tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post2217122026523028610..comments2023-11-05T02:55:10.230-06:00Comments on Gottesdienst Online: A Church Growth Book Worth ReadingPr. H. R.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16756503062523543708noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-35561729005643314772010-06-04T09:15:53.068-05:002010-06-04T09:15:53.068-05:00Keith,
Hey--listen. About 90% of what I say you d...Keith,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The Pres K line was just meant to be funny. So no sweat.<br /><br />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?<br /><br /><i>...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.</i><br /><br />What is funny about this, is that I agree completely. It <b>because</b> 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.)<br /><br />So, I'm with you and Matthias Flacius on this. <br /><br />I'm just not with you on CoWo being inherently baptist, any more than Paul being inherently pagan.<br /><br /><i>Our disagreement over the relationship between doctrine and practice is illustrative of the divide in the Synod.</i><br /><br />And I don't even know what the difference <b>is</b> exactly...What is it?<br /><br /><i>...what keep us from having death metal vespers?</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i><br />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.</i><br /><br />Yah...and what exactly is wrong with this?<br /><br />This is where people are. We can bemoan it--but why are we not looking to meet the challenge?<br /><br />Look at Europe. Look at the attendance on Sunday morning. That could be the USA. Is that what we want?<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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? <br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />That's why they like it.<br /><br />So, you can point to this reverence of the liturgy -- and I can point to people who like what is going on. <br /><br />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?<br /><br />What is your recommendation for reaching out to the lost? Now, I have no doubt that many liturgical churches attract unbelievers. No doubt.<br /><br />But not all of them...there are still other sheep. What do we do about them?<br /><br />I think we can reach out in a way that touches their lives and still keep pure and clean on our doctrine.<br /><br /><i>Why the need for change if all the CoWo has been confessionally kosher to begin with?</i><br /><br />To make sure that when someone gets elected who doesn't think that CoWo is kosher, he can't just unilaterally dismantle the work.mqllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03571180618331662493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-15055625893573634682010-06-02T09:26:39.680-05:002010-06-02T09:26:39.680-05:00Mark,
I've reviewed your most recent comments...Mark,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?Rev Keith Reederhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04622328539304859297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-71333529531822590272010-06-01T23:58:58.265-05:002010-06-01T23:58:58.265-05:00"Just as you and I don't think that Roman..."Just as you and I don't think that Roman Catholic theology is inherent with high liturgy."<br /><br />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. <br /><br />"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.Matthias Flaciushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16694173538247881415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-34176182470974045752010-06-01T22:29:47.763-05:002010-06-01T22:29:47.763-05:00Mark,
"Not every single thing Pres K is bad ...Mark,<br /><br />"Not every single thing Pres K is bad and evil. You can agree with some of his statements and keep your Gottesdienst card."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Peace to You -- KeithRev Keith Reederhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04622328539304859297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-18053507218450138022010-06-01T20:46:18.508-05:002010-06-01T20:46:18.508-05:00Matthew F,
When I was growing up, there were real...Matthew F,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />There are also pastors who were in our Synod who are now Roman Catholics and Orthodox priests.<br /><br />What does all of this mean? Nothing.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Just as you and I don't think that Roman Catholic theology is inherent with high liturgy.<br /><br />Are you with me on this?<br /><br />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.mqllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03571180618331662493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-83594276689920246292010-06-01T20:40:10.087-05:002010-06-01T20:40:10.087-05:00Keith Reeder,
Ok, first the word is queering. Not...Keith Reeder,<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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!'"<br /><br />No. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />I think you should show that more respect.<br /><br />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." <br /><br />The unity that we have is infinitely more important than that. It should be treated with more respect.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Fourth, what is your definition on doctrine and how does it disagree with mine? <br /><br />Fifth, What then is your definition of reverence? And why exactly is CoWo not reverent?mqllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03571180618331662493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-68088211803048677312010-06-01T20:33:39.073-05:002010-06-01T20:33:39.073-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.mqllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03571180618331662493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-77171079622749483882010-06-01T19:28:57.803-05:002010-06-01T19:28:57.803-05:00http://www.watersedgefrisco.com/
http://www.theal...http://www.watersedgefrisco.com/<br /><br />http://www.thealley.org/<br /><br />http://www.jhchurch.org/<br /><br />http://www.kingofkingsomaha.org/pages/page.asp?page_id=34093<br /><br />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?Matthias Flaciushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16694173538247881415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-58510057127435276922010-06-01T17:20:08.911-05:002010-06-01T17:20:08.911-05:00Thanks for your responses, Mark.
I don't know...Thanks for your responses, Mark.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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!<br /><br />This is a reminder as to why I tell my parishioners about www.lutheranliturgy.org when I know they're going out of town.Rev Keith Reederhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04622328539304859297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-1572375459625907712010-06-01T11:36:31.619-05:002010-06-01T11:36:31.619-05:00Keith Reeder,
You write, "God does not say &...Keith Reeder,<br /><br /><i>You write, "God does not say 'Use page 132 in the LSB.'"<br /><br />No one is saying He does, and I'm glad for that anyway, because we're still using p. 15!</i><br /><br />Welll...but you yourself said : "It is God Himself who insists on a certain way of approach..."<br /><br />So, you know, I am wondering about that approach, you know?<br /><br /><i>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><br /><br />No, I don't think that. I think that they do think that you are not Lutheran. <br /><br />But see, for me it is not enough just to be Christian. I like being Lutheran. And so, I chaff at the accusation.<br /><br /><i>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><br /><br />Yah, that doesn't make any sense. Nor am I arguing that. <br /><br />I am arguing that CoWo can be Lutheran, even if it once was not, even if some don't think it is. <br /><br />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...<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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?mqllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03571180618331662493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-86167800355173841282010-06-01T09:27:52.296-05:002010-06-01T09:27:52.296-05:00Dr Anderson,
The language employed is not confusi...Dr Anderson,<br /><br /><i>The language employed is not confusing; the intent conveyed by the language, however, is confused.</i><br /><br /><br />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."<br /><br />Which is ok as well. Just so there is no confusion.<br /><br /><i>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><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />But that's just me. And I am the living definition of being all wet.mqllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03571180618331662493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-77712755885211344552010-06-01T09:07:05.211-05:002010-06-01T09:07:05.211-05:00Matthew Flacius,
What do your mean "I don...Matthew Flacius,<br /><br />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?<br /><br />All of it? Once again, I've been around the block a bit, seeing different congregations. I've seen all of the above.<br /><br />As to who queers who...is our doctrine so weak? We can't handle the stress? <br /><br />I'm just a bit more positive than you about this I guess.mqllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03571180618331662493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-69297728927859905532010-05-31T20:44:17.797-05:002010-05-31T20:44:17.797-05:00Pr Louderback,
"You see this in the celebra...Pr Louderback, <br /><br />"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. <br /><br />To use your analogy....Lutherans will be the ones who end up being queered...not the other way around.Matthias Flaciushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16694173538247881415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-78766976946325189342010-05-31T17:39:21.536-05:002010-05-31T17:39:21.536-05:00If I say 1 + 1 = 2, that truth never changes. But ...<i>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.<br /><br />That is not confusing, is it?</i> -- the Rev. Louderback<br /><br />The language employed is not confusing; the intent conveyed by the language, however, is confused.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />But the messages communicated by the contemporary worship advocate are not congruent with Lutheran piety, long established. <br /><br />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."<br /><br />Well, yes. But it is never recorded that Jesus preached to the thousands gathered on the shored, while animatedly sloshing around in the breakers.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Michael L. Anderson, M.D., Ph.Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13158953802996685938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-34630579721223147372010-05-28T13:34:30.093-05:002010-05-28T13:34:30.093-05:00Mark,
You write, "God does not say 'Use ...Mark,<br /><br />You write, "God does not say 'Use page 132 in the LSB.'"<br /><br />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!"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?Rev Keith Reederhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04622328539304859297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-23447631255808694672010-05-28T11:00:43.647-05:002010-05-28T11:00:43.647-05:00Keith Reeder,
Well, sure, God does say "Take...Keith Reeder,<br /><br />Well, sure, God does say "Take our your shoes." God does not say "Use page 132 in the LSB." <br /><br />We made the liturgy. God did not hand it to us.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />That is merely your opinion. It is not the Word of God. Do you understand my point here?<br /><br />Now, you also say:<br /><br /><i>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?</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />That is not confusing, is it?mqllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03571180618331662493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-36693376165086054652010-05-28T10:56:17.470-05:002010-05-28T10:56:17.470-05:00So, just to ask Heath, what do you want me to call...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?<br /><br />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." <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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" <br /><br />So what if CoWo had a pagan background, much less a pentecostal one? We've queered it. It is now Lutheran.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />So...what I do is Lutheran. I teach Lutheran piety. I do Lutheran worship.<br /><br />And it is also contemporary.<br /><br />As to our other discussion...let me respond to you offline on that.mqllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03571180618331662493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-91752636035404873962010-05-28T10:47:17.729-05:002010-05-28T10:47:17.729-05:00Father Hollywood,
Sorry to be brief: but the word...Father Hollywood,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I'm doing the same.<br /><br />Now of course, you can say that what you are doing is counter-cultural -- but that is not what the Confessions advocated.mqllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03571180618331662493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-11051481695532516022010-05-28T09:38:58.819-05:002010-05-28T09:38:58.819-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Rev. Scott Hojnackihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02121548558265617933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-33063253100662553952010-05-27T23:34:19.373-05:002010-05-27T23:34:19.373-05:00Rev. Messer,
I definitely agree with your general...Rev. Messer,<br /><br />I definitely agree with your general sentiment, but I have a question.<br /><br />Should our churches regularly have services in German and Latin? Personally, I would love it.Matthias Flaciushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16694173538247881415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-76607645243170417432010-05-27T08:35:57.996-05:002010-05-27T08:35:57.996-05:00I've also heard the following question: "...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?Rev Keith Reederhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04622328539304859297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-13081760764205693262010-05-27T08:08:34.697-05:002010-05-27T08:08:34.697-05:00Thanks for the response, Fr. Reeder. I quite agre...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? <br /><br />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."Rev. Thomas C. Messer, SSPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13740553600700598394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-67294081941549368422010-05-26T21:17:33.644-05:002010-05-26T21:17:33.644-05:00If quia subscription leaves room for viewing worsh...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?<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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?"Rev Keith Reederhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04622328539304859297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-80390413624924007732010-05-26T20:55:20.587-05:002010-05-26T20:55:20.587-05:00You bring up a most salient point. In every establ...<i>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.</i><br /><br />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?" <br /><br />Sad, sad, sad stuff, indeed!Rev. Thomas C. Messer, SSPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13740553600700598394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-50999765173613953522010-05-26T20:47:22.668-05:002010-05-26T20:47:22.668-05:00Fellow Gottesdiensters,
Is it possible to hold a ...Fellow Gottesdiensters,<br /><br />Is it possible to hold a <i>quia</i> subscription while interpreting all that our Confessions say about worship contextually?<br /><br />I don't think it is, but Fr. Louderback (and others) do. What say the esteemed brothers here?Rev. Thomas C. Messer, SSPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13740553600700598394noreply@blogger.com