there might be a space for meditation.
9. But especially that our Saviour’s command might be observed, who hath thus, both by his precept and example, commanded.

Browning’s strong defense of set prayers provides a window into the challenges faced by clergy who had to find ways to lead in communal prayer and hold their congregation’s attention in the process. His commonsense observation that people are more likely to pay attention and not let their minds wander if they are active participants in the process through their responses in set prayers argues for pedagogical insight on the part of those advocating for set prayer.

Karin Maag, Worshiping with the Reformers, Reformation Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2021), 107–108.

David Thomas

Anyone know of a theological or liturgical argument by a Lutheran or Anabaptist as to why daily worship was dropped? I am excluding the Reformed tradition simply because I lack the background to put their theological arguments in context.

I realize it is a matter of perspective, but I am curious that you remove Lutheran from Reformed tradition (especially since Luther was a key figure in the Reformation). I realized Dutch & Swiss Reformed denominations are somewhat removed from others in the "Reformed tradition".

Take this for what it is worth. It comes from the Historical Roots of the Evangelical Free Church of America which traces lineage back through Scandanavian versions of Lutherans who continued to worship regularly in State (Kingdom) dominated Liturgy, but also met frequently in home churches (daily worship?) PERHAPS the daily liturgy in cathedrals decreased out of pragmatism--many (most) who desired daily worship, did so in homes rather than traveling to hear a King-approved priest in the Cathedral. As attendance wained, the practice discontinued. I realize this is an argument from pragmatism, rather than theology, but may address your observation of a shift.

You may disagree with this telling of history, but this comes from the "Welcome to the Family" booklet published by Free Church Press and used in many EFCA Churches.

Reformation Heritage

The Evangelical Free Church of America began in the Scandinavian countries of Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Its religious and philosophical roots are firmly planted on the foundational principles of two historical events. The first was the 16^th century Protestant Reformation, which changed the religious climate all across Europe. The Church had strayed far from a biblically-based foundation, and reform back to biblical roots was desperately needed. Five revolutionary principles of the Reformation laid the foundation for spiritual renewal and formed the basis for the “free church” movement during the next 250 years.

Sola Scriptura (Scriptures alone) – The Scriptures, not the institutional Church, are the primary authority by which humanity must live against which truth and error must be judged.
Sola Gratia (Grace alone) – Salvation is by grace alone; it is the free and unmerited gift of God to a sinful human world
Sola Fide (Faith alone) The gift of salvation and the benefits of being in God’s eternal family comes through personal faith in Christ as Savior, not by any personal good works, the merits of a human mediator, religious ceremonies or institutional efforts.
Solo Christo (Christ only) Christ is the exclusive mediator between God and man. Neither Mary, the saints, nor priests (other than Christ himself) can act as mediator in bringing salvation.
Soli Deo Gloria (glory only to God) All glory is due to God alone, since salvation is accomplished solely through His works.

The second major historical event was a mid-19^th century grassroots movement across Europe to break away from established state-controlled churches, which were in many cases simply arms of government. In the Scandinavian countries, the Lutheran Church acted in such a manner. A number of issues emerged and brought an unsettledness among a growing number

The dominance of the State over the Church – The relationship between the State and the Church was unhealthy because the State had far more authority over the Church than did the Scriptures. In most places, the State had authority to dictate what the Church was to believe, how it was to worship, and how it was to be governed.
Hollowness of the Church – The State Church was the Church of all citizens whether or not they were true believers. The Church’s beliefs and practices were not under the control of believers who sought to follow the Scriptures in everything they did. In many churches, the services and ceremonies had become hollow religious experiences with little personal spiritual commitment, involvement in ministries, or evangelistic missions outreach.
Mandatory and open communion – Instead of emphasizing the need for a personal faith in Christ, the Church’s emphasis was on attending communion services which were often required by law and granted to everyone regardless of their personal spiritual commitments.

A grassroots movement began to return churchgoers to a faith founded on the Scriptures. When people came to know Christ personally as Savior and Lord and studies the Bible, they formed some strong convictions regarding the foundational principles for local churches:

Church membership of “believers only, but all believers.” Church membership was comprised only of individuals who professed Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord and was not to exclude anyone, except when this confession was lacking.
A Scriptural basis for theological beliefs and personal lifestyle. “Where stands it written?” was asked on question of belief and practice.
Local church autonomy, the right of self-government, free from the control of the State
The ordinances of baptism and communion were only for those who confessed personal faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.
Active involvement of lay people in the work of the church. The ministry of the church was for all believers, not just for the professionally trained pastors.
Missionary activity to reach people who needed to know the good news of the Gospel. Missionaries were needed to be sent to other parts of the world.

Believers affirming these principles began to develop informal and unofficial gatherings within the larger State church, but as these new groups started to implement some of the principles, church authorities pressured them to abandon their ways or withdraw from the established church. They chose to withdraw and establish new “free” churches on their own. Hence, the “free church” movement was born.

A few years after this movement began, immigrants from the Scandinavian countries arrived in the United States and established churches."

Info also available at https://helps.efca.org/resources/this-is-our-story-video

MJ. Smith

Thankyou for your comments - State religion vs. free church is a dimension I hadn't considered.

I realize it is a matter of perspective, but I am curious that you remove Lutheran from Reformed tradition (especially since Luther was a key figure in the Reformation).

My division was very simple: I grew up in a community where there is an active Apostolic Lutheran Church in which my Grandmother, aunts, uncles, cousins ... were raised and where the lay pastor was a good family friend. I have an ELCA pastor for a daughter-in-law. Therefore, I know enough Lutheran theology to feel comfortable (with assistance) to find and understand Lutheran resources. Furthermore, both Anglicans and Lutherans described themselves as "middle way" i.e. closely enough related to the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Catholics to relate well with them on some matters, more closely aligned with the Protestants on other matters. Anabaptists is the tradition of my father's paternal heritage as seen through the eyes of the Stone-Campbell movement. They may have self-identified as Church of Christ but there was a strong Anabaptist undercurrent e.g. pacifist and simplicity. On the other hand, I have little knowledge of the Calvinist thread of theology, I don't know enough of the basics to do useful research, I get muddled trying to follow the theological arguments and all in all need all the help I can get to find resources that would help me answer my question - and even more help to genuinely understand it.

There is also a second reason, to the best of my knowledge, some groups of Anglican, Lutherans, Methodists, Moravians, and Presbyterians are the Protestant groups that retained either a Liturgy of the Hours or daily worship at least as an option ... and I've never run into a Presbyterian congregation that regularly exercised that option. (And yes, my niece is married to a formerly Presbyterian minister.) Therefore, the biggest gap in my knowledge from a theoretical have-their-prayer-book perspective is the Reformed tradition. P.S. My maternal cousins grew up in Bethlehem, PA and attended a Moravian high school despite being raised in a Presbyterian church. They married a Catholic and a Jew. Don't underestimate the degree to which my knowledge and ignorance indicates family ties.

David Thomas

Don't underestimate the degree to which my knowledge and ignorance indicates family ties.

Good explanation of understanding your own bias! (personal experience)

Ken McGuire

At the risk of uselessly bringing up a zombie thread, I looked at my discussions here on the forum and remembered that as part of putting Chemnitz into English, they translated his "Church Order" into English a few years back. It is Vol 9 in Chemnitz's Works as published by CPH. The whole set is available in Logos, but if you want a sample to see what is in it, look at https://s3.amazonaws.com/cph-org-assets/media/pdf/155215.pdf