05-4 Theology of the..

50 LOGIA
3. Vilmos Vajta, Luther on Worship (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press,
1958); “Creation and Worship,” in Studia Liturgica 2 (1963): 29–33.
4. Peter Brunner, Worship in the Name of Jesus (St. Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1968). Although categorizing the second part of Brunner’s
work under “theologies from worship,” Fagerberg speaks of this
book in most instances as a “theology of worship.”
5. Geoffrey Wainwright, Doxology—The Praise of God in Worship,
Doctrine and Life: A Systematic Theology (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1980).
6. Fagerberg, 128, states, “It is within Protestant traditions that one
sees the strongest and clearest examples of doctrinal control over worship.
... It was the Calvinists who most severely reshaped ritual structures
and texts ....” And on page 195, Fagerberg boldly states his major
thesis: “This is why lex orandi establishes lex credendi and not vice versa.”
7. Aidan Kavanagh, On Liturgical Theology (New York: Pueblo Publishing
Company, 1984).
Timothy Maschke
Concordia University Wisconsin
Mequon, Wisconsin
Worship in Transition: The Liturgical Movement in the Twentieth
Century. By John Fenwick and Bryan Spinks. New York: Continuum,
1985. 197 pages.
■ Some people think there has been too much talk about worship
in recent years. Others thrive on liturgical discourse. Like it
or not, the current interest in liturgical theology and practice
will continue. In under two hundred pages, Fenwick and Spinks
show how the present level of interest in things liturgical is, to a
large extent, the result of a movement whose beginnings go back
to the turn of the century.
Every denomination has been affected by the Liturgical
Movement. Its influence has been worldwide. Its influence has
touched most congregations. Its impact on American
Lutheranism has been profound. The authors have done a
remarkable job in surveying the vast historical terrain, isolating
the major themes, and addressing key issues. Chapter 2 summarizes
the primary characteristics of the movement: “the
struggle for community” in society and the church, the new
emphasis on the participation of the laity in the liturgy, a
recovery of the early church as a model, a rediscovery of the
Bible, a rediscovery of the eucharistic, an emphasis on the vernacular
and contemporary language, the rediscovery of other
Christian traditions, and an emphasis on proclamation and
social involvement.
Historically the Liturgical Movement was a Roman Catholic
movement. Three chapters describe its development through
both its pre- and post-Vatican II phases. The flow went from
Trent to Vatican II, from the continent (France-Belgium-Germany-Rome)
to England to North America. The pastoral problems
that gave rise to the movement were not unique to Europe
alone. “It is not surprising, therefore, that the insights of this
Catholic movement had parallel stirrings in other Churches,
and in turn influenced, and then were developed in non-Roman
Catholic ways in other Churches” (37). Three chapters survey
the liturgical movement in the Anglican Church and South
India. Any Lutheran pastor with a volume by Luther Reed or
Gregory Dix on his shelf appreciates the influence the Anglican
Church has had on the Lutheran liturgy. Both Fenwick and
Spinks are priests in the Church of England. Some Lutherans
will be familiar with Bryan Spinks’s excellent book Luther’s
Liturgical Criteria and His Reform of the Canon of the Mass
(Grove Liturgical Studies 30). Every Lutheran pastor should be
familiar with it.
Chapter 10 looks at how the Eastern Orthodox churches provided
the inspiration for much of the reforming work of the
Liturgical Movement. According to Fenwick and Spinks, such
insights as worship as the “collaboration” of the entire community;
the shift to an “emphasis upon the resurrection and glory
rather than upon the piety of the suffering of Christ of the west,”
the epiclesis, the passing of the peace, the anaphora of St. Basil,
reconsideration of infant communion, and other emphases are of
Eastern origin. They write, “It is extraordinary how many
involved in the Liturgical movement owe at least some of their
thinking to Eastern contacts” (97).
Chapter 12, “Behind the Consensus on the Eucharist,”
begins, “A comparison of the majority of new eucharistic liturgies
reveals that the Liturgical Movement has left behind a
remarkable degree of consensus on the structure and content
of the eucharistic liturgy” (115). Again, “The amount of crossfertilization
that has taken place between the Churches has
blurred the distinction between their rite”. ... In one sense, to
have read one new rite is to have read them all” (116). Rome
followed the path of streamlining and restoration in the reform
of the liturgy. The Anglican church followed the path of “radical
reshaping” (117), which centered on Gregory Dix’s fouraction
shape. “Dix’s theory has been influential in the Lutheran
Book of Worship as well as in practically all other Anglican revisions”
(128). This is a very important observation in light of the
remark in chapter 5 that “Dix’s arguments and evidence are
flawed” (51). The remark is footnoted with a reference to an
article by Bryan Spinks titled “Mis-Shapen: Gregory Dix and
the Four-Action Shape of Liturgy” (Lutheran Quarterly 4 [1990]:
161–177).
This book will undoubtedly be included on the reading list of
liturgics courses at many seminaries. The chapters are brief and
clearly written. Many chapters will lend themselves nicely as topics
for monthly pastoral conferences: chapter 11 looks at the relationship
between the Charismatic Movement and the Liturgical
Movement; chapter 13 is titled “The Changing Face of Baptism
and Confirmation”; chapter 14 raises some very important and
insightful questions on the language of worship; and chapter 15
looks at inculturation.
Chapter 16, “Opposition and Reaction,” offers valuable
insight and analysis. The chapter begins, “Almost from its very
beginnings the Liturgical Movement has provoked opposition.”
The new language and re-ordered church buildings produced a
“sense of loss,” “bewilderment,” and “bereavement” for many
people. In the section titled “Loss of doctrinal purity” the
authors write, “Liturgy expresses what Christians believe. To
change the liturgy therefore runs the risk of changing doctrine—or
at least those doctrines which worshipers regularly
hear and absorb and which become part of their Christian
identity” (169). Fenwick and Spinks raise a very important
question: “How much of the doctrinal content of a liturgy