Friday, May 21, 2010

A Church Growth Book Worth Reading

The Churching of America 1776-2005: Winners and Losers in our Religious Economy

by R. Finke and R. Stark
Rutgers University Press

The American Evangelical church growth movement seeks to turn the church into a marketing firm for Jesus and the pastor into a visionary CEO who is held accountable for how much revenue, er, conversions he gets for Jesus. Many Lutherans have bought into this vision hook, line, and sinker - and many, many Lutherans are smaller scale stock holders.

So the American Evangelicals - that is, the Willow Creek Association, Saddleback, Billy Graham, etc. - are keen on bringing a bit of American marketing into the church. But what would happen to their theories and methods if they were examined on their own merits? What would a hardcore, free-market economic analysis of American religion show?

Finke and Stark subject the data of American church membership to just this sort of rigorous statistical analysis from the colonial period down to today.

I find their analysis intriguing and ultimately persuasive. The story runs like this. In a free market for religion the high tension "sect" always does better than the accommodating "church." For Finke and Stark, a sect is a group that is as odds with society at large. They are different. They hold to very specific doctrines very tenaciously. They are demanding on their adherents.

"to the degree that denominations rejected traditional doctrines and ceased to make serious demands on their followers, they ceased to prosper." p. 1

A church, on the other hand, is staid. They are comfortable. They line up, more or less, with the world. They get along. They don't believe anything outlandish and are part and parcel of the culture.

The leading sects of today are the Pentecostal groups. They are ferocious about doctrine: just try talking one of them out of the need to speak in tongues. Today's accommodating churches are the United Methodist Church (a very successful sect of the 19th century), the Episcopal Church USA, the ELCA, etc. I dare you to go read the proceedings from any recent UCC or ELCA convention - you'll find pages of resolutions on boycotting China and giving justice to lesbian barbershop owners but precious little of traditional doctrinal fare. They are part of the culture at large. And they are hemorrhaging members.

But you knew that today's mainline denominations were losing members at a breakneck pace. Finke's and Stark's most significant finding is that it has always been this way. The accommodating churches are always fading. The doctrine crazy sects are always growing. It has been this way since the yoke of a State Church was first thrown off.

"By the latter half of the twentieth century, sociologists and historians scrambled to explain the sudden rise of the conservative faiths and the rapid decline of the more liberal "mainline" denominations. We will show that this trend was well underway two centuries earlier. The trend of growing upstart sects and declining mainline denominations has been in place since at least 1776." p3


The Methodists are the most notorious case of a growing, doctrinal, demanding sect becoming a shrinking, institutional, undoctrinal, accommodating church. The Southern Baptist Convention is the textbook case for how a doctrinal sect does not have to give up its strengths when it becomes large, bureaucratic, and well-educated (the hallmarks of a church). The key is to remain doctrinal and "high tension" - that is, to be at odds with the world.

What of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States? Finke and Stark point out that the Missouri Synod was the fastest growing sect from 1916 to 1926. During that time period the Missouri Synod also had the highest number of adherents who rejected ecumenism (89.5% in a 1932 survey) and the greatest perceived differences between themselves and others (as measured by reluctance to marry a member of another church, receive communion elsewhere, etc.). In fact, the Missouri Synod's "perceived differences" factor was three times the nearest competitor (which, it so happens, were all other Lutheran groups combined).

So much for the hard numbers from disinterested sociologists. What to make of this theologically? That, of course, depends on your theology. A free-will Baptist will see in this book new insights and techniques to apply to gaining more converts. But a Lutheran who believes in election will see something else.

I explore this analysis based on the doctrine of election further in the paper I'll be presenting, Lord willing, at the Gottesdienst West conference in June - but here let me just say this. If we cease to look at our countrymen as potential converts whom God has called us to convince into the faith and start looking at God's own elect as the folks we are called to serve who happen to be scattered among the nations...well, things fall into place. Not everybody is a believer, nor is everyone ever going to be one. Narrow is the gate and all that. So I'm not called to minister unto a huge population of "the lost." I'm called by God through the Church to minister to his elect, who happen to be scattered among the nations and will be called through the Word. And what do his elect like? What does God expect me to give them? Oddly enough - just those things that Finke and Stark identify as the marks of a strong, vibrant, and growing religious group: doctrine and a marked difference from the world around us.

Could it be that the sin we are committing is not some imagined lack of preaching the Gospel accessibly and relevantly to the lost, but rather driving God's elect into the arms of Pentecostalism and Roman Catholicism because we've turned down the intensity of our Lutheranism in a vain attempt to appeal to the world?

+HRC

47 comments:

  1. Nice. Very Pentecostal...err the festal season not denomination.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. this post seems quite bizarre. i understand your desire to justify your own theological opinions, but even then, this seems like a dangerous argument. it seems like you're equating demanding standards of individual action with fierce doctrinal standards (referencing the demanding standards of Pentecostals and their emphasis on speaking in tongues--that is, a real action in the world--as merely a doctrinal stance), when it seems like the quote you provide from page one speaks to the effectiveness of religious communities who have traditional beliefs AND wage exacting standards of personal action upon their followers. it seems like in order to prosper, according to Finke and Stark, you need both doctrine and to be demanding. this seems entirely antithetical to the confessional lutheranism i've been exposed to. daring to demand action of constituents, to impose exacting standards? why, that's too close to anything that resembles works righteousness! but back to the argument concerning beliefs AND standards.

    Finke and Stark's argument, as i understand it, seems to make just good plain sense. if you have traditional beliefs but ask nothing of your constituents, unless you are particularly drawn to the narrative or aesthetics of the symbology, what's to keep people in the pews, let alone have constituents bring everyone they know. and if you're demanding but lack the traditional beliefs, how are you going to connect with folks. and, tangentially, isn't this exactly how clifford geertz defines religion, as an inherited cosmology that begets and explains an ethos, and an ethos that gives one a very personal and emotional connection that helps a believer internalize the cosmology?

    ReplyDelete
  4. second, i have no problem believing that the Missouri Synod was the fastest growing sect from 1916 to 1926, but to claim that this growth is about rejecting ecumenicism and not wanting to marry someone outside the synod is somewhat dishonest. this time period lines up perfectly with an increasing anti-German sentiment surrounding WWI that consequently lead to the expansion of English services. the church grew when it became, dare i say, more accommodating.

    you wade threw this murky argument in order to do what exactly? to make something of this theologically, which of course, depends entirely on your theology. seriously? all this to ask the perplexing question, "what do his elect like?" why should you care what the elect like? shouldn't you only care about what the elect need to hear? you know what, i'll tell you what the elect like: what they're elected to believe.

    you use empirical data (questionably, i might add) to justify a unique theological opinion, namely that you should continue to preach and teach your specific theology, a certain "intense" lutheranism to the elect and not "the lost". and surprise surprise, at the end of this epistemological contortion act, God's will (namely your theological opinions) is exactly what leads to a vibrant and growing religious sect.

    ReplyDelete
  5. if you're reasoning is correct, then the logical conclusion is that the confessional lutheran churches of the missouri synod are growing at exceptional rates. i might be wrong, but i'm pretty sure i can come up with some empirical evidence to the contrary, which, depending on your epistemological flavor of the day, may or may not mean anything to you. moreover, it seems strange to me that on a blog committed to the "traditional, historic, liturgy of the Christian Church" in 16th century Protestant Germany is trying to state that its theological opinions (and consequently, liturgical stylings) are as effective in the vein of certain sects of revivalists like george whitfield or other itinerant lay preachers. this whole thing is a mine field.

    if i were you, i would reject these findings. i don't think they get you anywhere but in a quagmire. i would argue that the pure unadulterated gospel is not about winning any popularity contests. you preach the law and the gospel. some people will hear it, and others will reject it. Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

    why are you trying to justify theological opinions predicated upon faith alone with statistics?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jason,

    I'm just fine with your last two paragraphs. I agree that we don't run the church on statistics, or philosophy, or anything else. We run the church on the Word of God. Nothing in my posts suggests otherwise.

    What I was trying to do here was to understand this empirical evidence in light of our theology. How do the two fit together? I can no more "reject these findings" than I can reject the fossil record or the speed of light and the distance of Polaris from earth. I've got to understand how these facts relate to the truths revealed in Scripture. Sticking our heads in the sand because the facts at first blush make us uncomfortable is never an option.

    So, my first attempt to understand how the two go together is to posit (in the form of a question) whether or not God's people are driven away from watered-down Lutheranism.

    Second, I've never heard of a confessional Lutheranism that didn't demand actions from folks - you know, that whole, "repentance and the forgiveness of sins" thing (or take a gander at the FC on Good Works, or the Large Catechism on the Ten Commandments). Undoubtedly there is an antinomian strain among Lutherans, but I don't think it's remotely fair to call that confessional. Luther himself dealt with that in SA III.3.42-45.

    Third, no, my reasoning here does not necessarily imply that confessional congregations are growing. First, because the converse is not necessarily true. Second, because Finke and Stark are taking about denominations as a whole, not individual congregations.

    But I'm very open to other interpretations of the evidence presented by Finke and Stark and how it relates to the church today. As I said, I find the book intriguing and thought-provoking.

    All the best,
    +HRC

    ReplyDelete
  7. Heath,

    I am very sorry that I am not going to be able to make the ... I'm sorry, in what way is it west? Anyway, I really did want to make your presentation and I'm sorry I won't. I hope you record it or video it or we'll bring you in for the southern tour sometime.

    I'd rather interact with you concerning that when I am able to fully read your words on the topic.

    So, in simply answering your posts you ask "So, my first attempt to understand how the two go together is to posit (in the form of a question) whether or not God's people are driven away from watered-down Lutheranism."

    I would say yes to this. But of course, I don't see CoWo as watered down Lutheranism. I see denying a virgin birth as such or rejecting the miracles of Christ as watering down. If your argument is that guys like me, holding to a six/seven day creation, male pastorate, etc and doing CoWo are caving into liberal mainline thinking...well, you know...once again, as you say, we do things because of what the Word of God says.

    If that is not your point, I think the issue comes to one that says "Why be a Christian if it doesn't mean anything?" That is why people leave.

    Secondly, you say:

    "Second, I've never heard of a confessional Lutheranism that didn't demand actions from folks - you know, that whole, "repentance and the forgiveness of sins" thing (or take a gander at the FC on Good Works, or the Large Catechism on the Ten Commandments). Undoubtedly there is an antinomian strain among Lutherans, but I don't think it's remotely fair to call that confessional. Luther himself dealt with that in SA III.3.42-45."

    You might not think it entirely fair to call the confessional wing of the synod as antinomian, but well, it is accurate.

    The issue is not demanding action: mainlines demand actions -- recycling, being tolerant, wearign rainbow colors -- the issue is that within confessionalism, sanctification is downplayed.

    This would evident by the "Weak on sanctification" T-shirts. You don't see those at PLI conferences.

    I guess the issue is that within confessional Lutheranism, the expectations are lowered. Evangelize? Not for the layperson. You just live out a life in vocation--don't worry about telling someone else about Jesus.

    How about stewardship? Shall I point you to the Gottesdienst contributors attitudes on whether to preach on stewardship?

    No, see within the confessional Lutheran movement, there is this idea that you proclaim the law and kill sin, and then proclaim the Gospel. Good works will follow, so no reason to speak about them. A good tree bears good fruit.

    This the weakness that we find.

    Now, I shall also state, in your defense, that I heard that Robert Preus said that if you are never called an antinomian, you don't understand justification. At the same time, I do think that the issue is with confessional Lutheranism.

    Last comment:

    "Could it be that the sin we are committing is not some imagined lack of preaching the Gospel accessibly and relevantly to the lost, but rather driving God's elect into the arms of Pentecostalism and Roman Catholicism because we've turned down the intensity of our Lutheranism in a vain attempt to appeal to the world?"

    Who cares? Oh, wait, that has to do with predestination, sorry...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Fr. Louderback,

    You make three points. Here is a quick response for each.

    1. Yes, I think tossing out the Lutheran form of worship in preference to neo-Evangelical and neo-Pentecostal forms is watering down Lutheranism. I don't know how anybody can read the Confessions and not come away with the impression that the Lutherans clearly keep the Western Mass. If someone yells at this point in apoplectic rage, "Those passages are descriptive, not prescriptive." I respond, "Right, and they describe my parish, too: why not yours?"

    Or to put it another way: A Lutheran magically transported through time from 1551, 1651, 1751, 1851, or 1951 could walk into my church and know he was in a Lutheran church. I've been in plenty of Lutheran churches he simply would not recognize today. I think that fact is important because I don't think you can separate traditional Lutheran theology from traditional Lutheran piety.

    2. Let's use the word antinomian the right way. An antinomian says, "Good words do not matter. The Law has no place in the Christian life. Indeed, we can sin however much we like and yet remain in the faith." Luther tackles this issue, as well as defining it, in SA III.3.42-45.

    I don't know any Lutheran antinomians today. There is a lively argument among Lutherans about how best to approach preaching (which you mention) and how best to help Christians live godly lives. But tossing around a term like antinomian inaccurately is unhelpful and uncharitable.

    For example, let's think about some other things the "Confessional Wing" is known for: being sticklers on refusing communion to folks who are shacking up, in the Elks Club, or in the ELCA. Not exactly antinomian. Kind of demanding and counter-cultural.

    The two items you mention in regard to personal piety - stewardship and evangelism - again show how deeply influenced you are by the neo-Evangelical movement. Those two items are certainly the chief focus of personal piety in that community. Lutherans tend to think first of faithfulness in receiving the Sacraments, prayer, bearing crosses, and service to others in vocation. Just interesting that you didn't pick one of those for your example of piety that needs to be preached.

    3. Yes, God will save his elect. He really will. You just can't screw it up, Mark. You really can't. Go ahead and try - but nothing can separate the elect of God's love in Christ Jesus. That's what it says in Romans 8.

    Does that mean we should be lazy antinomians and sin that grace may about? May it never be!

    But Robert Preus was right: if your preaching never causes somebody to ask those Romans 6 questions, then you don't understand justification.

    +HRC

    ReplyDelete
  9. Heath,

    1. If someone yells at this point in apoplectic rage, "Those passages are descriptive, not prescriptive." I respond, "Right, and they describe my parish, too: why not yours?"

    Point #1: Ok, first: why is it watering down? I mean, I understand your disagreeing with it: but why is it watering down? What exactly is it watering down?

    I'm not watering down any of the counter-cultural positions of our church--in fact, it is going against what some in the church think is right! How much more counter-cultural can you get.

    Second, I don't have to yell. Yelling means you don't have a strong point.

    Third, back in Luther's day, who was he trying to reach out to? Baptized Roman Catholics. Those who attended and did attend church. Worship services were entirely contextual for the times.

    Now the crowd is different--worship has changed. Would you find the same Gospel proclaimed in my church as in Jesus time? Yes. That is what is crucial.

    Point #2: If you use antinomian in that way, then no, I have never met one. What term shall I use to describe those who don't think a third use of the Law needs to be preached to Christians, because a good tree bears good fruit? What label what we use?

    For example, let's think about some other things the "Confessional Wing" is known for: being sticklers on refusing communion to folks who are shacking up, in the Elks Club, or in the ELCA. Not exactly antinomian. Kind of demanding and counter-cultural.

    I know! Which makes it so hilarious that people would be wearing a "Weak on sanctification" T-shirts! Why would they do that?

    The two items you mention in regard to personal piety - stewardship and evangelism - again show how deeply influenced you are by the neo-Evangelical movement.

    Or how antinomian you are...oh, wait, I don't mean that word...

    Lutherans tend to think first of faithfulness in receiving the Sacraments, prayer, bearing crosses, and service to others in vocation. Just interesting that you didn't pick one of those for your example of piety that needs to be preached.

    Well, the stewardship one I picked because, once again, Gottesdienst contributor. The evangelism I picked because...well...I'm sure you know.

    Point #3: The question is one of "What exactly is the purpose of the doctrine of election?" I say that it is comfort for the elect--and that it is not intended to inform our evangelism practice.

    So, my own CoWo is my not being a lazy antinomian. I have no doubt that your own fine liturgical worship is a proclamation of the gospel as well--but once again, if the elect are the elect, then what does it matter if they are elect through my CoWo, your liturgical service, or a Pentecostal service?

    I am curious to see what you say about the topic. I am serious when I say that I tried to fit it into my schedule and I hope that you record it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh, hey did you see Gottesdienst's favorite blogger posting on preaching?

    http://cyberbrethren.com/2010/05/25/preaching-easter-and-pentecost/

    Once again, what tribe in our church body do you think he is referring to? Not me and my neo-evangelical friends...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Fr. Louderback,

    Well - we can't just give away our super secret conference before the conference - elsewise no one would come!

    But we'll see what we can do after the conference. Maybe something like Netflix's deal with Warner Bros. . .

    +HRC

    ReplyDelete
  12. Fr. Louderback,

    On watering down: CoWo waters down, or rather, replaces traditional Lutheran piety (the concrete exercise of the Faith) with a foreign piety.

    The context of Luther and of us is the same: calling God's elect. But now I'm starting to give away the paper again. . .

    It matters greatly whether the elect are taught a Lutheran, Pentecostal, or Baptist piety specifically because they are the elect. They deserve the fullness of the Word of God, and a piety build thereon through all the ages. But again, I'm giving away the paper. . .

    An hey - anything west of St. Louis is West.

    +HRC

    ReplyDelete
  13. Fr. Louderback,

    I keep forgetting things. . .

    Re: Weak on Sanctification. Again, we enter into the realm of logomachy. Such slogans are usually born out of silly debates. What happened was this: somebody preaching salvation by grace and a piety based on receiving that grace and living a humble life of repentance and forgiveness was constantly accused by his brethren of being "weak on sanctification."

    Finally, unconvinced that he was doing anything wrong at all, he took the slur as a badge of honor. Not unlike how we came to be called Lutheran.

    I find such affairs sad, not fodder for further debate.

    Bringing this home to stewardship - context, as you of all people should be willing to proclaim, is everything. It's a matter of dividing Law and Gospel.

    I read a recent blog post from a brother in the SID, Fr. Buetow, talking about stewardship in his parish. His experience was that the more he preached on it, the more the finances of the church suffered. The more he left it alone, the smoother things went. How's that? Well, in that place, folks were doing a fine job examining their lives against God's Law. When the preacher started harping on the Law to sinners already beaten down by the Law...well, the results were not surprising.

    On the other hand, I also know places where the problem is complacency and an ignoring of God's Law. In such cases, a forthright call to repentance (the preaching of the Law) is what is needed. My friend and neighbor, Fr. Weedon, for example once simply mounted the pulpit and read the Small Catechism regarding "What Hearers Owe Their Pastors." Law preached, never without the Gospel promises, and the Holy Spirit worked repentance.

    So that's how we Confessional Wingnuts go about it. We seek to divide Law and Gospel. I don't know anyone - anyone - among our "crowd" who would chastise Fr. Weedon for his procedure. Nor do I know one man who denies the FC's teaching on the third use of the Law. Not one man. Do you know of one? If so, chapter and verse, please.

    So it's a classic case of our need to make sure that we don't confuse our particular parish for the rest of the world. Father Buetow and Father Weedon reacted in two different ways to two different places - that's how dividing Law and Gospel goes.

    +HRC

    ReplyDelete
  14. Rev. Louderback,

    I'm not sure I understand the distinction you make in your first post. If, as you suggest, the people must be intentionally taught how to evangelize, how to practice stewardship, and how to be effective leaders, why then is it improper to suggest that the people must likewise be taught how to worship, how to pray, how to praise, and how to sing?

    If one rejects the 'automatic-ness' of the Christian life (the good tree that bears good fruit) in some instances (again, evangelism and stewardship), mustn't he also reject it in others (namely, worship)?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Scott Hojnacki,

    I'm not sure I understand the distinction you make in your first post.

    Nor am I sometimes. I barely understand myself at times...

    If, as you suggest, the people must be intentionally taught how to evangelize, how to practice stewardship, and how to be effective leaders, why then is it improper to suggest that the people must likewise be taught how to worship, how to pray, how to praise, and how to sing?

    I do think they need to be taught as such. I just think that we need to be meeting them where they are to do the teaching.

    Learning how not to be materialistic is a process that takes time. I still have much to learn and practice.

    CoWo takes people where they are -- self-centered, me-focused sinners -- and focuses them on Christ.

    Lutheran CoWo, after all, is still focused on Gottesdienst--what God does for His people.

    Now, you can say, "Well, now liturgical worship does this as well -- and it has been doing that for longer." Could be. But it really does insist for a high level of understanding and comprehension -- not to mention taste.

    I don't insist that people tithe before coming to my church. But liturgical worship insists that we approach God in a certain way. I think there are other options.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ok, why are you Pr. H. R. and I am Fr. Louderback? Is there a distinction? Does "Fr" really stand for Freak or something like that?

    Anyway, your super-secret conference continues to be enticing. Would that I could come, I would be there. Would that I could pretend that Nebraska was the ultimate place for my wife and I to celebrate our 15 year anniversary (which is the 24th). Alas, an action like that would be predestined to fail.

    So, I will order the DVD with the director's commentary.

    Post #2: I wish you wouldn't say stuff like "CoWo waters down, or rather, replaces traditional Lutheran piety (the concrete exercise of the Faith) with a foreign piety."

    Because I just don't understand what that means...I read the words and I think "Ok...why?" and I'm asking the same question:

    Why is it replacing the Lutheran piety? And how exactly is that a watering down? It makes no sense...

    An hey - anything west of St. Louis is West.

    See, now that makes sense!

    I find such affairs sad, not fodder for further debate.

    Yeah...or it is symptomatic of something else. A person who preaches repentance as sorrow over sins and not turning away from the sin to be living a new and different life. A person who sets aside Luther's call to instruct people in good works. A person who reinterprets Scripture texts that speak to our action (Good Samaritan, talents, etc) and removes the bite of God's word that says "Act."

    I can be sorry for sleeping with my neighbor's wife all day long. But I ought not to keep doing it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "The urge to accommodate can be countered in part by the recognition that contemporary antidoctrinalism is just as much the product of social processes as was past attachment to particular churches and their doctirnes. Further, the privatism and subjectivism that accompanies the neglect of communal doctrines leads to a weakening of the social groups (Gemeinshaften) that are the chief bulwards against chaos and against totalitarian efforts to master chaos.... Yet when the Zeitgeist is as unfavorable as at present, only a few intellectuals can be expected to be much influenced by such thoughts. Other measures are necessary to convince larger numbers of the importance of doctrine. It may well be that some measure of what I have on other occasions called 'sociological sectarianism' is required." George Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine, 77-78

    The socio-linguistic understanding of doctrine helps explain why forms of piety cannot be separated from dogma. Without einerlei Rede we cannot share in one mind. (1 Cor 1:10).

    Not all sociology is bad. Unfortunately, the sociology that informed CGM was Weberian (managerial-manipulative).

    ReplyDelete
  18. I did not forget anything -- I'm just too long-winded:

    Anyway, you say:

    I read a recent blog post from a brother in the SID, Fr. Buetow, talking about those insisting that the Gentiles be circumcized. His experience was that the more he preached on it, the more the people insisted on it. The more he left it alone, the smoother things went. How's that? Well, in that place, folks were doing a fine job examining their lives against God's Law. When the preacher started harping on the Law to sinners already beaten down by the Law...well, the results were not surprising.

    Actually, you didn't say that.

    I'm sure that for Pr or Fr Buetlow, this was the case (his case, not my case). For Paul, it was not. That is why he specifically addresses these issues. He states pretty strongly what actions he expects to see happening. He spells out conduct -- and you know what? He doesn't simply expect a sorrow over what has been done wrong -- he expects a change in behavior.

    Now maybe you and I are in agreement on this entire issue -- it could be that we have the same perspective and view on this and we are talking past each other a bit. Could be.

    But you say: Nor do I know one man who denies the FC's teaching on the third use of the Law. Not one man. Do you know of one? If so, chapter and verse, please.

    Well, you know, I don't know a single CoWo guy who doesn't hold to a quia interpretation of the Confessions.

    Including me.

    I am sure that no one would say "I deny this." But in their actions and behavior, they certainly don't confirm it. They don't emphasize it. I see parishoners let off the hook again and again when it comes to behavior. Repentance is "I am a sinner" as opposed to "I am considering having an abortion and that it not right." There is a certain specificity that comes in the proclamation of the law.

    And there are actions that we can take that speak clearly to the elect hearing the Word of God, and setting a model for them of how they should act and behave. Not in a generic way, but one of specificity.

    Once again -- you and I might just be talking past one another on this. But too often, I get the sense from pastors that we can't tell people how they ought to live -- no reason for that, good trees bear good fruit -- because that is all "evangelical". No, no.

    And, just talking about this allows for such easy dismissal -- Oh, so law focused! Oh, so legalistic!

    Grumble...

    Do you understand what I am saying? Do you understand why I am speaking to this and where my frustration comes from?

    Let me ask you this: what exactly would you see as the issue within Lutherandom on the topic? Outside of a rejection of Lutheran piety by we CoWo types? Or is there simply no issue?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dear Mark:

    You write and ask:

    "I'm not watering down any of the counter-cultural positions of our church--in fact, it is going against what some in the church think is right! How much more counter-cultural can you get."

    This is the pinnacle of counter-culturalism:

    "In our churches Mass is celebrated every Sunday and on other festivals when the sacrament is offered to those who wish for it after they have been examined and absolved. We keep traditional liturgical forms, such as the order of the lessons, prayers, vestments, etc." (Ap 24:1)

    In an American religious scene of "Community Churches," big screens, church marketing, "me-ology," casual dress, consumerism, pedestrian PowerPoint "sermons," drum kits, guitars, hands waving around with ubiquitous ecstatic grins and mumbling, "7-11 songs" (seven words repeated 11 times) - all claiming to be a "new" (sic) way to "do church" and tossing about the terms "missional" and "relevant" - indeed, the traditional, Lutheran historic Mass (that we have all subscribed to in our confessions), the unquestioningly reverent Divine Service that delivers Word and Sacrament with no wishy-washiness or entertainment evangelism - now that is really counter-cultural, and ironically, in its eternal character, it is the truly contemporary worship.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Fr. Louderback,

    * The Gottesdienst style guide calls for ordained ministers to be referred to as Father. My email account send's messages as Pr. H. R. Curtis - thus the discrepancy.

    * As I've said before, and as Fr. Beane just said well, and as you've admitted to be in private correspondence: CoWo takes it's cue from Baptists and Pentecostals. This is not a controversial statement. It is an historical fact. Thus, a church that dumps LSB for a form of worship written by her pastor, aping what is currently popular with the EFree crowd has, simply by definition, replaced Lutheran piety with American Evangelical piety. Our piety includes as its foundation how we worship and pray. Again, I'll reference my example of transplanting through time a Lutheran and dropping him in the midst of my parish on Sunday morning at 9:45 and yours on Sunday morning at 10:45. . .

    * You seriously know of some Lutheran pastor who preaches: Be sorry for sleeping around on your wife, but if you don't stop it, no big deal. Seriously, dude: quote somebody's sermon. Antinomianism is a serious charge. Quote somebody or drop it.

    * I think we are actually agreed on the need to teach and instruct the flock. Like I said, it's a matter of dividing Law and Gospel - as evidenced by the scenarios I referenced from Fr. Buetow and Fr. Weedon. And like I said, I honestly know of no preacher who preaches repentance as being sorry and not turning. I again implore you to provide actual evidence from a real person before you continue making the charge against a vague class of men.

    +HRC

    ReplyDelete
  21. Rev. Louderback:

    In your reply to Scott, you write: "liturgical worship insists that we approach God in a certain way. I think there are other options."

    It is God Himself who insists on a certain way of approach - remember "Take off thy shoes from off thy feet"?

    The Gottesdienst Crowd doesn't emphasize liturgy and rubrics for their own sake. Rather, these Biblical and time-honored disciplines help instill reverence in people as the proper attitude with which we approach Almighty God.

    What other options are there, if, as a "quia" Lutheran, you believe that the LORD is truly among us in His gracious presence? The casual, comfortable atmosphere that CoWo fosters gives the impression that the participants do not believe in God's sacramental presence or that He doesn't care how He is approached or that He need not be feared.

    One more thing - regarding meeting people where they are. My grandparents were married in a little liturgical Lutheran church in Kansas in 1948. The congregation remained liturgical until the early 1990s when a new sem graduate came in and replaced the liturgy with creative worship, putting up a video screen because he believed that this is how church was to be done, going into the 21st century. Was this meeting the people where they were? It sounds more like insisting that we approach God in a certain way.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Fr. Reeder,

    You bring up a most salient point. In every established parish where CoWo was introduced it brought with it strife and discontent in the parish.

    +HRC

    ReplyDelete
  23. Fellow Gottesdiensters,

    Is it possible to hold a quia subscription while interpreting all that our Confessions say about worship contextually?

    I don't think it is, but Fr. Louderback (and others) do. What say the esteemed brothers here?

    ReplyDelete
  24. You bring up a most salient point. In every established parish where CoWo was introduced it brought with it strife and discontent in the parish.

    This is most certainly true. I lived through this in a parish some years ago. The pastor went and got himself a degree in church growth from Fuller and changed everything (got rid of vestments, hymnals, put up big screens, etc. - you know the drill), and several longtime members and families left. But, that was okay, you see. The lost out there were all that mattered now; the found needed to either get with the program or be replaced by those who would. It reminded me of the motto my wife and I lived by when we ran a pretty successful direct selling business back then: "Some will, some won't. Who cares? Who's next?"

    Sad, sad, sad stuff, indeed!

    ReplyDelete
  25. If quia subscription leaves room for viewing worship contextually, what it is to keep one from viewing justification in the same way? Or the Antichrist? Or Kirchenordnung as it is presented in AC XIV?

    All this is to say that I don't see how one can accept without reservation Ap XXIV:1 (that Fr. Hollywood provided above) -- that is, say, "Yes, I subscribe (quia) to the Confessions of the Lutheran Church but that doesn't mean that I'm bound to everything they say about retaining ceremonies."

    Quia vs. Quatenus deserves some attention. If someone contextualizes worship but professes quia subscription, then the next question might be, "How do you determine what is to be contextualized and what isn't, and in that vein, how does this not constitute quatenus subscription?"

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thanks for the response, Fr. Reeder. I quite agree. If what our Confessions say about worship is viewed contextually, what is to prevent one from viewing everything else contextually?

    What is forgotten by those who attempt this futile enterprise is the fact that our Lutheran forefathers were not merely responding to Rome's accusations that they had abolished the Mass and had begun doing their own, new thing, but they were also making clear that they were not of like mind with the Zwinglians and Radicals, who had, in fact, abolished the Mass and begun doing their own, new thing. In other words, already in the 16th century, Lutherans were faced with giving answer to whether or not it was okey-dokey to adopt and practice the new, relevant, informal, "spirit-filled," "contemporary" worship forms out there. Their answer was an emphatic "No! That ain't us. We do not abolish the Mass, etc."

    ReplyDelete
  27. I've also heard the following question: "Would Luther have a problem with CoWo?" Well, he didn't like what he saw Karlstadt doing when he returned from the Wartburg.

    Even the Luther movies did not overlook this (even though the recent one showed Luther pacing down the aisle while he preached--an aisle that didn't exist in the 16th century). It's interesting that, of all the things you have to sift through to make a 2-hr movie about Luther, both movies (1953 & 2003) had scenes showing Luther's anger over what Karlstadt had done in Wittenberg.

    Now, history was not my major at the sem, but I don't remember Karlstadt telling Luther that everything was okay because they all held the same doctrine--that it was just a difference in practice. I could be wrong. If he did assert this, it is clear Luther was not impressed.

    In fact, I'd like to pose a question along those lines. Until the 20th century, when ever did Christian churches declare that doctrine does not necessarily shape practice?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Rev. Messer,

    I definitely agree with your general sentiment, but I have a question.

    Should our churches regularly have services in German and Latin? Personally, I would love it.

    ReplyDelete
  29. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Father Hollywood,

    Sorry to be brief: but the words of the Confessions WERE not counter-cultural at the time, were they? No: the reformers were reaching out to baptized Roman Catholics. They wanted to meet them where they were at--so they used worship that they were familiar with. Oh, sure, they made some changes, but for the most part, it was a cultural worship.

    I'm doing the same.

    Now of course, you can say that what you are doing is counter-cultural -- but that is not what the Confessions advocated.

    ReplyDelete
  31. So, just to ask Heath, what do you want me to call you? I mean, I got no problem in calling you Father Curtis, but I just figure that we are colleagues -- we call each other by the first name, you know?

    Back in the day, at Sem, we were talking about a word that Paul used that had a pagan background. And I said "He is queering the word."

    Now, you to young a pup to remember this perhaps -- as am I -- but queer used to be a derogatory term for being homosexual. It was an insult.

    Then, all of the sudden, the gay community shifted and adopted the name, using it freely. No longer was it an insult -- but now simply a descriptive name. "Queer as Folk"

    So what if CoWo had a pagan background, much less a pentecostal one? We've queered it. It is now Lutheran.

    You see this in the celebration of Communion. You see this in the use of vestments at some CoWo. You see this in the Law/Gospel sermons that are preached. You see this in the growing number of Lutheran praise songs coming out.

    So...what I do is Lutheran. I teach Lutheran piety. I do Lutheran worship.

    And it is also contemporary.

    As to our other discussion...let me respond to you offline on that.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Keith Reeder,

    Well, sure, God does say "Take our your shoes." God does not say "Use page 132 in the LSB."

    We made the liturgy. God did not hand it to us.

    So, when you say "The casual, comfortable atmosphere that CoWo fosters gives the impression that the participants do not believe in God's sacramental presence or that He doesn't care how He is approached or that He need not be feared."

    That is merely your opinion. It is not the Word of God. Do you understand my point here?

    Now, you also say:

    If quia subscription leaves room for viewing worship contextually, what it is to keep one from viewing justification in the same way? Or the Antichrist? Or Kirchenordnung as it is presented in AC XIV?

    Because doctrine is different from practice. If I say 1 + 1 = 2, that truth never changes. But the fact that I am saying it using Arabic numerals and not Roman numerals (I + I = II) does change.

    That is not confusing, is it?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Mark,

    You write, "God does not say 'Use page 132 in the LSB.'"

    No one is saying He does, and I'm glad for that anyway, because we're still using p. 15! Besides, Heath covers this very well in the post on Lutheran piety. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding where you're coming from on this, but it seems that CoWo proponents view Gottesdiensters to be saying that if you're not following Lutheran piety then you're not even Christian. I think we both know this is not the case. On the flip side, an oversimplification of what liturgicals hear from the CoWo folks is, "Well, if it passes as Christian, it must be Lutheran, too, even if it doesn't jive with the practice of the Confessors. The reason? Because I'm Lutheran and I'm CoWo, ergo, CoWo is Lutheran!"

    I admit I am confused by your reasoning using Arabic vs. Roman numerals. I would agree if you're saying doctrine does not equal practice, but historic Lutheranism has viewed practice as doctrine in action (much like Dr. Senkbeil's book title, -Sanctification: Faith in Action". But if you're saying that doctrine and practice are different in the sense that you can change one without changing the other, that is where we part ways.

    Also, if I might, I'd ask for clarification of your words regarding other options of approaching God. Traditional Lutheran piety approaches God the way it does in the interests of reverence. Do you intend to suggest that reverence is not necessary, or that CoWo is reverent in its own right?

    ReplyDelete
  34. If I say 1 + 1 = 2, that truth never changes. But the fact that I am saying it using Arabic numerals and not Roman numerals (I + I = II) does change.

    That is not confusing, is it?
    -- the Rev. Louderback

    The language employed is not confusing; the intent conveyed by the language, however, is confused.

    The proffered example does not adequately sum the problem which Baptist and pentecostal-inspired praxis, poses for the Lutheran life and piety. The use of Arabic symbols, in the realm of mathematics, is identical to and precisely congruent with the message communicated by the appropriate Roman symbols. The Roman "II" communicates the very same meaning of the Arabic "2," to the brain.

    But the messages communicated by the contemporary worship advocate are not congruent with Lutheran piety, long established.

    My present congregation was once addressed by a young, energetic guest cleric who jauntily roamed the nave, and pointedly eschewed the pulpit. He gave the gathered faithful his reason, with a broad smile: "Because Jesus never preached from a pulpit. Naw, really."

    Well, yes. But it is never recorded that Jesus preached to the thousands gathered on the shored, while animatedly sloshing around in the breakers.

    The young pastor, intent on shaking up what he perceived as the "unhip" or the uptight "uncontemporary," was ignorant of the pulpit as symbol. His communication was not Arabic or Roman equivalent ... it was, to be blunt, ignorant of the Word and His doings from ages past.

    I think he was communicating as best he could, through his mannerisms, that he was one of us, in the context of the Divine Service. Instead of communicating that God was using his voice, to interpret the precious Word and his hands to distribute the body of God, he preferred communicating to the flock that he was comfortable with being all wet.

    Naturally, there was not one mention of Baptism in the sermon/conversation, despite his flailing around in the "water." Paradoxically enough, you see, signs and mysteries are often lost on these rascals.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Pr Louderback,

    "You see this in the celebration of Communion. You see this in the use of vestments at some CoWo. You see this in the Law/Gospel sermons that are preached. You see this in the growing number of Lutheran praise songs coming out." I simply don't believe this is what's happening at all. If you are pulling it off, more power to you.

    To use your analogy....Lutherans will be the ones who end up being queered...not the other way around.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Matthew Flacius,

    What do your mean "I don't believe this is happening?" Do you mean that you don't think CoWo pastors are giving Law/Gospel sermons? Do you mean that you don't think Lutheran praise songs are coming out?

    All of it? Once again, I've been around the block a bit, seeing different congregations. I've seen all of the above.

    As to who queers who...is our doctrine so weak? We can't handle the stress?

    I'm just a bit more positive than you about this I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Dr Anderson,

    The language employed is not confusing; the intent conveyed by the language, however, is confused.


    Mmmm...I'll bet you that you really don't mean this sentence at all. I'll bet what you actually mean to say is "I understand perfectly what he says. I just disagree."

    Which is ok as well. Just so there is no confusion.

    The young pastor, intent on shaking up what he perceived as the "unhip" or the uptight "uncontemporary," was ignorant of the pulpit as symbol. His communication was not Arabic or Roman equivalent ... it was, to be blunt, ignorant of the Word and His doings from ages past.

    My pastor growing up didn't preach from the pulpit. He walked down into the aisle. And this was a normal Lutheran church, nothing wild, p.5 & 15, hymns from the hymnal.

    So, you know, if you would have grown up with a pastor who did the same, you wouldn't see anything wrong with it at all. You'd see preaching from the aisle just as Lutheran as preaching from the pulpit.

    Would you/we be wrong about this? I dunno. But I myself preach from the aisle because my pulpit is so far away and I want to be able to see my people and make eye contact with them.

    I don't think anyone ever forgets that the pastor is bringing the Word of God to them, no matter what they are wearing or where they are preaching from.

    But that's just me. And I am the living definition of being all wet.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Keith Reeder,

    You write, "God does not say 'Use page 132 in the LSB.'"

    No one is saying He does, and I'm glad for that anyway, because we're still using p. 15!


    Welll...but you yourself said : "It is God Himself who insists on a certain way of approach..."

    So, you know, I am wondering about that approach, you know?

    Correct me if I'm misunderstanding where you're coming from on this, but it seems that CoWo proponents view Gottesdiensters to be saying that if you're not following Lutheran piety then you're not even Christian.

    No, I don't think that. I think that they do think that you are not Lutheran.

    But see, for me it is not enough just to be Christian. I like being Lutheran. And so, I chaff at the accusation.

    On the flip side, an oversimplification of what liturgicals hear from the CoWo folks is, "Well, if it passes as Christian, it must be Lutheran, too, even if it doesn't jive with the practice of the Confessors. The reason? Because I'm Lutheran and I'm CoWo, ergo, CoWo is Lutheran!"

    Yah, that doesn't make any sense. Nor am I arguing that.

    I am arguing that CoWo can be Lutheran, even if it once was not, even if some don't think it is.

    Now, as far as doctrine and practice goes, I was just trying to make the point that just because I say that CoWo is optional, doesn't mean that justification it...

    And finally, yeah, I think CoWo can be reverent. It might not be reverent as you think reverence should be...but yeah. Why not? Hearing about God produces its own reverence.

    But I will say that reverence is probably more linked to the attitude of the individual as opposed to the clothes a person wears. Make sense?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Thanks for your responses, Mark.

    I don't know what else to say except that this exchange reminds me of my conversations with Mormon missionaries who insisted that they're Christian because "Jesus Christ" is in the name of their church. I simply don't believe that historic, genuine Lutheranism is found in churches that do their darndest to imitate Baptists and non-denoms - "I'm not a Baptist, mind you. I just play one in church."

    We appear to have varying definitions of doctrine, practice, reverence, worship, etc. But I guess since we agree on six-day creation, the virgin birth of Christ, and the bodily Resurrection (as all good fundamentalists do) we're still Ein People, Eine Message, Eine Mission!

    This is a reminder as to why I tell my parishioners about www.lutheranliturgy.org when I know they're going out of town.

    ReplyDelete
  40. http://www.watersedgefrisco.com/

    http://www.thealley.org/

    http://www.jhchurch.org/

    http://www.kingofkingsomaha.org/pages/page.asp?page_id=34093

    I don't believe any of these are "queering" (using your analogy) neo-charismatic worship practice and appropriating it for Lutheranism. Rather, they are LCMS congregations which are being "queered" (using your analogy). I have listened to sermons from each and read their websites. One of these has had non-Lutheran pastors give sermons and embraces charismatic theology (not just the worship style) Do they get some things right? probably, but that's not our standard. Does your congregation look like these? Or are you moving it in this direction?

    ReplyDelete
  41. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Keith Reeder,

    Ok, first the word is queering. Not "queering". There is no reason to put scare quotes on it. It is a perfectly legit word use I made up.

    Second, you miss the entire point of queering. Why does Paul use pagan terms? Would you say to him "Oh, well, Paul, you say 'I'm not a pagan mind you! I just use pagan terms!'"

    No.

    Thirdly, we do not only agree on such minor things as the resurrection -- and really, why must you mock this? We have an agreement that is greater than any agreement, ever, could ever be, and that will ever matter. Ever. For eternity.

    I think you should show that more respect.

    Yesterday was Memorial Day. I'm sure you would not go to a National Cemetery and remark "Well, I guess since these people all died fighting for their nation, we should consider them Americans. Riiiiiight."

    The unity that we have is infinitely more important than that. It should be treated with more respect.

    And we agree on plenty other Lutheran things as well. Like Communion, Baptism, justification, and other positions that make us distinct and different from all other denominations.

    So, yes, we are one people, one mission, etc. Not every single thing Pres K is bad and evil. You can agree with some of his statements and keep your Gottesdienst card.

    Fourth, what is your definition on doctrine and how does it disagree with mine?

    Fifth, What then is your definition of reverence? And why exactly is CoWo not reverent?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Matthew F,

    When I was growing up, there were real charismatic churches. There were churches that had non-Lutheran pastors give sermons. And this was all before there were any praise bands.

    There are also pastors who were in our Synod who are now Roman Catholics and Orthodox priests.

    What does all of this mean? Nothing.

    You want to give me example of a few churches and say that this means that all CoWo churches are charismatic? Why can't I point to a few pastors and say that all high churchers are Roman Catholic?

    Because that is not how things work. I have no doubt that there is some crummy stuff going on in CoWo and at Lutheran churches. The difference between us is that you think this is inherent within the worship, and I don't.

    Just as you and I don't think that Roman Catholic theology is inherent with high liturgy.

    Are you with me on this?

    PS I will, I promise you, in an endeavor to see exactly where these guys are, listen to a few of their sermons and get back with you about what I think.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Mark,

    "Not every single thing Pres K is bad and evil. You can agree with some of his statements and keep your Gottesdienst card."

    Please, let's not waste time and keystrokes on red herrings and smoke screens. The words above are yours, not mine, and they're based on the false assumption that because I reject and even mock a statement from Pres K, I consider every single thing he says to be bad and evil. I've never even assigned "bad and evil" motives to him, but it doesn't stop you from accusing me of such. Stop putting words in my mouth, Mark. I realize that you're responding to several posts (which, btw, you're very considerate to respond to us, which testifies to your patience), but let's stick to what is actually said. This is especially important because we're not sitting at a table over beer where it's easier to communicate non-verbally and keep things civil. Since we're communicating thoughts in cyberspace, please stick to the actual words and don't presume to assign motives or underlying predispositions.

    Fwiw, I respect Rev. Kieschnick because of the office he holds. I do not envy him, as his office puts him under a more powerful microscope than that of the rest of us. I pray for him and I know he prays for all of us. But I disagree very strongly with some of his public statements. That is neither disrespectful nor sinful. If you don't like the way I voiced my dismissal of One People, One Message, One Mission (tm), consider this: do the election margins at our last three conventions indicate that we are united to the degree that our leadership proclaims?

    I didn't get to all your questions, but it's late and I have a 7 am mass tomorrow. Please give me some more time to respond.

    Peace to You -- Keith

    ReplyDelete
  45. "Just as you and I don't think that Roman Catholic theology is inherent with high liturgy."

    Actually, some of medieval papist theology (later confirmed at the Council of Trent) was inherent in the liturgical practice of the medieval church that Luther and other Reformers purposely rejected. A few major examples included the Canon of the Mass and the invocation of the saints. The liturgy is simply how the church has worshipped from the beginning. I do believe that some may become too enamored with "high liturgy" and this is why they eventually move to RCC or Orthodoxy. That is a real danger.

    "The difference between us is that you think this is inherent within the worship, and I don't." Yes, that is the difference. Lex orandi, lex credendi. The evidence of history rests on my side.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Mark,

    I've reviewed your most recent comments in response to mine and to those of Matthias, and I think the only thing left for me to say is, as Matthias noted, Lex orandi, lex credendi. Our worship ought to be reflective of our Confessional theology.

    Our disagreement over the relationship between doctrine and practice is illustrative of the divide in the Synod. As long as there are those that say we can separate doctrine from practice, what, for example, is to keep us from having death metal vespers?

    The whole basis for 20-century CoWo is the notion that worship ought to appeal to popular taste. It is no accident that its advent coincided with the first ever entertainment generation born after WWII. Never before did children demand that church practice suit their preferences based on the records they were buying and the songs they heard on the radio. Conversely, the historic liturgy was never reflective of pop culture of any age; it has always been set apart. That is why our worship spaces are called sancturies and naves. When you go in there, you are stepping into a place quite different from the world. If you're in the middle of the ocean, it's best if you're on a boat. Reverence is a matter of recognizing that one is in the gracious presence of God, and that one ought to set aside the world for an hour rather than expect God to join us in it because it makes us comfortable.

    I might also add that this has been the traditional way of thought in the Synod. I find it quite revealing that the proposed changes to the constitution in convention this summer call for a broader acceptance of various worship forms. Why the need for change if all the CoWo has been confessionally kosher to begin with?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Keith,

    Hey--listen. About 90% of what I say you don't have to take seriously. The remaining 25% isn't worth listening to, so you are good.

    The Pres K line was just meant to be funny. So no sweat.

    At the same time, I did not once define doctrine, and yet you seem to think we differ on it...so, perhaps we are both making conclusions without ample evidence, eh?

    ...only thing left for me to say is, as Matthias noted, Lex orandi, lex credendi. Our worship ought to be reflective of our Confessional theology.

    What is funny about this, is that I agree completely. It because of our confessions that I do CoWo. Once again, to be Lutheran is to be missional and want to bring Christ to others--and not just bring but to teach. (that is why we have the small & large catechism -- teaching is important.)

    So, I'm with you and Matthias Flacius on this.

    I'm just not with you on CoWo being inherently baptist, any more than Paul being inherently pagan.

    Our disagreement over the relationship between doctrine and practice is illustrative of the divide in the Synod.

    And I don't even know what the difference is exactly...What is it?

    ...what keep us from having death metal vespers?

    Yeah...everyone says this. "Well, this would not prevent..." But right now, I'm talking about CoWo, that really doesn't include much death metal.

    The reason people wouldn't do it, is simple: death medal is hard to sing. You'd want to use something congregations would have an easier time singing.


    The whole basis for 20-century CoWo is the notion that worship ought to appeal to popular taste. It is no accident that its advent coincided with the first ever entertainment generation born after WWII. Never before did children demand that church practice suit their preferences based on the records they were buying and the songs they heard on the radio.


    Yah...and what exactly is wrong with this?

    This is where people are. We can bemoan it--but why are we not looking to meet the challenge?

    Look at Europe. Look at the attendance on Sunday morning. That could be the USA. Is that what we want?

    Now, here, I believe, Heath and I have some real fundamental doctrinal issues to iron out concerning predestination. No doubt. My position is simply "Ought we not to make an effort to proclaim Christ to people in a contextual way."

    We made the change in shifting to English from German, didn't we? Was that also a shifting of the church to suit the people?

    Conversely...one ought to set aside the world for an hour rather than expect God to join us in it because it makes us comfortable.

    My problem with this, is that I think that most people I argue with this, are in fact entirely comfortable with the liturgy. It is not something that is foreign, or outside of their culture. It is entirely comfortable with them.

    That's why they like it.

    So, you can point to this reverence of the liturgy -- and I can point to people who like what is going on.

    But we have people outside of the church -- how are we going to speak to them, when they don't like the liturgy and are not comfortable with it--insist that it is best for them? Insist that they learn "proper" reverence?

    What is your recommendation for reaching out to the lost? Now, I have no doubt that many liturgical churches attract unbelievers. No doubt.

    But not all of them...there are still other sheep. What do we do about them?

    I think we can reach out in a way that touches their lives and still keep pure and clean on our doctrine.

    Why the need for change if all the CoWo has been confessionally kosher to begin with?

    To make sure that when someone gets elected who doesn't think that CoWo is kosher, he can't just unilaterally dismantle the work.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated. Neither spam, vulgarity, comments that are insulting, slanderous or otherwise unbefitting of Christian dignity nor anonymous posts will be published.