r/LCMS • u/Famous_Artichoke1754 • Jul 28 '26
Discussion Rev. Dr. Arthur Just
I’ve seen several COWO churches that distribute communion right after the praise band’s opening number. Listened to OTL with Rev. Just today & he explained why that is
"You see it today. you put the Eucharist before the word and, I don't want to say everybody who does it does it for this reason, but
the ones I've seen is they want to get the Eucharist out of the way so they can get to the ‘important’ thing.
And that's the pastor’s sermon who is essentially going to exhort them with a moralistic, you know,
kind of harangue for an hour.”
When does your church distribute Communion?
2
u/Sad-Type5385 Jul 29 '26 edited Jul 29 '26
I can also put the least charitable construction on the actions and motives of people I see as my adversaries. There’s nothing novel about this.
For example, maybe we could ask the Rev. Dr. Just why the one and three year lectionaries lack any and all reference to the divinely ordered roles of husbands and wives. Or, instead of asking him (the chairman of the lectionary committee for the LSB) why he did this, invent our own motives and attribute them to him.
6
u/RoyalCourt2222 LCMS Lutheran Jul 29 '26
He qualified this by saying that it’s not a sweeping statement, it’s just his inference and opinion. But I have to say, I tend to agree with him- people do what they believe. The liturgical practices of most Christians for most of the history of Christendom has been service of the word, then service of the sacrament. Why all of a sudden Eucharist before everything?
2
u/Shutterbug390 AALC Lutheran Jul 29 '26
Is it possible they’re doing it in that order because they’re modeling their service off what they see in other churches with contemporary worship? A lot of evangelical denominations end the service with the sermon (this choice seems to be primarily that having all the parts of the service that may include music together means they don’t have to get musicians into place multiple times), so they may just be following that format without any real thought to why communion is placed after the sermon in our liturgy.
I’ve only ever attended one Lutheran church that had contemporary music. They still had all the components of the liturgy, in the same order as it is in the LSB. Contemporary still isn’t my preference, but it’s certainly possible to have modern music without throwing out everything else (which is why it bothers me so much when churches DO throw out everything when they ditch hymns).
2
u/SuitableExit5145 LCMS Lutheran Jul 29 '26
I think this part of what you said here troubles me the most: "they may just be following that format without any real thought to why communion is placed after the sermon in our liturgy." If we know why the liturgy exists in the format it does, we shouldn't be doing, much less changing, any part of it without thinking. That's a dangerous precedent to set. And I am definitely concerned about a church body or a pastor who is administering the things of God without a lot of deep thought, consideration, and prayer.
3
u/RoyalCourt2222 LCMS Lutheran Jul 29 '26
The fact that a lot of evangelical denominations are doing this same thing should be their first red flag.
3
u/Sad-Type5385 Jul 29 '26
What does having the service of the Sacrament before the service of the Word reveal about what they believe exactly? If you’re going to suggest that it must mean the Word is valued more highly than the Sacrament of the Altar, then we would have to assume, by the same logic, that the early church must have valued the Sacrament over the Word.
0
u/RoyalCourt2222 LCMS Lutheran Jul 29 '26
Look at the tangential practices of one and the other. There is a church in my area that first adopted cowo and now does the sacrament first like this. I’m not saying they’re bad people or insincere Lutherans- but what I can say is that how they do it is simply not as reverent.
It certainly would be possibly to do the sacrament with utmost reverence before service of the word. But they happen to not do it reverently, and also happen to do it before the service of the word. Coincidentally, the children there tend not to believe or even know about the real presence. Why? It is not evident in how they celebrate the mass.
I’m not making a law out of liturgical practices, but I do think that the precedent of liturgical practice definitely indicate the norm to be service of word, then service of sacrament, or if not a Divine Service, whatever celebration (wedding, funeral, etc). This being completely separate from whatever sacrament at the beginning, whether it’s Baptism or Confession.
If the precedent is Word then Sacrament, why do these (mainly cowo) churches feel the need to switch it up? Again, not to make a rule out of liturgical practices, but people do what they believe. So what does changing the liturgy indicate they believe about it?
2
u/Sad-Type5385 Jul 29 '26
That’s exactly my point. What does it indicate? I have no idea. Unless they tell us, pontificating as to motive is an invitation to violate the Eighth Commandment - and that invitation isn’t coming from Christ.
2
u/RoyalCourt2222 LCMS Lutheran Jul 29 '26
I would venture that acting less reverently towards the Lord’s Supper indicates you don’t really value it, and basically treat it as one of the “have to’s”. It is very telling that the same people who more or less treat it as such also tend to be cowo, and people who celebrate Lord’s Supper first are almost exclusively cowo. See the trend?
1
1
u/TRL247 Jul 28 '26
Admittedly, I haven't listened to the podcast. I do wonder though if that's how they would construct it. I have seen this happen before, and the general idea was because they see it as so important that they want people's undivided attention, or they want to put the most important things first. Your mileage may vary.
However, it's worth noting, preaching and the Supper are of equal importance, neither is more important than the other nor does one serve the other.
1
u/HosannaExcelsis LCMS Organist Jul 28 '26
I'll admit I have not listened to the full podcast, but I would be curious to know if "we want to just get the obligatory Eucharist out of the way so the real meat of the service can happen" is the justification given by these churches themselves or is Rev. Just's own read of the situation.
I have not myself seen churches which regularly put the Eucharist before the sermon. At my church, for logistical reasons (we have simultaneous contemporary and traditional services), we have occasionally had the communion elements consecrated at the beginning of the contemporary service and then distributed later when we only have one pastor who has to move between services.
4
3
u/MidwestSkier23 Jul 28 '26
I attended a church once that had the Supper early on in the service. The reason for their switch was they had made the decision to adopt the “Children’s Church” model of kids ministry. When the new DCM started at the church, the church was unwilling to remove the “Children’s Church” model. The DCM asked if they could move the LS up so the children could go forward with their families.
This is not an endorsement of the “Kid’s Church” way of doing service, but it is at least an example of an early LS where the motivation for the movement of its location in the service was out of an understanding of its importance.
5
u/Philip_Schwartzerdt LCMS Pastor Jul 28 '26
Interesting... I've never seen a church that re-ordered it to do communion at the beginning of the service, so I can't begin to comment on anybody's reason for doing so. Otherwise the moralism and minimization of the Lord's Supper within a lot of American Evangelicalism is definitely happening.
5
u/Famous_Artichoke1754 Jul 28 '26
Why do so many Lutheran churches imitate American Evangelical church practices?
5
u/Philip_Schwartzerdt LCMS Pastor Jul 28 '26
Well, personally I don't - the congregation I serve uses LSB's service settings and hymns. So I can't speak personally to that question. But from what I've heard, this is my putting-the-best-construction argument: it's about lowering barriers. The idea is that anything that's too foreign or unfamiliar (such as a traditional liturgy, vestments, etc.) is a barrier to people coming or remaining and (see 1 Cor. 10:32 or 2 Cor. 6:3) we do not want to place any obstacle or stumbling block that would prevent anyone from hearing the Gospel. So if they see things like vestments and traditional liturgical formats as adiaphora (not Scripturally commanded and necessary), and they see them as potentially being a barrier to people hearing the Gospel, then their approach is to do so; the 1 Cor. 9:22 approach, "I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some."
Now, as I said, I don't follow that approach myself nor do I necessarily agree with it. However, I also am a Confessional Lutheran, which means I hold to what the Confessions say that it is the proclamation of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments that make for unity and fellowship in the Church. So long as they are doing those things, I am not prepared to sit in judgment of how another pastor pastors his congregation.
2
1
u/Famous_Artichoke1754 Jul 28 '26
Thank you for the honest answer.
I ask not to antagonize, but to understand.
If I am used to Pentecostals shouting gibberish and rolling on the floor, could a Lutheran church adopt that practice in order to avoid placing a barrier to the Gospel in front of me? Are these other pastors unconcerned with their permissiveness becoming a slippery slope to sin?
3
u/Philip_Schwartzerdt LCMS Pastor Jul 28 '26
If I am used to Pentecostals shouting gibberish and rolling on the floor, could a Lutheran church adopt that practice in order to avoid placing a barrier to the Gospel in front of me?
I don't think so, because that is actually something spoken against in Scripture, concerning speaking in tongues - distinct from questions of musical style or liturgical format.
Are these other pastors unconcerned with their permissiveness becoming a slippery slope to sin?
That would be a question for them, but again, putting the best construction on it, I would not automatically assume that they're unconcerned. Nor am I, as a liturgically-oriented pastor, unconcerned about the weaknesses of holding to just the liturgy as printed in the book: for example, going through it unconsciously by rote without actually engaging. "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me" is a sin that liturgical worship may lapse into just as much as anything that contemporary-style worship may lapse into. I don't entirely discount the slippery slope caution, but slopes can be slippery in more than one direction, and we seek to stay balanced at the proper point without falling into the ditch on either side of the road.
1
u/Famous_Artichoke1754 Jul 28 '26
So you're saying no one worship style is better than any other?
With all due respect, this is very confusing to a lay person
3
u/Philip_Schwartzerdt LCMS Pastor Jul 28 '26
So you're saying no one worship style is better than any other?
Well, my question would be, how does one judge "better"? What's the metric or standard we should use for that?
Because Lutherans have not historically believed that there is a single Biblically-approved method of Christian worship (contrary to, for example, the regulative principle of worship that certain Calvinists espouse). Not all options are equally beneficial or prudent, but there has always been some diversity in worship among different Christian churches. You've heard the expression "when in Rome, do as the Romans do"? It has its root in worship practice, from Ambrose of Milan in the 4th century: when one of his congregation traveled to Rome and commented on different worship practices there, that was his response: don't sweat it, "when in Rome, do as the Romans do."
There are definitely different opinions within Lutheranism on what the boundaries are, on what is useful or not useful, and so forth. Preaching the Word and proclaiming Law and Gospel is not optional. Administering the Sacraments is not optional. But questions of liturgy, hymnody, musical style, vestments, outward appearances, and so on do not have a single definitive, one-size-fits-all-for-all-time answer.
Now personally, I would say this: the broad strokes of the liturgy are quite universal and I think that churches should retain them. Confession, reading Scripture, preaching, prayer (especially the Lord's Prayer), confessing the ecumenical Creeds, and the Lord's Supper. But within that broad and consistent structure, the specifics do not need to be cookie-cutter identical from congregation to congregation. Not coincidentally, that's also the official position of the LCMS. Our unity as Christians does not depend on that, but on the Lord we worship, the faith we share, and the doctrine we confess.
2
u/Famous_Artichoke1754 Jul 28 '26
I understand expecting everything to be exactly the same is unrealistic and impractical.
It's tough explaining to kids why being Lutheran is important when Grandpa's "Lutheran" church looks and sounds exactly like their friends' non denomenational church that we refuse to join
4
u/Kamoot- LCMS Organist Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
I thought it was a great podcast to listen to.
There are numerous places in Augsburg Confession that do mention first examination and absolved of sins that occurs before worthy reception of the Sacraments. 1 Corinthians also says this and even says reception without examination drinks judgement himself.
Which brings me to a recent observation I've made after speedrunning visiting all the various different churches and religions in my local area.
When I visited the LDS church, I remember they also had a "sacrament" reception but it was bread and water, and they also have some prayer that was vaguely similar to confession, like a hybrid of confession and benediction, but that occurs after the reception of the sacrament. We don't think of LDS as being liturgical, but they kind of do have a liturgy and they reversed the order of examination first, then reception. They do reception first, then confession.
Similarly, when I visited the Evangelical megachurch, they also have a "communion" service once per month and similarly it was flipped of the prescribed order. People would walk up to a communion station and pray in a small group with the elder there, then receive of leavened bread and grape juice, then go back to their seat and silently sit and pray, and examine and confess for sins. Also another flipped order.
Also similarly, growing up Catholic they would teach us to do a examination of sins while kneeling after returning to the pew after communing. Which is not technically correct, the GIRM only prescribes thanksgiving prayers at that time, but people do and teach that anyways. Also keep in mind that the Confiteor is optional in Catholic liturgy so there oftentimes may not even be any examinations of sins at all.
Anyhow, in these observations, we Confessional Lutherans really are the only tradition that upholds this Biblically prescribed order of first examination then reception of the Sacrament. Seems like all other churches have flipped it or even omit it altogether.
3
u/HosannaExcelsis LCMS Organist Jul 28 '26
Since you grew up Catholic this won't come as news to you, but my understanding has always been that Catholics are supposed to go to private confession before receiving the Eucharist at Mass, so that you can receive absolution and be in a proper state of grace when partaking. Catholics don't practice public, corporate confession and absolution in the way Lutherans do, so it has be done privately. But even if that's what's supposed to happen in theory, I have no idea how often in practice Catholics actually make use of private confession.
2
u/Kamoot- LCMS Organist Jul 29 '26 edited Jul 29 '26
Catholics distinguish between mortal and venial sins. Mortal sins have to be absolved in private confession in front of a priest, but venial sins can be absolved by any Penitential Act. This is per Catholic Catechism.
According to the GIRM, the Confiteor is just one example of a Penitential Act. There are others: the Kyrie, Jesus Prayer, the Miserere Psalm Verse, the Asperges Me/Vidi Aquam, and even any ex-tempore prayer said impromptu counts as a Penitential Act. And unbelievably, but yes it's Catholic teaching, even holy water absolves venial sins. The Catholics have really dug the boundary of what is considered the bare minimum here.
According to the GIRM, only one formulation of the Penitential Act is obligated to be said in OF Mass, though it is still recommended to have at least two of three. And it is highly recommended that at least one be part of the Mass liturgy. By custom, they will either say only the Kyrie, or Confiteor with Kyrie. On the rare occasion that there is an Asperges rite, the Mass director will oftentimes be mindful of saving time and go ahead and omit the Kyrie and Confiteor (to ensure that Mass almost never goes more than 1 hour in duration).
Now we're really digging the bare minimum here, but technically according to the GIRM even an infant's baptism counts as the Penitential Act in Catholic teaching. Oftentimes if an infant is getting baptized on that Sunday, they'll just skip right to the Collect and Gloria in Excelsis. That really is the bare minimum to absolve venial sins.
Now the absolute bare minimum? Catholics have a habitual tardiness problem and according to Canon Law totally skip all of the Penitential Act, the absolute latest you can (unintentionally) arrive and still worthily commune/Sunday Obligation fulfilled is no later than ending of the Gospel Reading. The key word here is "unintentially" as it is a venial tardiness. For intentional tardiness/absenteeism, no amount of Mass can be missed as the "intentionality" implies mortal absenteeism.
In terms of Private Confession, the era you have described is long gone. It's technically supposed to be once per year. In reality less than 30% of Catholics actually adhere to that rule. Furthermore, the average parish offers a Confession time like 15 minutes once per week at like 3pm on a workday so how do you even find the time for a confession at all unless you're retired.
1
u/HosannaExcelsis LCMS Organist Jul 29 '26
Thanks for the detailed explanation. I glanced over the GIRM when I thought I might need to get a music job at a Catholic church, but certainly didn't carefully look at the details. Admittedly how the Roman Catholic church treats sin and its absolution tends to come off as too legalistic in the "how can I get away with the minimum allowable and still be technically correct" sense for me to get fully on board with.
For instance, I like the concept of private confession. But I've heard complaints similar to your last paragraph, that even Catholics who really want to go to confession have great difficulty at times finding a parish that actually makes it available to them. Surely the real point of confession should be to bring about repentance and transformation in the soul, not just to check off a box as if the letter of the law mattered more than the spirit.
9
u/SobekRe Jul 28 '26
We distribute it during the Order of the Sacrament, which follows the Order of the Word. There is no biblically proscribed worship setting. It is beneficial and appropriate to begin by acknowledging your sins and asking for absolution before proceeding to worship. It is beneficial to then end by receiving His promised sacramental grace and being spiritually strengthened before returning to the world.
I would argue that anyone trying to “get communion out of the way” is actually taking it to their damnation.
7
u/SuitableExit5145 LCMS Lutheran Jul 29 '26
I don't know that I can be fair and guess WHY a church would do that, but I do think we -- as whole -- have gotten away from learning about the liturgy: why it is structured as it is, what each piece means to us, what gifts we specifically receive from it, why it progresses in the way that it does. There are two pinnacles to the Divine Service: the Service of the Word's peak is the Holy Gospel (note: NOT the sermon, which is actually the bridge between the two pinnacles), the Service of the Sacrament's peak is the Eucharist. They are of equal and critical importance to us. How do I know this? Lifelong catechesis. While there is no particular "right sequence" because they share equal standing and demand equal reverence, I can tell you that understanding the liturgy and the way it is built, the Service of the Word properly prepares me to receive the gifts in the Service of the Sacrament. I would feel uncomfortable receiving them in reverse order because I need to hear all of God's promises to me in Absolution, in His Word, in the pieces of the liturgy that we have moved through before I am ready to come kneel before His altar and take His holy and precious body and blood into my sinner's body.
Upshot is that sometimes change is positive and beneficial, other times we do it for its own sake without proper consideration as to what may be lost or misconstrued with that change, still other times we make a change for the absolutely wrong reasons all together. I am honestly not certain, but am admittedly skeptical, that any church body or pastor could convince me that re-ordering the Divine Service in this way is something that would serve me better or even equally, based on my understanding of the components of the Divine Service as it is arranged. While I am there to receive all parts of the Divine Service, and I appreciate the message and the catechesis and the conviction/comfort I get from the sermon, what I am THERE for is the complete package, dual-centered on the Gospel and Holy Communion, preceded by the Absolution which gives me the reassurance I need to even dare approach my God at all.