On the other hand, I can’t remember who I read but they referred to the anti-rite sentiment as liturgical minimalism. We eschew all that is useful in the name of bare-bones. We missed the point that Luther (and others) thought those rites useful even if unnecessary. I found this to be true with studying the baptism rites. Luther kept them the same, then reformed them to make them clearer for his time and place. I didn’t cover later Luther but he actually returned to favor some of the more medieval inventions like the blowing in the ears and multiple exorcisms. Regardless, he was a high liturgical guy and the not the minimalist he is played out to be.

Indeed as I think Pr. Stiegemeyer points out, Luther came out of hiding in part to stop the destruction of the statues, crosses, and the like.

Thanks!

This anti-Rome streak that is encountered so often is, I think, part and parcel with the overexposure that Confessional Lutheranism has had to “Reformed” American Evangelicalism/Pietism. Granted, it certainly goes back to the very start of the Reformation (we must remember to send Karlstadt a nice thank-you card for being just about the first “lutheran” to start getting that wrong, don’tcha think?

I grew up, and was confirmed, in a church with kneelers, but I haven’t belonged to a congregation that had them in nigh on 20 years — and I miss them. I also find it very meaningful to cross myself, although that is something I didn’t learn to do until about 4 years ago…

Nice post (among the flurry you just sent out into the blogosphere, my good seminarian!). ;^)