When the altar is transformed into a stage, and worship moves from received ritual to given performance, there is an inevitable shift of emphasis from Christ to the performer, from the reception of the forgiveness of sins to the expectation of some means of entertainment. The result has become common in American Christianity: replacing the Word of God with a theatrical spectacle with a few perfunctory references to Jesus thrown in.
This is also the predictable result of seeing worship as an adiaphoron and the Gospel as information. Worship, as the argument goes, is not mapped out in Scripture, and as long as one's doctrine is correct, any and all techniques to communicate that information are not only acceptable, but preferable.
And this is lived out in such sad displays as above.
Standing in the way of this decay is the traditional Liturgy, which serves as a boundary between the holy and the secular, between the City of Man and the City of God, a signpost to indicate where one leaves the temporal and its sinful corruption for the eternal and its divine glory. When that boundary is transgressed, the result is not the blessed spilling over of the sacred into the profane, but rather the very opposite: the cursed encroachment of the world - with its never-satisfied promotion of the self and of the flesh - into the Most Holy Place where the Lord should be the center and the focus.
This sad reality has become a huge blind-spot to pastors, "worship leaders," bureaucrats, and "experts" who argue that the Liturgy is outmoded, or at very least, insufficient in some contexts and among some demographics.
There is the old saying about good neighbors and fences. The Liturgy is not an adiaphoron. It is a fence that makes for a good neighborly relationship between the Church (our eternal citizenship) and the world (where we sojourn as pilgrims) in which, but not of which, we Christians are part. This is what we mean when we confess together:
In this case the words of Paul must be heeded: "Do not be mismated with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Therefore come out from them and be separate from them, says the Lord." (II Cor. 6:14, 17). Neither are useless and foolish spectacles [unnueze, naerrische Spektakel [Shauspiele]; inutiles nugas et puerilia spectacula], which serve neither good order, Christian discipline, nor evangelical decorum in the church, true adiaphora or things indifferent. (FC SD X: 6-7, Tappert)Rather than drag the Church down to the world and make it "krunk," it has always been the desire and strategy of the Christian missionary endeavor to draw those in the world up to Christ and make them "blessed."
While there is plenty to say about this misuse of what should be a sacred space, it is only fair to point out that this was not part of a church service. Depending on the format of the children's event that it was part of, the specific gathering at which it occurred may not have been intended for instruction at all.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, this kind of thing belongs off-site or in a recreational facility attached to the church, not in the church itself.
This week we attended church at my inlaws' church. I was thankful for the liturgy (we were berated by family for wanting to go to the "old fogey service"), because it was the only place that I received the comfort that Christ died for my sins. This was a week that I needed to hear it.
ReplyDeleteDear Kaleb:
ReplyDeletePart of the service or not, the wall has been breached.
This is another good reason for Lutheran churches to avoid things like extra-liturgical "children's sermons" - which are more often than not a little show where the pastor or "youth worker" plants his or her buttocks on the steps of the altar to shuck and jive with the children for laughs from the congregation.
All of this is avoided by just following the traditional liturgy and trusting the Spirit and the Word to do the heavy lifting.
The problem is, we are under great cultural pressure to trade our birthright of holiness and reverence for the pottage of the profane and "entertaining."
It would be unthinkable for breakdancing to take place in the chancel at a liturgical church - whether during the service or not. At least that should be the case.
To be fair, the video's YouTube blurb says, "this was at the end of a kids camp in july." However, treating the altar and chancel so lightly when the Divine Service isn't being held holds little promise for loftier behavior when it is.
ReplyDeleteAt least, when I went to YouTube to check out more, I found an 8 year old boy playing outstanding blues guitar, so the hip-hop youth pastor benefitted me in one way.
Churches with high liturgies, surprisingly enough, are not immune to "children's sermons." I've seen 'em in one Orthodox parish, although it has since been discontinued, thank God. It was as you say: pastor sitting on chancel steps getting the children to play cutsie for the entertainment of the "audience".
ReplyDeleteYUCK.
I don't think we're really in disagreement here; I made it very clear that this behavior does *not* belong in the church at all.
ReplyDeleteMy only reason for pointing out that it was not a church service, is that the offense and the damage to the Gospel would be far worse if it were. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I would assume this was not something they would do in the church service. I have seen a couple of churches cross that line, but it is not typical in my experience.
:-(
ReplyDeleteIn the latest Touchstone Ken Meyers writes an excellent article describing how trying to adapt the Church to the culture is exactly contrary to what St. Paul is saying to Titus. It is a most insightful article. After seeing the above video - it is all the more clear.
I have no doubt that people who wish to bring the culture into the Church to be more "relevant" have the best intentions. However, when the culture becomes the vehicle for the Gospel - how does the Church remain a prophetic voice to the culture?
Worship, as the argument goes, is not mapped out in Scripture, and as long as one's doctrine is correct, any and all techniques to communicate that information [viz. "the Gospel as information"] are not only acceptable, but preferable.
ReplyDeleteThe difficulty is that the major premise ("worship is not mapped out in Scripture") is actually true, so if we argue on the "common ground" of Sola Scriptura, the above argument is unassailable. We can't claim (on the basis of Sola Scriptura) that the liturgy is not an adiaphoron.
We can claim that the liturgy is not an adiaphoron only if the liturgy (at least in its essential structure and function) is given to us and guaranteed for us by the Holy Spirit in the same manner that the Holy Scriptures are given and guaranteed. Otherwise it can have no authority or reliability for us, because its authority cannot be demonstrated from Scripture.
If the liturgy is not Apostolic independently of Scripture, then it is indeed an adiaphoron. Happily, such is not the case: lex orandi lex est credendi.
Dear Chris:
ReplyDeleteJust a few thoughts in response to your thoughtful comments in defense of the traditional Liturgy:
"The difficulty is that the major premise ("worship is not mapped out in Scripture") is actually true..."
While it is true that there is no "page 15" given or mandated in Scripture, neither are we left on our own. We know from Scripture what heavenly worship (of which our worship is a poor copy) looks like. We know the kinds of things God prefers in worship, things like reverence, the Word of God, singing, praying, praise, incense, vestments, bells, beautiful art, etc. We also know the Lord Jesus participated in the liturgical worship of the synagogue, which included readings from Scripture and preaching and teaching. Our Lord also established the Eucharist with the mandate: "Do this." We have never worshiped in a vacuum.
So, it is not true when the opponents of the Liturgy claim that, based on Scripture, such vulgar displays above are acceptable. Nor is it true that Scripture demands all rites and ceremonies to be identical everywhere - as some jurisdictions have made every word and every gesture in liturgical actions a matter of canon law.
But Scripture is hardly silent on the matter, and in fact, when worship becomes a "foolish spectacle," we confess with the Formula of Concord (which we Lutherans confess to be a correct exposition of Scripture) that this is not a case of adiaphora. In such a case, confession trumps liberty.
The whole idea of "sola scriptura" is tricky. It has to be defined every time it is used, for it is understood differently by different groups of Christians, be they Reformed, Roman, Eastern, Lutheran, or Neo-Evangelical.
I find that pretty much every group (both those that embrace sola scriptura, and those who reject it) outside of Lutheranism (and sadly many within) equate sola scriptura with nuda scriptura. But scripture is never actually alone! It is interpreted by the Church, and "lex credendi" is certainly one of those interpretive lenses through which the Church reads Scripture.
I think your term "Apostolic independently of Scripture" is confusing. For "apostolic" is never "independent" of Scripture. That which rejects Scripture is not apostolic.
"Apostolic" and "scriptural" are wedded together. It is impossible to have a Liturgy independent of Scripture - even if the entire liturgy amounts to nothing more than the Words of Institution and the Lord's Prayer. And even before the NT Scriptures were written, the Church never drove a wedge between worship and Scripture, or saw the two as independent in any way. In fact, the historic liturgy is (as we all know) verily dripping the words of Scripture - Old and New Testaments alike.
I think our Reformation ancestors were wise to avoid both extremes of 1) enthroning tradition above scripture, and 2) removing tradition from the interpretive lens of Scripture.
The Liturgy is the Word of God (in both senses of "Word") in action. What we saw in the video above was a mockery of sacred space.
"The difficulty is that the major premise ("worship is not mapped out in Scripture") is actually true..."
ReplyDeletePure doctrine and right worship. The liturgy is doxological and confessional; the confessions are an act of worship, and the Church crowned the early Symbols by placing them in the Ordinary. This got me thinking...
Suppose a clergyman you had never seen before came up to Fr. Beane and said, "My church would like to be in church fellowship with yours. I don't really like some of the wording of your Confessions, though, and I'm certain that I could say some of those things better than those men did. So, I've written my own 'Statement of Belief' which I'll gladly subscribe to, but I'm not going to subscribe to your Lutheran Confessions. Trust me, they say the same thing."
What do you do? It may be the case that the doctrinal content of his statement coincides with the Confessions, but do you think you can really judge that on each and every single point? Could he leave out something of which neither you nor he is aware? What does his refusal to use the same wording ("pattern of sound words," perhaps?) say about his faith, his practice, his ecclesiology? What is the significance of subscribing to a confession where it is assumed that the "content" can be identical to the "content" of another, but under a different "style" or "form"?
Can we turn this around and look at the liturgy in the same way or in a similar way? We aren't Anglicans...?
I've been telling everyone that the rap church is the next step on the CG, seeker-sensitive continuum. We have the coffee house with soft guitars. Emergenters brought us dark rooms with strobe lights. People want to get krunk for Jesus! Will Kari Jobe be rapping at the next youth event?
ReplyDeleteChris Jones,
ReplyDeleteThe difficulty is that the major premise ("worship is not mapped out in Scripture") is actually true, so if we argue on the "common ground" of Sola Scriptura, the above argument is unassailable. We can't claim (on the basis of Sola Scriptura) that the liturgy is not an adiaphoron.
This is, in fact, correct.
Doubtless then, there are two options:
1. Make practice of the liturgy a Law. Insist that ______ insists on it (fill this in, with Confessions, God, Lil Jon (the King of Krunk), etc.)
2. Try to sway others to hold to the position that the Liturgy is the best, the only way that Lutherans should worship. Not commanded, but simply the best.
As of now, #2 hasn't worked. #1 seems all the rage now. We'll see what the future of the LCMS holds.
As an outside on this board though, I wonder why y'all think that #2 hasn't been convincing.
But yes, Chris Jones, the liturgy was not given to us. It is not on par with the Scripture.
===========
Mark QL Louderback
Dear Mark:
ReplyDeleteIt's really a lot simpler than that.
In our ordinations we take oaths. Just as we take oaths to our spouses when we get married. Our ordination vows are a pledge to be normed by the canonical scriptures, and to be normed by the confessions, to submit to Scripture and the confessions (*because*, not *insofar as,* the confessions are a correct exposition of Holy Scripture). We don't get to pick and choose from among those vows any more than we get to treat our wedding vows as a buffet table based on what we think is best, or what "experts" tell us is more "effective."
And we should cheerfully keep our vows - be they at ordination or at our wedding. I mean, if people were to see their wedding vows primarily as "law," that means the only reason they are faithful to their spouses is because that is the "rule." And that would be a pretty pathetic marriage. We should keep our vows not merely out of obedience, but out of love.
There are many Christians who shun the liturgy. And they are indeed Christians. But if you take an oath to uphold the canonical Scriptures and the confessions of the Lutheran church, simple integrity calls for us to uphold those vows.
Like this one:
"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 XXIV:1).
Of course, it would be best for wedding vows to be kept by trying to "sway others to hold the position that" marital faithfulness "is the best, that the only way that Lutherans should" treat marital relations."
But, if people insist on breaking their marriage vows, we pastors do need to remind them of those vows, and invoke the law.
Your first option is not the best way, because it is the way of the law. But when pastors break their vows, and stubbornly do their own thing instead of what they agreed to do at their ordination vows, then maybe they need to be treated to a dose of the law.
The breaking of vows is sinful. Pastors will be held accountable if their congregations (who have also collectively sworn to uphold the Lutheran Symbols) are unwittingly breaking their promises. The pastors are definitely to blame.
Seminarians who have no intention of keeping these oaths that include traditional liturgical forms, vestments, liturgy, and the like, need to leave Lutheranism and go where they can serve with integrity instead of living a lie and creating scandal among those who still strive to uphold their vows.
Your question about why #2 has "not been convincing" is simple: sin. People want entertainment, the Baal of our age. People do not want to be "disciples" of Jesus Christ (which presumes "discipline") but want to be spectators at a spectacle.
Father Hollywood,
ReplyDeleteThe whole idea of "sola scriptura" is tricky. It has to be defined every time it is used, for it is understood differently by different groups of Christians, be they Reformed, Roman, Eastern, Lutheran, or Neo-Evangelical.
Then I have to ask: if it has to be defined every time it is used, then what good is it? And if "Scripture is never alone," then we have to have an understanding of just exactly how Scripture functions in the overall life of the Church -- an understanding that cannot be summarized or represented by the phrase "Scripture Alone."
I think your term "Apostolic independently of Scripture" is confusing. For "apostolic" is never "independent" of Scripture.
I plead guilty to the charge that my terminology is confusing. But the point behind the terminology is important. I certainly do not mean that the liturgy itself is "independent of Scripture." But what I do mean is that the liturgy was given to the Church, and was the constitutive practice of the Church, before the New Testament was written. The already-existing liturgical life of the Church is pre-supposed by the New Testament writers. So neither the existence of the liturgy nor its authority (whatever we conceive that authority to be) cannot be derived from the New Testament writings which did not yet exist when the liturgy was instituted.
So while the liturgy is not "independent" of Scripture, the relationship between liturgy and Scripture is not a relationship of "derived from" or "authorized by." It is more of a relationship of "uses": in the liturgy, God uses the Scriptures to work faith and impart grace.
Pastor Louderback,
But yes, Chris Jones, the liturgy was not given to us. It is not on par with the Scripture.
Nothing I wrote said, nor intended to say, that the liturgy is "on a par with the Scripture." Nevertheless, it is a matter of historical fact that the liturgy pre-existed the New Testament. If the liturgy was not given to the Church, then we would have to conclude that the early Church ordered its worship as it saw fit, without guidance from the Saviour or from the Holy Spirit. Theologically, that strains credulity. It is more reasonable to conclude that the Church's rule of prayer is part of the "traditions ... by word of mouth" (2 Th 2.15) that St Paul commands us to keep.
Father Hollywood,
ReplyDeleteI don't want to rehash positions we've debated. You've had your say, I mine. This is your board, and I do not wish to wear out my welcome.
But two points: everyone who uses the Law thinks that they have a legitimate reason to use the Law. Every legalist thinks they are holding true to their vows.
And please: wedding vows compared with the confessions? My wedding vows were two lines and in English. The Confessions is a book, written in Latin and German, and your interpretation is certainly not one that I was taught or that our Synod holds to.
It is all very well for you to tell my wife what her wedding vows meant--I just don't think you should expect her to automatically accept them.
You'd have to convince her that your interpretation is correct.
Which brings us to:
Your question about why #2 has "not been convincing" is simple: sin.
That's a bit clean. "I can't convince you that your position is wrong because of your sin." A bit too tidy and clean. No blame for you; only blame for the other person.
Chris Jones,
Nothing I wrote said, nor intended to say, that the liturgy is "on a par with the Scripture."
Sorry. You said:
We can claim that the liturgy is not an adiaphoron only if the liturgy (at least in its essential structure and function) is given to us and guaranteed for us by the Holy Spirit in the same manner that the Holy Scriptures are given and guaranteed.
That to me is "on par." To you it is not. But, do you understand why I misunderstood it as such?
If the liturgy was not given to the Church, then we would have to conclude that the early Church ordered its worship as it saw fit, without guidance from the Saviour or from the Holy Spirit.
Er, why? I mean, people had the Holy Spirit come upon them in the book of Acts--and those actions occurred before the writing of Scripture. So...it seems entirely reasonable to say that Godly wisdom was used when men composed the liturgy.
In the very same way that Godly wisdom was used in the way they selected another disciple. And in the same way that they sold everything they had and divided it amongst themselves.
These are not bad decisions: we don't always do the same thing today, but not because they were wrong to do so. Not because they lacked the Holy Spirit.
I think people developed the liturgy as a way to worship. Godly men and women. It was thought out and used to proclaim Christ. (just like Contemporary Worship today)
Liturgy is a good idea. It is a fine way to worship. It is not commanded in Scripture and nor is it the tradition that Paul commands us to keep.
(If it were, that would really be awful vague, wouldn't it? Too vague for my good.)
Can't we leave it at that? I only see #2 as the option for the church. But then, I'm a sinner and all that.
Dear Mark:
ReplyDelete"The Confessions is a book, written in Latin and German, and your interpretation is certainly not one that I was taught or that our Synod holds to."
You make a good point here in your first assertion (the second one is beneath my dignity to answer). As excellent as our theological educations are, we should be required to study German and Latin. If it is important to read Holy Scripture in Hebrew and Greek, it is also important to read the Confessions (to which we pledge right after the Bible in our vows) in the original languages as well.
The Book of Concord is indeed a book - it is not a tract. That is why our oaths need to be made sober-mindedly and in earnest, only after years of careful study. For we are *binding our consciences* to this rather large book. Sadly, I know of pastors who brag (*brag!*) that they no longer even crack the book open. Interestingly, Mark, do you think the guys that brag about not reading their BOC use the liturgy or not? I'll give you a little hint: these guys *loathe* the liturgy. That is interesting, isn't it?
And keep in mind that we don't merely hem and haw and hand-wring and hope to be guided by the Symbols - *we take vows.* Vows are vows. We make them at our confirmation. We make them at our weddings. We make them at our ordinations. The Book of Concord is not ethereal sayings of Confucius or quatrains of Nostradamus. They are not mystical zen koans. The Symbols *are* comprehensible. There are today groups of Lutheran laymen reading and studying the Book of Concord all over the country. And that is "contemporary" worship's worst nightmare.
I do not agree at all that the Book of Concord is too big or too complicated to make vows to uphold it. We have been doing so since 1580. The problem is indeed sin. For if I don't *want* to "keep traditional liturgical forms" (in spite of the vows I took) in our day and age of postmodernism, I can just plead the tried and true "But the book is too big, and it has lots of big Latin words in it, so I just can't understand it" defense.
But whether it is in Latin, English, or German - these two sentences are crystal clear and pretty hard to misunderstand (unless one *wants* to misunderstand):
"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 XXIV:1)
It's not legalism to tell you to keep your promises.
Mark,
ReplyDelete"Liturgy is a good idea. It is a fine way to worship."
So, you'd say that the liturgy is basically something that we do?
Phil,
ReplyDeleteAs opposed to something that animals, plants do, yes. My comments were made speaking about whether the liturgy is given to us by God or not. Worship is something given to human beings to do.
They are not speaking to the theological point that both contemporary worship and liturgical worship bring God's Gospel message to people.
Father Hollywood,
(the second one is beneath my dignity to answer)
Sorry. I got lower dignity standards.
But the issue for me remains: you are making claims about what the BOC says that our Synod is not holding to. Not like the dumb people of the Synod, but the profs of the Seminaries that I myself respect.
That convinces a lot of people, you know?
Interestingly, Mark, do you think the guys that brag about not reading their BOC use the liturgy or not? I'll give you a little hint: these guys *loathe* the liturgy. That is interesting, isn't it?
Entirely predictable really. When you use a document like the Bible or like the Confessions as a hammer to attack other people, they get less interested in reading it.
The Roman Catholic Church used all of Scripture as a statement of the Law and consequently Biblical literacy dropped in the church.
(This is what Luther meant I think in saying "If you quote Scripture against my Jesus, I will quote my Jesus against your Scripture." Insert BOC for Scripture, and the feeling is the same. )
The same thing with the BOC. Your position takes the Confessions--which are all about bringing the Good News back in a time when it was absent from the church--and makes them into a sledgehammer by which to hammer on guys who are trying to bring that Gospel message again.
No doubt this turns them off. No doubt this attitude brings them to view the confessions as a rule book, rather than as a document that brings life.
I don't think that your interpretation is correct, but as long as you are working the Confessions in this way (You are breaking your vow! This is like being unfaithful to your wife!) to people who are trying to bring the Gospel message to the lost, there will continue to be that disconnect.
And what is more, because you are using the Law to motivate people to behave a certain way, you will leave your position open to criticism of 1. Lack of love 2. Lack of concern for the lost.
I myself do not agree with that. It is unfair. But attacks with the Law--especially in this situation, where the position can easily be painted as Bringing Gospel to the Unchurched vs Following Man Made Rules on Worship--bring this.
(This is also true when it comes to Pastors vs Lay Ministers issues in service to the church. And fellowship principles as well.)
I do not agree at all that the Book of Concord is too big or too complicated to make vows to uphold it.
That is not my argument exactly--I am saying that the simplicity of the wedding vows are different from the vows of quia subscription--which is not the pattern that you hold it to be.
The Confessors were speaking about worship in such a way as to show their connection with the church of the past. Were they really looking to bind our church to a certain style of worship forever?
But this, you see, is a discussion about what the Confessions mean. We don't have the same discussion about marriage vows.
If the Reformers were here, would they really object to my efforts to spread the Gospel message? Would they really reject my attempts to bring a contextualized message of salvation to the people of my community?
You say yes. I'm not so sure.
It's not legalism to tell you to keep your promises.
To be clear, legalism is when someone else is telling you to do something; speaking the truth is when you tell others to act.
Once again, we've hashed out some of this, and so I hate being a guest elsewhere and hashing it out more. On the other hand, what's the point in having a blog if people never disagree...
Dear Mark:
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing to interpret. "We keep traditional liturgical forms" is not esoteric mummery. It is crystal clear - whether you like it or not.
This re-interpretation scheme to get out of what you no longer confess to be true is analogous to the clear teaching of Scripture regarding homosexuality. It has become unpopular, and so "scholars" find all sorts of "new interpretations" to get around what is very clear. And in many church bodies, the majority (who has joined the re-interpretation bandwagon) bullies the minority and tries to convince them they are wrong, that the words mean something different. After all, the re-interpreters have bishops, theologians, professors, and celebrities on their side.
But the words still say what they say, even if very few are willing to submit to them.
If you believe the words of the Book of Concord have become obsolete, then you should not have taken those vows - or at least qualified those vows with a quatenus subscription. At least the re-interpreters in the ELCA are not breaking their ordination vows!
This is one of the fruits of postmodernism.
But this has always been a temptation. This tendency to re-interpret the Confessions explains the "Lutheranism" espoused by Schmucker and others of that era to turn what we clearly confess in the Symbols into something entirely different. And this fundamental shift in the faith is always justified by "saving the lost." This appeal led to "Lutherans" explicitly denying the Real Presence in Holy Communion. The point of evangelism is to change sinners into saints, not change the faith into something more in line with what is popular.
It says what it says. It is clear it what it says. Nobody forced you to take those vows.
And when people start chip-chopping the Confessions the way Thomas Jefferson redacted his Bible, you will very quickly end up with a faith that is unrecognizable, where Jesus Himself is cut out of the picture.
Picking and choosing which parts of the confessions you are going to believe in is a dangerous game. Truth is not subject to the whims of what is popular, nor are vows to be taken lightly.
I have actually heard men "re-interpret" their wedding vows to allow for certain forms of marital unfaithfulness. After all, it's all a matter of personal interpretation, isn't it?
Father Hollywood,
ReplyDeleteReally? Nothing to interpret?
If your position is indeed crystal clear, then why doesn't any one hold to it?
I mean, when I went to Sem the whole CW thing was going on and I didn't have a single prof say your position.
I pulled out the sainted President Barry's document on worship. He is obviously in favor of liturgical worship but does not express your position.
I've issues this challenge previously: name a prof at our arms who publicly have stated your position. Are there any?
I mean the definition of private interpretation--I mean if none of our theologians support your view, isn't that an example of a private definition?
It is all well and good to make comparisons to homosexuality, post-modern thought, Elca, etc.
Name one prof who holds your view.
Chuckle. My iPhone changed "Sems" to "arms". So the challenge is for a prof at an LCMS Seminary to hold to Larry's position. How hard can that be, seeing how crystal clear it is, eh?
ReplyDeleteDear Mark:
ReplyDelete"Name one prof..."
I already posted an article by Marquart - who went so far as to say in a classroom that not every purported celebration of the Lord's Supper in LCMS churches is valid.
I also named Prof. Melanchthon who wrote what you crossed your fingers to when you took your vows.
What is there to "interpret" about "In our churches... we keep traditional liturgical forms"? It's plain English, German, and Latin. It says what it says - you just don't like it, and claim that it's somehow unclear. That's what children do when they want to disobey their parents.
It's like the Second Amendment. It's not that it's unclear, there are simply people who don't want to abide by it, and they concoct a convoluted, legalistic workaround - and then their argument against the plain words is: "But the Supreme Court and lots of lawyers agree with me." So what?
The words are plain and simple - if you care to abide by them.
And, you also have to understand that a lot of professors and people in authority in the synod won't say a lot of things publicly that they will say privately. We live in a highly-charged political age. That's the sad reality. I can get away with saying a lot of things they can't.
We are also in the mode of cleaning up after generations of bad practice - for instance, infrequent communion. This takes time and patience - especially with lay people. But pastors, who have studied the BOC, who ought to be working toward re-establishing weekly communion, need to be treated with a little more vinegar.
But there are pastors who almost boast about their infrequent communion - because they are "seeker sensitive" or some other garbage (what Marquart frequently called "rubbish.") They are blatantly out of step with the confessions, and in a healthier synod, would be defrocked. So, the best we can to is simply put the words of the BOC in the hands of pastors and lay people alike.
The thesis statement of the AC is "We're not heretics because..."
An entire article (24) is devoted to the form of the liturgy and the frequency of the Mass. This is an important constituent part of being a Lutheran.
Look at the argument:
"Since, therefore, no nevelty has been introduced which did not exist in the church from ancient times, and since no conspicuous change has been made in the public ceremonies of the Mass... this manner of holding Mass ought not in fairness be condemned as heretical and unchristian." AC 24:40
In other words, the charge that we are "heretical and unchristian" cannot be levied against us because we have not introduced "conspicuous changes" to the "public ceremonies of the Mass." And in the same article, our orthodoxy is defended also on the basis of our weekly celebration of Mass.
So, according to our own confessions, it *would* be fair to call us heretical and unchristian if we celebrated Mass infrequently and made "conspicuous changes."
Our reformation is not like that of the Zwinglians and Anabaptists. But, in the intervening centuries - especially in America - a lot of Zwinglian and Anabaptist doctrine and practice has crept in.
Now, how to get rid of it? That's the big problem. And if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Entertainment-based worship replaces the meat of the Gospel with Twinkies. Pastors who reject tradition and embrace entertainment are like parents who fatten their kids up with junk food and simultaneously starve them of nutrition.
There is a wisdom in our confessions, that is, if we don't just blow them off.
They aren't suggestions or commandments. They are a matter-of-fact description of what we believe and how we practice. If there is a deviance there, it isn't the BOC that is out of place and ought to go.
Mark,
ReplyDeleteWhat makes a text clear or not clear? Is it the number of people around who hold a certain view, and not a characteristic of the text itself?
I think Luther would have a hard time with that line of argumentation at the start of the Reformation.
"Larry's position."
ReplyDeleteI love it. I cite the Book of Concord, word for word. It becomes "Larry's position" that we actually believe what it says.
How sad is that?
Fortunately, there are actually a lot of folks in the LCMS who actually believe this stuff.
But vilifying a position by slapping an individual's name on it is how we became "Lutherans" in the first place.
Things become "unclear" when people don't want them to be clear. It's the Gregg Brady defense: "Were those Mom's *exact* words?"
ReplyDeleteIt's the classic example of the man, "wishing to justify himself," who asked "Who is my neighbor?" (Luke 10:29)
He knew darn well what the word meant, and understood the gist of our Lord's teaching. The word "neighbor" was not unclear. He just wished to "justify himself" and didn't like what Jesus was saying. So he tried to wiggle out of it.
When politicians do it, it's called "muddying the waters."
When the Roman Church did it with Scripture ("It must be interpreted by the Holy See"), we replied with the argument for the perspicuity of Scripture. It doesn't mean there aren't difficulties at times, but it does mean that this notion that the Scriptures can't be understood, so it must be interpreted by the pope (or that the confessions must be interpreted by seminary professors) is all so much nonsense.
Just like the nonsense that there is anything confusing about: "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."
It's not rocket science.
It's just that you don't want to abide by it - your ordination vow notwithstanding. You don't like it, so you say it needs to be "interpreted." Well, yeah, it needs to be "interpreted" if you want to pretend it says something else.
If I want to believe that the Spartans won the battle of Thermopylae, I need to do some "re-interpretation" don't I?
Sorry, Mark, but the emperor is naked.
I love it. I cite the Book of Concord, word for word. It becomes "Larry's position" that we actually believe what it says.
ReplyDelete(shrug) It certainly isn't any living profs position, eh?
I just time for a drive-by. More later.