05-4 Theology of the..

REVIEWS 49
liturgy as an enactment that makes Christ present to the people.
In so describing this view, Fagerberg correctly points out that the
role of theology is to bridge the old and the new—to teach the
old and to relate to the new. He cites Fr. Robert Taft’s positive
evaluation of St. Germanus as being “what every theologian
must be: a man of tradition and a man of his times” (240).
Father Alexander Schmemann’s commentary The Eucharist
serves as the chief model for liturgical theology, according to
Fagerberg, because Schmemann “finds elements of the liturgy to
be multifaceted.... The entire Divine Liturgy is a single act, a
common task” (280). The whole purpose of doing liturgical theology
is to uncover the meaning and essence of the interrelationship
between the assembly, the Eucharist, and the church, according
to Schmemann (257, 285). All participants at worship may
appreciate the verbal icon of Christ in the gospel book at the
beginning of the liturgy, but then the assembly as the Body of
Christ becomes a “closed assembly of the Church” at the
Eucharist, where all and only the faithful together realize the
priesthood of Christ (264). This chapter reviews the Sacrament of
the Faithful in the Orthodox tradition from the Great Entrance,
through the Anamnesis and Epiclesis, to the actual Communion.
Fagerberg concludes his review of Schmemann’s analysis of the
Orthodox liturgy with a comment by Fr. Schmemann: “the lex
orandi of the Church is a single diamond with multiple facets, not
a series of beads on a string which can be removed and studied in
isolation” (285). In Fagerberg’s schema, liturgical theology is not
liturgics, but liturgy that is theology.
The final chapter underscores several “consequences” Fagerberg
sees in a his search for a thorough method of doing liturgical
theology. “One consequence of liturgical theology would be
to create more theologians, a true empowerment of the laity”
(294). To quote Fagerberg one more time (and to illustrate the
literary style and picturesque imagery he uses throughout the
book), he writes:
The grammar of faith weekly exercised in liturgical rhythms
establishes itself in a life, even if one cannot put it in second-order
propositions. One’s life will have been steeped in
the Christian lexicon, formed by the Christian story, and
one can exercise the Christian grammar even if one cannot
reflectively articulate it.
Liturgical experience will have capacitated a theological grammar.
(300)
Doing liturgical theology, according to Fagerberg, would
enable all Christians to speak and live in terms of their faith as
experienced in the liturgy and not merely be an exercise of the
academic theologian or even resident theologian (the pastor).
Lutheran Theology in, with, and under the Law
Lutherans have always expounded a theology for liturgy—in,
with, and under the liturgy is our theology. Our theology of
liturgy is not distinct from, but answers the questions how theology
influences liturgy and how liturgy communicates the
gospel. To worship in a Lutheran church that utilizes the liturgy,
one will hear and experience the central doctrines of Scripture—the
Trinity, confession and absolution, the incarnation,
the centrality and authority of Scripture, the proclamation of
the gospel, justification by grace through faith, the means of
grace, the sacramental presence of our Savior, the two natures of
Christ, to name a few of the many articles of doctrine that are
integral to our weekly liturgies. Where Lutheran theology is not
central, there the liturgy will also be cast aside for alternate services
from other denominations with differing theological
emphases and detrimental consequences to our gospel-centered
proclamations.
Conclusion
Readers of LOGIA will appreciate the wealth of information from
various liturgical perspectives and the detailed analyses of
Lutheran theologies of/from worship. The six chapters of this
stimulating book are sensibly constructed and skillfully developed
as the author defines, lays out, and exemplifies what he
perceives to be a truly “liturgical theology.” In his introduction
he distinguishes between “theologies of worship,” “theologies
from worship,” and “liturgical theology.”
Fagerberg provides an outstanding resource for Lutherans to
review and evaluate our “theology of liturgy. “ Although he is
critical of Prenter, Vajta, and Brunner concerning their methodology,
he does not disagree with the substantive qualities of their
work. In addition, his overviews of Prenter’s several articles and
books, including Creation and Redemption, of Vajta’s Luther on
Worship, of Peter Brunner’s Worship in the Name of Jesus, and of
Geoffrey Wainwright’s Doxology, are extremely thorough, providing
not only quotations from each of these notables in the
area of worship and theology, but also an analysis of their
methodological and liturgical consequences.
In the final analysis, I am convinced that Fagerberg’s
methodological critique will be beneficial for Lutheran liturgical
studies. If there were to be only one major consequence of
his study, I would hope that Lutherans would comfortably conclude
that we do not have to “do” liturgical theology, but rather
that we can boldly and confidently practice biblical (christocentric,
law-gospel, grace-filled) theology in our liturgy. The
reciprocity that Lutherans have cherished and that has helped
maintain Lutheran orthodoxy (in both senses of the term—
right teaching and right praising) is not to be abandoned for a
rigidly legalistic understanding of the interrelationship of worship
and doctrine in both the Orthodox and Calvinistic
extremes. In Lutheranism, our theology forms and informs our
worship, while at the same time our worship forms and
informs our theology, so that the good news can be heard as
good news.
NOTES
1. Although Brunner is a Lutheran theologian, Fagerberg correctly
points out that his methodology in the second half of his book is more
similar to Anglo-Protestants (like Wainwright) than to Luther and his successors,
that is, Prenter and Vajta.
2. Regin Prenter, Creation and Redemption (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1968); “Liturgy and Theology” and “Eucharistic Sacrifice according
to the Lutheran Tradition,” in Theologie und Gottesdienst Gesammelte Aufsatze
(Göttingen: Forlaget Aros Arhus, 1977), 139–151, 195–206.