The men who penned the Formula of Concord (as well as the men who penned the Small Catechism and the Augsburg Confession, for that matter) also penned binding church orders - the words and rubrics to be used in Lutheran churches. There was no allowance for "creative worship," for each pastor and parish to make up liturgies as they liked. Instead, whole churches (that is, all the congregations within the territorial boundaries of a prince/city council/duke who had accepted the Reformation) agreed together how worship should be conducted within their churches and then stuck to it. Martin Chemnitz had the task, as Lord Superintendent, to see to it that all the pastors were indeed sticking to it. He wrote a book to examine them in their doctrine and their practice, the Enchiridion (
available from CPH), according to which they were examined twice yearly. In that work's third part, he wrote,
Part 3. With regard to the doctrine concerning ecclesiastical ceremonies (which we first said would be the third chief part of this examination), it is contained and set forth in the church order. Pastors should also be examined with regard to that very doctrine, so that they might both have the right understanding of it and be able rightly to explain it to their hearers. Likewise, one should inquire whether and how they observe those ceremonies. Superintendents should also confer with pastors regarding marriage orders, incorporated in the church order, that they might have the necessary understanding also of them.
What is this "church order" to which he refers? It is the order of Braunschweig-Wulffenbüttel of 1569. (By the way - I am quoting from a draft translation of this provided to me by Fr. William Weedon - the translation was done by Fr. Matt Harrison in 1999 and revised by A. Smith in 2011. I have no idea if they plan to publish it, but they should!) What sort of things did this church order legislate? Both doctrine and practice. In the matter of worship, the exact order of Divine Service, in both word and deed are given. For example,
the pastors and ministers [kirchendiener] who desire to hold mass when communicants are present shall not merely in their common clothing, but rather in their ecclesiastical vestments [ornatu ecclesiastico] such as alb, cassock and chasuble, very honorably and with great reverence and invocation of the Son of God approach the altar and commence, hold and accomplish the office of the mass [officium missae].
There is plenty in this order that any given reader of Gottesdienst will like and also plenty he will dislike. I like the bit about vestments above. I don't like the bit where the elevation of the Sacrament is forbidden. But please note the reason given for discontinuing the elevation: "because the elevation [elevatio] has been done away with in the neighboring reformed churches of this and other lands for good and important reasons, it shall thus be discontinued in all places, so that the dissimilarity may not produce disputes."
Hasn't the dissimilarity of worship around your circuit, district, and synod caused disputes? Isn't it insane that you can't go on vacation and find a service you recognize in a Lutheran church? But just how much similarity is needed? That's the question that AC XXVIII and FC X leaves up to each church jurisdiction. We are not about to arrive at the sort of unity and harmony in worship that was required by this church order in 1569. But surely, we would benefit from more than we have today. And really, the Synod's constitution has a very broad sort of church order. We ought to follow it. It is not oppressive. It allows for much local variation in ceremonies - but it also provides for a healthy amount of unity and harmony.
With that in mind, check out this resolution that will be headed to the NID district convention's floor committee for 2012 (HT: Fr. Ben Ball). It might be something you want to send in to your district as well.
+HRC
To Encourage Harmony in the Worship Services of Congregations of the Northern Illinois District
Whereas, the Scriptures say that in Christian worship "all things should be done decently and in order" (I Cor. 14:40); and
Whereas,, the Scriptures say that, "'All things are lawful,' but not all things are helpful. 'All things are lawful,' but not all things build up " (I Cor 10:23); and
Whereas, the Formula of Concord states that the Church "in every time and place has the right, power, and authority to change, reduce, or expand [church] practices according to circumstances in an orderly and appropriate manner, without frivolity or offense, as seems most useful, beneficial, and best for good order, Christian discipline, evangelical decorum, and the building up of the church" (FC SD X.9); and
Whereas, the Augsburg Confession states that "it is lawful for bishops or pastors to establish ordinances so that things are done in the church in an orderly fashion....It is fitting for the churches to comply with such ordinances for the sake of love and tranquility" (AC XXVIII.54-55); and
Whereas, the Constitution of the Synod states that one of the "[c]onditions for acquiring and holding membership in the Synod" is "4. Exclusive use of doctrinally pure agenda, hymnbooks, and catechisms in church and school" (Art. VI); and
Whereas, controversy has continued in the church for some time concerning pastors and congregations who write their own orders for public worship, or draw them from sources other than those mentioned in the Synod's Constitution, therefore be it
Resolved, that the Northern Illinois District solemnly encourages each congregation in the district to offer public worship services exclusively according to the rites and services of the Synod's three English hymnbooks/agenda (The Lutheran Hymnal, Lutheran Worship, and Lutheran Service Book) as well as the supplemental hymnbooks/agenda prepared by the Synod's Commission on Worship (Worship 1969; Hymnal Supplement ‘98; All God's People Sing), the French hymnal of the Lutheran Church-Canada, (Liturgies et Cantiques Luthérien), and the Spanish hymnals of the LCMS (Culto Christiano and ¡Cantad el Señor!) and be it finally
Resolved, that the Northern Illinois District Praesidium investigate what other languages in our district are in need of worship resources consistent with our confessional subscription and synodical constitution and formally request the Synod’s Board for National Mission to produce for Synodical convention approval resources as needed.
Just as a question - I know All God's People Sing is a CPH book, but was it approved for worship? I thought it was in the same category as the little white school hymnal "Joyful Sounds"?
ReplyDeleteYou should really quote about the housling cloths...
ReplyDeleteIt has always been of interest to me since reading the order that the third exhortation mirrors remarkably in thought and verbal pattern the eucharistic canon of the 1531 Petri Mass. It was what first put in my mind that these admonitions are in effect acts of thanksgiving - they address the communicants, true enough, but do so precisely coram Deo and so they push to prayer - closing with the Our Father.
The problem with this is that it is hard to see this as anything other than legislating rule.
ReplyDeleteI mean, this is not a resolution of love—it is hard for me to see exactly how this is for the good of the cowo neighbor. And nor is it intended to be, is it?
So, does it really speak to the point of 1 Cor? That love is how we act as Christians? It seems rather that this is just a power shift to say "You must worship this way."
Is this really how you want to advance your position?
Fr. Brown,
ReplyDeleteThings are such a mess that the idea behind this resolution is to mildly, gently bring along those churches that are in for "diversity at all costs." I think AGPS, while not a real live, grown up hymnal/agenda, nevertheless meets the requirement of the Synod's constitution. It is, if used for full congregational worship week in and week out, anemic and perhaps boarding at times on silly in that setting - but still, it is an orthodox hymnbook produced by our Synod.
+HRC
Fr. Louderback,
ReplyDeleteIt is a piece of legislation. Did you read what I wrote about Church Orders penned by the men who penned FC X? :) That's exactly the point.
Of course, in our Synod nothing can ever quite be that strong. You can ignore anything the Synod says if you want to be pig headed and chances are nobody will do anything to you.
Where's the love? Again, read what I wrote above and the Duke's reason for nixing the elevation: to rid the church of dissension and dispute, to show harmony.
As for the the cowo neighbor, the point is that he is not keeping to the Synod's "covenants of love" to use a favorite phrase of some former Synod Pres or another: he is not exclusively using orthodox hymnbooks and agenda like he said he would. This resolutions urges him to reconsider, and if passed by a given district, urges him with a voice that I hope would be hard to ignore.
+HRC
Fr. Weedon,
ReplyDeleteThe whole thing needs to be quoted! Please encourage whoever owns the rights at this point to allow us or someone else to have it printed!
+HRC
Well, I guess you live by legislation, you die by legislation...
ReplyDeleteThat is to say, first, the Synod cannot legislate this on congregations. It simply can't. It does not have this authority. It does not act as a legislative body.
Right? So, this is pretty moot, eh?
Second, as to love: our Synod has been clear as clear can be that CoWo is entirely acceptable. So, it is your own interpretation of the "covenant of love" that surely is mistaken. That being the case, how can you claim authority to legislate?
My congregation has known nothing but CoWo—and I would still hold its orthodoxy against anyone—so is it really the loving thing to do to say "You must change!" To legislate as such? Is that really defensible?
Overall though, once again, it is merely sad to me that this is where this would end up. We must force others to bend to our will and call it "love". We legislate where Christ did not? Is this really the pattern you want to establish?
At some point, you might be in the minority. Then what? Will you still be excited about what is legislated upon you?
"It is not oppressive."
ReplyDeleteOrwellian. It is by definition oppressive.
Mark-
ReplyDeleteOf course the Synod acts as a legislative body. What are those things that meet every three years then?
It can legislate, and people can ignore the legislation, but they do so to their own harm and to the harm of brothers they have agreed to walk with as one.
Fr. Louderback,
ReplyDeleteCheck out the Constitution, my man - it's quoted above. It's already the regulation of the Synod. This just spells it out.
Also, please explain how the men who wrote FC X were being oppressive when they instituted church orders like the one above? Or how about those quotations from the Confessions? I really don't see you engaging the actual substance of the point.
Or again: how mild this is! This resolution doesn't ask you to get rid of guitars and trap sets and the stage up front or to wear vestments, etc. It does not ask you to kneel before the Sacrament or bow your head at every mention of Jesus. It simply "solemnly encourages" you to the use Lutheran orders for public worship which we can all agree are orthodox.
So your intransigence on this point is rather telling. You like writing your own liturgies. You think you can do a better job. We get it. But that does not seem to me to be the sort of attitude that builds up in the church.
+HRC
Mark,
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't say: "You have to do this"; it says, for the sake of our walking together in the Gospel, would you do this? After all, it is not more than what we all promised to do in the first place. That's not Orwellian.
The Synod can set whatever standards it wishes -- if the Synod said that if Congregations want to be members of the Synod that we had to have our pastors jump on one foot throughout the Service - it could.
ReplyDeleteAnd if I wanted to remain in the Synod even with that daft law, I would jump on a foot. Otherwise, I am free to go.
No congregation or pastor has a right to be in the Synod unless we agree to abide by the rules of the Synod. It is a free organization - and it can make regulations for those who freely belong to it.
Heath - The question I have with AGPS is that it wasn't designed by the COW to be used in Sunday morning worship... if you have that in, would you be willing to allow congregations that use, as an option, the "Creative Worship" provided by the Synod? I ask simply because there is more weight for CW to be used on Sunday mornings than there is for AGPS.
ReplyDeleteFor some reason, I am moved to post this link to this thread.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.outsidethebeltway.com/rational-discussion-flowchart/
Thank you.
The last of the German Lutheran landeskirchen to abolish the elevation of the Host, then the Chalice, at the consecration, was that of Schleswig-Holstein, in 1797, although in moist other German territorial churches it had gone by the 1660s.
ReplyDeleteIn Norway, it was mandated (as it was not in Denmark) by the 1685 revision for Norway of the previous Church Order, and this provision disappeared only in 1814, although it may largely have fallen into desuetude over the previous few decades.
Ben Ball,
ReplyDelete"In its relation to its members the Synod is not an ecclesiastical government exercising legislative or coercive powers, and with respect to the individual congregation’s right of self-government it is but an advisory body. "
So, every three years, we elect leaders, we help to structure our church body, and we clarify doctrinal issues.
We don't legislate on behalf of individual congregations. Right?
Fr Curtis,
ReplyDeleteOnce again, I would point out the quote from our Constitution. You'll have a tougher time wiggling out of that language.
Also, please explain how the men who wrote FC X were being oppressive when they instituted church orders like the one above?
Well, they had a different church structure at the time, didn't they? How a church structures itself is pretty open. But once a church has structured itself, you gotta dance with who brought you.
It simply "solemnly encourages" you to the use Lutheran orders for public worship which we can all agree are orthodox.
You know what? You are right. I have over-reacted.
So, I will support you in this resolution. As it is written, I have no problem with it at all.
Glad to get this cleared up.
You like writing your own liturgies.
Sure. And I like liturgical worship. I like it all.
I like writing my own liturgies — which is fairly sparse in all honesty — because I like proclaiming the Gospel message of Christ. I think that it can be done in a wide variety of creative ways that engage people from different walks of life who have different backgrounds and different ways of worship.
But that does not seem to me to be the sort of attitude that builds up in the church.
Attitude actually doesn't affect the building up of the church Fr Curtis...oh, wait, do you mean "Encouraging the church"? Well, your own desire to force others to worship as you do is hardly the best example either...
Fr Weedon,
ReplyDeleteMark
Please—on GD, I prefer to be called Father Louderback. It has such a contemporary ring to it...
It doesn't say: "You have to do this";
Be honest: only because you can't. If you could say it, you would say it.
it says, for the sake of our walking together in the Gospel, would you do this?
The issue I have, among other issues — I gotta lotta issues — is that I don't sense any love behind this. I don't feel the love man. I don't see this this as a sense of "Let's walk together brother!" I see it as "Stop what you are doing right now and toe the line!"
After all, currently we have congregation in our synod that don't have women's suffrage. This is a theological issue that divides us. Yes we don't say "Out of love, let's agree on one standard." No. We let congregations have differing positions on this.
I don't see the move to end that. And that is a difference of theology.
This is just a difference of practice—try the theology line as hard as you can, I won't budge—and yet there is insistance on my end changing and dropping what we do out of love for walking together?
It doesn't ring true.
I won't budge.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Fr. Louderback, for finally admitting this. You pop in here and there 'round the interwebs, claiming to be interested in honest discussion, but you've made it clear that you won't budge. For the record, I won't budge either. Our differences regarding worship are theological, not merely practical. On that I am just as certain as you are that they're not.
But, carry on, my friend . . .
Fr Messer,
ReplyDeleteWait—I just said that I'm not budging on our differences being theological—but you have said that they are...hmmm....my not budging and your not budging are intersecting...
What is the big deal exactly? You act as if you've had a Eureka moment. I don't "pop" in here. I come in to discussions that I care about, defend my position, and then exit graciously. I don't insult people or call people names. I keep a good sense of humor. And I don't do any good at all.
So don't give me flack just because I disagree with you. There is no shame in that. And there is no shame in saying that I think I am right—you've said it as well.
Are you saying that you are incapable of honest discussion also? Is that how you are going to "Carry on"?
Honest discussion has to be honest—and I've looked at and thought about the issues and formed an opinion. Now, might there be evidence out there to prove me wrong? Sure. I'm open to that.
But not the same old "CoWo is anthro-centric, blah blah blah" Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.
Fr Curtis,
ReplyDeleteYou know, I've thought about this for a bit—and I apologize again for misreading the resolution. I guess I was reacting more to your introduction.
And to my concerns that this road is exactly the road that many want our Synod to go down.
But still, it was improper of me.
This on the other hand, has simply made me more curious: why in the world are you supporting this? I mean, if the end result is just to have people like me say "Thanks for the encouragement! No thanks guys! I encourage you to start your own CoWo services in addition to your regular services!" (No thanks Mark)
We're doing that now. What exactly is the purpose of you supporting the resolution?
It just seems odd. To be blunt, I thought you GD guys were not so much of the empty actions routine, you know? Why this one? What about it are you drawn to?
Fr Messer,
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify something, I said, "Now, might there be evidence out there to prove me wrong? "
This actually has happened and it happened specifically because of Fr Curtis and the paper on Election and the Liturgy that he wrote. That has forced me to re-think and change my way of thinking.
Ultimately, I don't buy certain of his final propositions—and I've outlined them—but it was a case of a fresh approach with new information that has changed my way of thinking.
So, I can give example of my mind being changed. And it was because of meeting Fr Curtis on this website. That is part of the reason I stick around.
One of my good friends, a CoWo guy like me, talked about hanging out with the high church at Sem. "They tend to be smarter and think things through." I think that is accurate. It is why I like reading stuff here and elsewhere and throwing out a comment or two.
CoWo pastors tend to be inspiring. You listen to them and you want to drop everything you are doing and follow them. TradCo pastors make you think. It is a good balance.
So...I am sorry if I come off as an obnoxious know-it-all who is looking to cause problems. I'm not. I don't mean to be. I'd rather be nice and calm and talk and speculate and converse over shoes and ships and sealing wax—but then, yeah, I do get worked up over this sorta thing. Sometimes it gets the better of myself and my words.
So, I take it back. I might budge. Let me hear the argument.
I think the desire for unity on pretty much anything in the LCMS is Quixotic. Not that we shouldn't try to do so. However, synodical resolutions are pretty much useless in our polity. In other structures of polity, you can have such unity (as with Chemnitz's service as a "superintendent" - which amounts to an episcopal system). In reality, in the LCMS, we have a Judges 17:6 approach when it comes to just about everything.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I think a better way (in our polity) is to train seminarians (and lay people) to appreciate the richness of the liturgy.
We already have synodical resolutions across the fruited plain regarding closed communion, orthodox hymn books, private confession, weekly eucharist, etc. - and yet there are LCMS congregations by the thousands that simply ignore them. A recent photo of an LCMS pastor laying hands on a vested ELCA female "pastor" - knowing that absolutely nothing will happen to the guy - says that all the resolutions in the world don't mean diddly. We should just save our money every three years.
I think this speaks to the importance of Gottesdienst's work! The church's liturgy is God's Word sung and spoken by the redeemed. The traditional liturgy has been tested by time. The holy liturgy is our common treasure because in its holy words we encounter the Holy Word. In our work through this forum, we catechize in the theology of worship, we teach the practice of worship, and we defend traditional liturgical worship - using Scripture, the confessions, and our fathers in the faith.
Being able to get a majority in a bureaucratic body doesn't prove the rectitude of anything. After all, the Wichita Amendment to the Augsburg Confession was passed democratically in convention, and think of how many good and salutary resolutions are routinely ignored by members of synod!
I like the resolution, but "solemnly encouraging" churches to worship using the liturgy is like "solemnly encouraging" a kid to eat his vegetables with no discipline to back it up.
But not the same old "CoWo is anthro-centric, blah blah blah" Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.
ReplyDeleteFr. Louderback,
I'm not giving you flack because you disagree with me. I'm simply acknowledging how refreshing it is for you to finally admit that you won't budge. Your mind is made up. You think CoWo is perfectly acceptable among Lutherans, that our Lutheran confession of the faith and theology of worship is not violated by the use of CoWo. I disagree. My mind is made up, too. I readily acknowledge that. I have no interest in hearing you or anyone else try to convince me that CoWo is okey-dokey.
This has to do not only with my study of the Word, our Lutheran Confessions, and the history of the genesis and infiltration of CoWo into Lutheran circles, but also with my having been an active proponent and participant in a congregation which was one of our synod's first major players in the CoWo movement. It is no coincidence that this congregation went "all CoWo, all the time" shortly after her pastor received a degree from Fuller in "church growth." The practices introduced by him meshed well with the theology he had learned there. And, I bought into it hook, line, and sinker for a while. I was a "lay leader" in that congregation and very close to the pastor, so I sat in on the "worship committee" meetings, spent hours talking with my pastor and hearing his arguments, and read all the classic CGM texts, per his direction, when I began to struggle with understanding how what we were doing could possibly be considered Lutheran (since, well, what we were doing was no different than what the protestant congregations I used to belong to were doing).
So, I've lived CoWo. I've studied CoWo. I know where CoWo comes from and the theology it espouses in practice. It is anthropocentric and all the other blah, blah, blahs you don't want to hear. You are making the same arguments they were making 20-30 years ago when CoWo started becoming "all the rage" in our synod. I don't buy them. CoWo does comes from a theology foreign to ours. That's simply a fact, and all the Lutheranizing you and others try to do will never negate that fact. When you begin by developing your practice upon what people like, and upon what unbelievers would want in a church, I'm convinced that you've abandoned Lutheranism.
That doesn't mean that I'm a hateful, obnoxious, know-it-all, just that I'm convinced on this score. As are you. Which makes discussion about this very difficult, if not impossible. I'll tell you all the reasons I think CoWo is wrong among Lutherans; you'll tell me all the reasons you think it is right. Not much of a discussion, is it?
Pax!
Fr. Louderback,
ReplyDelete(It does have a nice ring - you should use it more often! Might eventually begin to work some interesting changes...) To clarify: no, I would not impose liturgy even if I think historical liturgy the wisest path. The reason is that forced wisdom ends up being no wisdom at all. That which is not embraced and loved in freedom is not actually embraced and loved at all. I would have you come to appreciate and love the liturgy as I do; but I do not love it under any compulsion. FWIW.
Father Hollywood,
ReplyDeleteSo, you said:
We already have synodical resolutions across the fruited plain regarding closed communion, orthodox hymn books, private confession, weekly eucharist, etc. - and yet there are LCMS congregations by the thousands that simply ignore them.
In the same way, we also have had plenty of resolutions concerning diversity in worship...right?
William Weedon
Well, I am glad to hear about the forced wisdom...I'm unsure if I agree with it or not. I'll think on it.
The problem is, I do love the liturgy. I just love CoWo as well. I love diversity more-so than many. It is all good.
Fr Messer,
ReplyDeleteI have no interest in hearing you or anyone else try to convince me that CoWo is okey-dokey.
See, but my mind is made up to convince others of this...brutal, I tell you.
Which makes discussion about this very difficult, if not impossible.
Well, at the core, I believe that study of the Word of God will actually change people. I believe in the resurrection of the dead—if God can bring life to a corpse—an He did—then God can bring people to come together on Scripture and what it teaches.
So, I am more positive than you about agreement in our Synod.
Fr. Louderback,
ReplyDeleteWhy support a resolution like this?
* It reinforces the clear intent of the Constitution.
* It encourages brothers two walk together in a basic unity that stills allows for a great deal of diversity.
* It calls a thing what it is: there is much discord an strife and confusion concerning worship. This is not unity in diversity - it's simply chaos.
* It highlights the need for a basic unity that will allow Lutherans in our mobile society to find a home wherever they go.
Etc., etc.
+HRC
Fr Curtis,
ReplyDeleteOk, so I've been thinking about the resolution and what it needs to tighten it up.
We don't want such a powder-puff statement—that even i could vote for and forget about—but nor can we have a statement that forces worship to be a certain way.
Which brought me to this: One of the things that bugs me about the Synod is the way we have all of these resolutions and then amnesia—so that we say things and then people just ignore them.
This is seen particularly when it comes to fellowship. We have document after document that simply ignores document beforehand.
What we need is to have is the retraction and rejection of what has been said previously when we say something new.
So how about this as a friendly amendment:
RESOLVED, that the Council of President's "Theses on Worship" is an inadequate statement concerning worship, especially concerning diversity found in worship. We reject and repudiate its statements.
====
See? This way, the document has greater teeth to it; and it is entirely legitimate to reject a document—especially one of pretty dubious importance really; but at the same time, it is not forcing worship in a certain way.
How about it? Better?
Dear Mark:
ReplyDeleteOne thing that would be helpful in our mutual discourse would be to know where you would draw the line (if anywhere).
What ought to be off limits in terms of worship in LCMS congregations? Or is it basically "anything goes."
I find this issue similar to discussions of "closed communion." We all really believe in "closed communion" - it's just where we draw our lines. Or as one district president put it: every LCMS pastor practices closed communion - some just have big cones while others have small cones.
And I think there is some truth to the president's affirmation...
From the tight to the loose on the spectrum (small to big cone, if you prefer), the gamut of closed communion might run like this:
- Only the pastor may commune
- Only members of this parish may commune
- Only members of this parish and other LCMS parishes may commune
- Only members of LCMS parishes and churches in communion with the LCMS may commune
- Only Lutherans may commune
- Only Christians who believe in the Real Presence may commune
- Only Christians may commune
- Only monotheists may commune
- Only people who believe in the supernatural may commune
- Only human beings may commune
- Only humans or animals with cognitive functions may commune
- Only animals who are alive may commune
- Only animals - living or dead - may commune
- Only animals or plants may commune
- Any creature, living or dead, including inanimate beings, may commune
Notice that they all have the word "only" and are thus degrees of "closed communion" - as there is always to be found someone or something who would be excluded from fellowship.
So we all believe in drawing lines somewhere for what constitutes "closed communion." I believe a similar thing could be said about what constitutes worship in line with our Book of Concord's standards about what is appropriate Lutheran worship (e.g. Formula X's expression that it not be "frivolous" and other descriptive expressions of what is done in "our churches" throughout the Symbols.
So when it comes to orderly, non-frivolous worship, where is your line? Can we find any common ground at all?
-
Dear Mark:
ReplyDeleteI'm not familiar with the "diversity in worship" resolutions. Since "diversity" in my parish means DS1, DS3, and occasionally DS5 - which though more diverse than I would prefer - are at least in the hymnal, maybe you could help me out with what you're referring to.
Of course, any resolution or memorial that contradicts say, Article 24 of the Apology would be null and void anyway. Just saying.
The bottom line is that we are a cowboy synod. Not only is everyone a minister, every pastor is a pope and every congregation is a denomination. In absence of any authority or even consistency in what the (here all may genuflect) Handbook and the (profound bow) Resolutions of the Synod Assembled (vox populi, vox Dei, Amen) have to say - we Lutherans do have a principle to guide us about doctrine and ceremonies right from the Augsburg Confession:
"Nothing has been received among us, in doctrine or in ceremonies, that is contrary to Scripture or to the church catholic."
So, how do the following add up in light of Scripture and the Catholic Tradition?
- Weekly communion?
- Liturgy?
- Kneeling and genuflecting?
- "Smells and Bells?
- Gospel procession?
- Reverence?
- The Sign of the Cross?
- Vestments?
- Lack of vestments?
- Snacks and coffee/soft drinks?
- Clown services?
- Dancing Girls?
- Rock Bands?
- Praise bands?
- Chancel dramas?
- Kari Jobe as "Worship Leader"?
- "You Spin Me Round Jesus"
How does "diversity" fit into our confessional principal of Scriptural and Catholic worship?
Can you flesh this out - especially in light of what Fr. Heath has shared with us about what the author of Formula X demonstrated in his enforcement of traditional church orders?
Is there a limit to the "diversity," or is it as you say "all good"?
*principle* - sorry. Curse you spell check! ;-)
ReplyDeleteFather Hollywood,
ReplyDeleteI find this issue similar to discussions of "closed communion." We all really believe in "closed communion" - it's just where we draw our lines.
I think this is absolutely correct. Not just with communion, but as well with worship.
I'm pretty sure I've said this before: I don't have any problem saying "These are best practices for CoWo." It is just that I wonder if any best practices that I have would be acceptable to you.
It is like talking about capital punishment with someone who opposes it—as much as you try to have checks and balances, DNA testing, humane deaths (drugs vs drawn & quartering) — none of that will be enough.
So, is there a common ground Father Hollywood that would satisfy you? That you could live with?
Right now, my service is fairly simple & streamlined. Each week it mostly the same, but sometimes we shake things up a bit.
Opening songs
Confession & Absolution (sometimes Absolution, sometimes pronouncement of grace)
Children's Message
Reading
Sermon
Creed of some kind — right now we are reading through the 10 commandments & explanation from the catechism
Prayer
Communion
Sending
So, that is what I do. Do others do differently? Sure. I know that some drop the creed; others might not have communion (and probably because of the close communion issue).
As far as your list goes, do you want my blow by blow?
Weekly communion — optional. Don't need to have it to be Lutheran. I myself like having weekly communion. But I certainly would be fine in a Synod where not everyone celebrated it weekly.
Also under this would include:
Kneeling and genuflecting
Smells and Bells
Gospel procession
The Sign of the Cross
Snacks and coffee/soft drinks
Liturgy — By this you mean what? Western mass? Or the fact that my service has a general flow to it?
Reverence — I think reverence is what people make of it. I think one can be casual and reverent. My service is certainly reverent enough for me; but I can fully understand how it is not reverent enough for others.
Vestments/Lack of vestments — I don't have any problem with people vesting, but I do not. I just don't think that it teaches what we think it teaches really — the whole covered with Christ, etc. I don't have any problem with people recognizing that I am the pastor. So, I'm good to where whatever. I know I've written about this elsewhere.
Clown services — I'm not big on some of these gimmicky thing. And yes, i understand that you might see all of CoWo as gimmicky; but that is ok. We all draw our lines in different places.
Dancing Girls — This is more a part of liturgical services than contemporary. So, I'd leave that for you guys to work though.
Rock Bands/ Praise bands — I don't quite know what distinction you are looking for. Obviously this is the sine qua non of CoWo. I don't have a problem with worship music being rock based.
My own worship leader is a long-time Lutheran and that is very helpful for me. We'll sometimes work in a few hymns and the like—but we also have lead guitar playing. But even he understands that worship is not about him being a rock star. It is really nice to have this.
Chancel dramas — Jesus used stories and so ought we. But I've actually never done any drama on Sunday morning. I've done a few dialogs during Wednesdays in Lent and the like. I think it is fine.
Kari Jobe as "Worship Leader" — who is he/she again? I know there was something about this...
"You Spin Me Round Jesus" — Like a record baby, right round, round round? I don't think we should mess with the classics.
FH,
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line is that we are a cowboy synod. Not only is everyone a minister, every pastor is a pope and every congregation is a denomination.
And I don't exactly mind this, you understand. Because I see that we are cut from the same cloth for the most part—we are all Lutheran pastors.
So I trust that what is going on is pretty good for the most part. Obviously there are outliers...out-liars?...but I'm happy for the most part with the Synod.
Now, let's check you out. What about your list?
Would give up referring to GD as "mass"?
What is your view on lay readers?
Lay readers of the Gospel?
How about women serving as communion assistants? Is that a line you can let other churches cross?
How about colors — can we have blue or purple at Advent, or must it be one or the other?
Are albs acceptable? Or are they liturgical underwear as a prof said to me.
Narrow or wide stoles?
Are chasubles optional?
Is chanting a necessity?
How about children's messages? Verboten? Liturgical anomalies?
Should all pastors genuflect at the consecration? Ought there to be the ringing of the bell? Ought the congregation kneel at this time? Is only a pastor allowed to distribute the elements? Can we use individual cups?
Feel free to add other thoughts as you see fir.
For me, Father Hollywood, I am looking to preach Christ crucified. I understand that all of these elements can do that. They just don't do it for me.
I can go through matins in the morning for my devotion. But not ever day of the week. I like using Kraus' Pastor at Prayer where there is a different confession for every day of the week.
Some people like certain things; others like other things. It seems simple enough, but we deny the need when we say "We all must worship only this one way."
We ought not to say that.
Any creature, living or dead, including inanimate beings, may commune
ReplyDeleteDoes this include zombies? Or is that a separate category?
Fr. Louderback,
ReplyDeleteNote; I'm laughing while I write this.
I would not be comfortable worshiping at your style of service, but I would like to drink a beer with you sometime.
Fr. Louderback,
ReplyDeleteFr. Beane asked:
Is there a limit to the "diversity," or is it as you say "all good"?
In the two posts you made in response, entertaining as they may be, did you answer that question?
Some people like certain things; others like other things. It seems simple enough, but we deny the need when we say "We all must worship only this one way."
ReplyDeleteWe ought not to say that.
Fr. Louderback,
Well, then you ought not be a Lutheran, because Lutherans confess, "We do not abolish the Mass . . ."
Now, as you know full well, what we confess does not mean that we all must worship exactly the same way, saying the same exact words, and making the same exact gestures, and such, at all times. The fact that you ask several silly questions of Fr. Beane in your second response above reveals that you're just playing games and not at all serious about the honest dialogue in which you always claim you're interested.
This is about our Lutheran theology of worship. Like it or not, we have one. Within that theology of worship, ceremonies are employed to teach the faithful what they must know about Christ.
Modern Evangelicals and Americanized Protestants have a theology of worship, too. It goes something like this: "Some people like this and some people like that, so let's give those people this and those people that," which is a principle straight out of the classic and modern CGM texts. The reason they adhere to principles like this in their theology of worship is because they don't believe our Lord Jesus Christ is Present in worship. He's somewhere up there in heaven, sitting on His throne, waiting for us to show Him how much we love and worship Him. So, you know, rock on, dude - the louder the music, the more emotional the atmosphere, the higher the feelings, the better the "worship." And, if you do a good enough job at all this, people will really, really like it and want to rock on some more.
But, not so for Lutherans. Our Lord is there. Reverence (which is not in the eye of the beholder - how utterly absurd!) is not optional. We're not gathered around the throne of our Lord, with angels and archangels and the whole company of heaven, to cater to people's likes, but to confess our sins, plead for mercy, and receive our Lord's divine gifts via His Holy Word and Sacraments.
But, I mean if you want to belittle our argument, claiming things you know full well we don't claim about vestments and colors and such, have at it. You really only further reveal yourself in the process.
Mark asked: "Does this include zombies? Or is that a separate category?"
ReplyDelete;-)
This is an excellent question - one that I think The Bureaucracy should take up. If we could get them busy considering zombies and closed communion, we might slow them down a bit on their Bulldozing Buildings for Bucks(tm) project.
Maybe we need a Blue Ribbon Task Force...
Dear Mark:
ReplyDeleteYou ask some very good, and I think helpful, questions:
"Would give up referring to GD as "mass"?"
No. To do so would be to betray the confessions I've vowed to uphold.
"What is your view on lay readers?"
Mark, my view is that I don't like lay readers. But "my view" is not important. What is the church's view? Throughout most of our history (the western church especially) we have had clerics of some level reading - whether priests, deacons, or subdeacons. I think this is more faithful to the Catholic Tradition - whereas lay readers is a Vatican II innovation that was introduced basically "to give the lay people something to do." There is precedent in the eastern church for lay readers - but proclaiming God's Word in the public worship is really the pastor's job. So, what is really the better practice? What is more faithful to the Catholic Tradition?
"Lay readers of the Gospel?"
This one really does violate catholic practice. Why do it?
"How about women serving as communion assistants? Is that a line you can let other churches cross?"
I have no power to "let anyone" cross any lines. All I can do is point out what the Catholic Tradition as confessed by our Symbols have to say. This is an innovation that only came into vogue after feminism took root. Again, what is the point behind the innovation and is this really in line with our Lutheran/Catholic Tradition? Or is this rather a sop to the world (whose triumph can clearly be seen in the Church (sic) of Sweden?
"How about colors — can we have blue or purple at Advent, or must it be one or the other?"
Both have been used in western churches for centuries. A lot of our "contemporary" churches simply ditch the colors and calendar all together in their goal of looking Protestant (or more accurately, whitebread American).
"Are albs acceptable? Or are they liturgical underwear as a prof said to me."
Our brothers in Russia often lack anything other than alb, stole, and cincture. Actually, the liturgical underwear would be the cassock. The alb is a eucharistic vestment. Like I said, most of our Russian brethren are fortunate to have albs and stoles - and they lead dignified liturgical and non-entertainment-based services so vested. I don't really understand the question.
"Narrow or wide stoles?"
I prefer the narrow ones as the wide ones are often decorated with goofy crap, but the width of the stole in and of itself doesn't have anything to do with it. Of course, if one is wearing a stole over a polo shirt and khakis - it's going to look stupid either way...
"Are chasubles optional?
Is chanting a necessity?"
I have never heard either of these matters being a controversy. Has anyone ever said that chasubles are "necessary" or chanting is "a necessity"? In my visit to our sister church in Chelyabinsk, we celebrated Mass in a beauty salon. The service was sung a capella. There was no chasuble. The service was Lutheran, dignified, and gave glory to the Lord. If only our selfish sated suburban congregations focused on entertainment and "playing church" had such dignity and piety!
continued...
continued...
ReplyDelete"How about children's messages? Verboten? Liturgical anomalies?"
The liturgical equivalent of a Captain Crunch commercial. And they are typically as inane and disrespectful of holy space. Sorry if that offends you. You asked. I'm giving you my opinion. And there is no Catholic Tradition to say that we should have age-segregated sermons in the Mass.
"Should all pastors genuflect at the consecration? Ought there to be the ringing of the bell? Ought the congregation kneel at this time? Is only a pastor allowed to distribute the elements?"
Again, I will appeal to my experience in Russia - where there is not a hint of entertainment, clowning around, or pandering - given their history of pastors being shot, churches bulldozed, and laypeople being deported to gulag camps. None of these things are an issue. In nearly every case, there was no genuflecting, bells, congregational kneeling during the verba, and moreover deacons assisted in distribution. Yet they used the Catholic liturgy, were reverent, and did not resort to gimmicks and entertainment.
"Can we use individual cups?"
We can. We can do a lot of things, can't we? Is it the best practice that confesses our unity, the dignity of the distribution, and our Lord's Words of Institution (read very carefully paying attention to the singulars and plurals of both subjects and verbs). You tell me which way is more faithful to our confessions?
"Some people like certain things; others like other things. It seems simple enough, but we deny the need when we say 'We all must worship only this one way.'"
It isn't about "what I like." It's about what is faithful to Scripture and the Confessions. What is faithful as a teacher. What is more "churchly" as opposed to "worldly." What people "like" are football, beer, and dancing girls. You give them that and your church will be packed. What people don't "like" are confronting their sins, submitting to God, and being "bored" because there are no flashing lights, videos, guitar licks, or a warbling nymphette with a microphone halfway down her gullet.
Dear Mark:
ReplyDeleteI wrote:
"I find this issue similar to discussions of "closed communion." We all really believe in "closed communion" - it's just where we draw our lines."
And you replied:
"I think this is absolutely correct. Not just with communion, but as well with worship."
This is pure sophistry. And this is such an important point - not only in terms of closed communion but in worship styles - that I'm going to write this up as a separate essay.
To paraphrase The Incredibles: "When every communion practice is closed communion, no practice is closed communion."
Denying a dog communion (as was NOT done a couple years back by an Episcopal priestess) - although I believe all that woman administers to anyone is just plain bread - is not closed communion just with a "bigger cone" - it is indeed *wide open* communion. Communion with demons, but open communion nonetheless.
More to come on this...
I would not be comfortable worshiping at your style of service, but I would like to drink a beer with you sometime.
ReplyDeleteI warn you Seminarian, I only drink good beer (that's a lie—out with the guys it is Bud Lite...). But the first one would be on me.
Fr Messer,
You asked:
In the two posts you made in response, entertaining as they may be, did you answer that question?
I thought it did—I certainly did not say "Yes, anything goes," but tried to lay out what I thought worked and did not.
But no, anything does not go.
Well, then you ought not be a Lutheran, because Lutherans confess, "We do not abolish the Mass . . ."
Nor have we right? It still exists.
The issue here to me, comes back to "Is it enough to say that one is a Lutheran if they hold to the very teaching of Scripture." I am comfortable with that as a dividing line.
Within that theology of worship, ceremonies are employed to teach the faithful what they must know about Christ.
Correct. This is entirely correct. I hold to this absolutely.
Reverence (which is not in the eye of the beholder - how utterly absurd!)
(shrug) You can claim this, but it seems fairly obvious that it is.
to cater to people's likes
"To cater to" — that is an interesting line. Do we speak that way about God? That God caters to us?
No, we say He loves us. And so we love others — and included in that love is bringing the story of their loving Father to them in a way that they understand, that makes sense to them.
So, cater, love — yes, we do what we do out of love. Or at least I do.
But, I mean if you want to belittle our argument,
(chuckle) Tom, I think that you are the one who is belittling.
I mean, I have said umpteen times that I love the liturgy, that I don't have any problem with people doing any number of things — I myself wore chasubles, chanted — I am positive and supporting of the liturgy.
I would never say "You need to change what you do" to you or to anyone else.
You are the one who is pulling out arguments that I am not a Lutheran, that I have to stop what I am doing, etc. Not me.
So, I don't think you'll hear any belittling. I might disagree with your reasons—I think that you are mistaken in what you see as the theology of CoWo. But why do I need to belittle your position?
Look, you and I are just opposite on this: when I came out of Sem, I fully supported the liturgy, opposed church growth, and brought chanting to my first congregation. My own position has just gradually emerged as I've been a pastor. But my theology has not changed. I'm still the same kid graduating from Sem.
So, I don't mean to belittle your position. I just want to disagree with it.
Father Hollywood,
ReplyDeleteFirst, because of Fr Messer's words, I hope that you appreciate that I am pretty serious about having discussion on this. I'm not trying to play games or anything else.
I hope that you have a better idea from me about what is good and what is not...
So, I appreciate your willingness to talk about this and I hope that if I say something unkind or untoward, that you would assume I am not thinking something through, and not that I am intentionally trying to be insulting.
"Would give up referring to GD as "mass"?"
No. To do so would be to betray the confessions I've vowed to uphold.
Ok, to push you on this position: but it is not what is in the hymnals, right? They don't refer to it as such—so, for unity's sake, would you stop it?
Do you think that the resolution is speaking to you on this issue?
What is more faithful to the Catholic Tradition?
I have to say that this is one of the things that stumps me a lot. That is to say, when I chat here on GD, I always hear the idea of "We do what was done."
And while there is some good in that, I don't necessarily see it as the end all be all. For me, I think "What does this teach, what does this say?" rather than "How did we do this?"
I don't think having the pastor read the readings teaches what you think it teaches. Maybe in your own congregation it does.
But I would soon have people read the word. I want to encourage it as much as possible, in church and out of church. I want the word to be on their lips as much as possible.
So, maybe it was done differently back in the day—but I don't believe that reading the Scripture in public is the pastor's job, no.
So, what then now? I mean, having this challenge, what is the next step? Where do we make up this ground?
I have no power to "let anyone" cross any lines.
Do you mean, "I have no power" or "The Synod has no power"? My thinking is "Would you remain in the synod if this were practiced?"
This is an innovation that only came into vogue after feminism took root.
This is actually a practice that I struggle with. We don't have it and I have never been in a congregation that has it. But can I support the position from Scripture?
See, that is my thinking. "What does the Word say?" I understand "What is the Catholic Tradition" but for me it is secondary to the Word. That is what we are called to be faithful to.
So I guess I am much more quick to set aside the practice of the Church if I can't see it backed up in Scripture, even if it is a long time practice. Not willy-nilly — once again, no females...
But nor do I consider it wrong in churches that allow it.
More later. I have to go now. Once again, thanks for the thoughts.
There is one thing I do need to nail down though:
ReplyDelete"I find this issue similar to discussions of "closed communion." We all really believe in "closed communion" - it's just where we draw our lines."
And you replied:
"I think this is absolutely correct. Not just with communion, but as well with worship."
This is pure sophistry.
What I think is "absolutely correct" is that this is how people see the issue of communion. I'm not saying that the person who says "I practice close communion — no animals commune at my table" is practicing closed communion. I'm saying that it is correct to see that people see their positions on this continuum.
I fully believe that the CoWo worship that I do is Lutheran worship. I think it is Christ-centered. I think it is not frivolous. I think it is reverent (or at least, reverent enough).
I fully understand that others look at this and think "That is out of bounds to being a Lutheran." Is it in fact though?
Is the turning point on close communion at one particular point of the scale? Is there one point where you say "This is not closed communion any more?"
So, my agreement is not that all of this is closed communion; my agreement is that you have expressed accurately how we think about these issues.
Dear Mark:
ReplyDeleteYou asked: "Would give up referring to GD as "mass"?" I replied: "No. To do so would be to betray the confessions I've vowed to uphold" You then replied: "Ok, to push you on this position: but it is not what is in the hymnals, right? They don't refer to it as such—so, for unity's sake, would you stop it?"
First, our hymnals do use the word "Mass." LW page 197 is one example in English. It appears also in our older German hymnals, as well as our Spanish language hymnal. Second, the Hymnal is not the only element of our Tradition in which we "walk together" - also included is the Bible, the Book of Concord, and to a lesser extent, our Lutheran tradition of theology and worship that is very vast and (as should please you) diverse. I do not consider hiding our Lutheran Tradition under a bushel - as if the word "Mass" should be treated like vile profanity and not appear on our lips - to be an act of love, but rather the equivalent of being ashamed of who we are. There is only one reason to treat the word "Mass" in this way, and it is the same error that has made people think the crucifix is "not Lutheran" in many of our churches and caused thousands of Lutherans to deny themselves the comfort and confession of making the sign of the cross. It is a lack of understanding of what Lutheranism is and what we confess about ourselves and our ecclesiological relationship to Jesus. It's that fundamental.
You write: "I don't think having the pastor read the readings teaches what you think it teaches. Maybe in your own congregation it does. But I would soon have people read the word. I want to encourage it as much as possible, in church and out of church. I want the word to be on their lips as much as possible. So, maybe it was done differently back in the day—but I don't believe that reading the Scripture in public is the pastor's job, no."
It seems that you have some "I" trouble. This is the heart of our differences. You see the faith and the church as your personal domain, based on what you like, what you prefer, and what you think things mean. In fact, the church (ekklesia) is a "we" matter. That is why the LCMS Lone Ranger culture is so out of touch with the rest of the Christian (and Lutheran!) world. We do as we darn well please in America. Who are the "stewards of the mysteries of God" according to 1 Cor 4:1-2? The Word is (like the sacraments) part of that "mysterium" of God - the divine presence in space and time in the Divine Service. I want lay people to read, study, and pray the scriptures around the clock (see Deut 6:7-9). I would love nothing more than for every member to be an expert in the Holy Word and to read it aloud at home (Rom 10:17). But the public liturgy is another story (1 Cor 14:40). If everyone can read the scriptures in the public liturgy, why not have everyone preach? After all, everyone a minister, right? I think there is wisdom in our catholicity in which pastors did the readings (as rabbis did previously in the synagogues). There is a good reason for this - even though it is at odds with our American egalitarianism and Protestant anticlericalism - which is the real reason behind the pastor sloughing off his duties and letting Aunt Sally read the epistle and proclaim the prophetic announcement: "This is the Word of the Lord." Notice that doctors don't insist that lay people assist in the operating room, nor do mechanics invite lay people to drain fluids when they ply their vocation, nor do NFL players ask selected lay people to take a few snaps during the game. The laity and the clergy both have priestly vocations - and yet their priestly vocations are not the same.
continued...
Continued...
ReplyDeleteYou ask: "'What does the Word say?' I understand 'What is the Catholic Tradition' but for me it is secondary to the Word. That is what we are called to be faithful to."
The Word must be interpreted. The Jehovah's Witnesses are (and I want to be very clear what I mean here...) indeed faithful to the Word - but this is important - they are faithful to the Word AS THEY INTERPRET IT apart from the church catholic. Being a Lone Ranger in doctrine and practice is a dangerous (and quite American) thing. It spawns sects, cults, and heresies (and we have more in America than anywhere else). There is a reason our Lutheran brethren in Kenya (for example) worship using the traditional liturgy and hymnody, with reverence, and without the trappings of Pentecostalism found in a lot of our American Lutheran churches. We MUST remain within the Catholic Tradition or we place our salvation at risk (LSB 319:2). The opposite of "catholic" (katholicus, kata holos) is actually "individual". The opposite of the Catholic Faith (LSB 319:) clearly confesses a person must hold in order to be saved) is a heretical non-faith. You either hold to the "catholic religion" (LSB 319:19) or you will find yourself in hell. Playing loose with the "catholic religion" is playing with fire. The proof is in the heresies of the good old American sects of people who reject Catholic Tradition, finding their pinnacle in the Mormon and Jehovah's Witness cults.
I am not saying that ditching vestments will land you in hell and wearing them will save you. It's a more nuanced argument than that - so don't put words in my mouth. I am saying that the Catholic Faith is necessqary for salvation, and that Faith is delivered (Greek: paradidomi, Latin: trado) by way of a "tradition" - a "handing over" as spoken of by St. Paul in 1 Cor 11:2 - not to mention Paul's strong warnings in 2 Thess 2:15 and 3:6.
This is the wisdom of our confessions: "Nothing has been *received* among us, in doctrine *or in ceremonies*, that is contrary to Scripture or the church catholic." And why? Because: "It is manifest that we have guarded diligently against the introduction into our churches of any new and ungodly doctrines."
This is what separates the Lutheran reformers from the Reformed and the Anabaptists. We reformed with a scalpel, not a meat-axe. We carefully trimmed the accretions, we did not retool the Mass and the doctrines of the faith to fit our preferences. We submit to the Catholic Tradition - and where tradition had gone astray from that Catholic Faith (through which we are saved) as manifested in Scripture, we carefully shed those accretions. The Reformed ditched the vestments, ditched the tradition of clerics reading the scriptures, ditched the traditional and ancient hymnody (with some exceptions), and felt free to modify, or even abolish, the order of the Mass.
And American Lutheranism has ALWAYS struggled - like an alcoholic with temptation to hit the bottle - with a pull towards generic American Protestantism and Reformed theology and practice.
We need to go back to the source: Scripture and Confessions - and relearn who we are. Unless we're content to be (as Scaer once quipped) Baptists who use real wine at communion. We need to adopt the motto of Higher Things: "Dare to be Lutheran!" Too many Lutherans look, act, worship, and ultimately believe like something else.
Fr. Louderback,
ReplyDeleteI asked:
In the two posts you made in response, entertaining as they may be, did you answer that question?
You responded:
I thought it did—I certainly did not say "Yes, anything goes," but tried to lay out what I thought worked and did not.
But no, anything does not go.
But, the question was not asked of you what you thought did and did not work, but rather, if there is a line for you, and if so, where is that line. I still don't see that you answered that. I mean, to say some CoWo is best doesn't say that some CoWo is off limits or out of bounds.
So, again, where is the line for you? Is there a line?
Too many Lutherans look, act, worship, and ultimately believe like something else.
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly right, and there is empirical evidence to back up this claim. I have family members who have been going to an "All CoWo, all the time" LCMS congregation for almost twenty years. Having a theological conversation with them is no different than having a theological conversation with the run of the mill methobapticostal. They simply have no clue what Lutherans believe, teach, confess, and practice. No clue!
But, why should they? They haven't been taught our Lutheran confession of the faith. They haven't witnessed it in practice. They are simply regurgitating what they have been fed all these years, to the point that, were they to move and relocate and there were no "happy-clappy" LCMS congregations in the area, they'd readily join whatever congregation in town put on the best show.
Ceremonies teach. They do. Really, they do.
I think Fr. McClean, who was the keynote speaker at the St. Michael Liturgical Conference at Zion, Detroit, last week, nailed it. There should be "an unmistakable atmosphere of the deepest reverence" when Lutherans are gathered together for Mass, for we are admitted into the realm depicted for us in Rev. 4 and 5, gathered in the very Presence of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. This is no time for nonchalance and irreverence; no time for fun and entertainment; no time for satisfying likes and desires, meeting "felt" needs, toying with emotions; no time for lounging in comfort, sipping your latte, and enjoying the "show." No! This is a time for reverence and awe; a time for the deepest reverence. Our Lord is there! That's what Lutherans believe. It's spelled out quite clearly in our Confessions, for anyone who wants to give them an honest read.
When it's a show, people know it's a show. They're taught to think of it as a show. They're drawn to return for the show,and if there is a bigger and better show available, they'll readily leave and go watch the show elsewhere.
The proof is in the eating of the pudding. Those who have eaten the pudding served up by Lutherans who have turned Mass into a "worship experience" are malnourished to the point that they don't even recognize the real Food when they see it; heck, they're so in love with the tasty pudding that they don't want anything to do with the Meat and Veggies our Lord would serve them.
None of this should surprise us. When the premise is: Let's find out what people want and like and give it to them in the church, that's exactly what they'll get. And no amount of sprinkling in Jesus here and there will sidetrack them from focusing on how they're getting what they like and want. Jesus will always lose in that scenario - as will those who have been taught to believe that catering to their likes and wants is how He serves them.
Brother Mark:
ReplyDeleteI know there is an ELCA congregation in Arlington. Do you know anything about their Divine Service? Do they have a liturgical (Western Mass) Service or are they "all CoWo all the time" too? If they do have a liturgical Service, do LC-MS Lutherans who desire that end up going there instead of to your congregation? You might not know these things, I'm just curious about it. Here in Chicago-land, you can't swing a cat without hitting an LC-MS church, so people can "pick and choose" the "style" of Service they want. They just have to drive a few more minutes to get there. Liturgically minded Lutherans come to my church, ones who want CoWo usually end up going somewhere else. Is the reverse of that the case with you?
Fr Hollywood,
ReplyDeleteOk...you can't respond to my responses until I finish responding to all of yours. :)
Fr Messer,
So, again, where is the line for you? Is there a line?
Is there a line? Yes. What is that line? Well...I don't know. I'd have to see it.
I'm unsure if that is satisfactory or not. But put it in terms of "What is appropriate for a chasuble? What decorations?" Obviously there are limits, but I'm not sure I could spell them out.
Obviously it was helpful to have some examples to say "Yeah, I think that is too far." And that is what I did.
Pastor Anderson,
I know there is an ELCA congregation in Arlington. Do you know anything about their Divine Service?
First, you know it is Arlington TN right? Not Texas? People mistake that...I'm a Yankee fan, not a Rangers fan, so that is important to me.
I don't know what his services are like...I don't.
I know that my team can beat his in softball...
If they do have a liturgical Service, do LC-MS Lutherans who desire that end up going there instead of to your congregation?
No, most who would want a traditional service would go to one of the closer LCMS churches. We have two close enough by that have traditional services.
Is the reverse of that the case with you?
We have plenty of people who pass other Lutheran churches in order to come to our congregation.
I'm not thrilled by this exactly—I don't say it to brag is what I mean. I'd rather we bring more people from our community who are currently not attending church as opposed to have a Lutheran come from one church to another because they like our service better.
Yes, I did know that you are in TN :) Thanks for your response.
ReplyDeleteFH,
ReplyDeleteSo, most of the questions I asked are things that I have heard about one way or another. Like the stole question—I think that in the altar guild manual the author comes out in favor of narrow stoles. I think that is right.
Blue vs purple is interesting because blue swept through in usage very quickly through the Synod. Yes, history before then, but not immediately. The change went pretty quickly in my lifetime.
The liturgical equivalent of a Captain Crunch commercial. And they are typically as inane and disrespectful of holy space. Sorry if that offends you.
Why would it offend me? I read what you write and I think "Well, that is certainly not my children's message. My children's message is designed to bring the Word of God to the child at their education level. Teaching children is never inane or disrespectful."
Suppose the teaching were done not inanely. Would you reconsider your position?
It isn't about "what I like."
Wel...except that everyone who ever says this tends to like liturgical worship...it is easy to say "It is not about what I like" when you are doing what you like. It makes it easy to justify behavior that may not be the most loving.
Father Hollywood,
ReplyDeleteThere is only one reason to treat the word "Mass" in this way...It is a lack of understanding of what Lutheranism is and what we confess about ourselves and our ecclesiological relationship to Jesus. It's that fundamental.
Well, words lose their meaning and gain other meanings. The term "mass' I tend to think refers to the false teaching of the sacrifice of the mass which is taught in the Roman Catholic church.
That is what the word means in English, in America. We can try to reclaim it, as it is in our German and Latin texts, or we can drop it.
I tend to be a dropper. I'd rather talk around jargon when I can.
It has nothing to do with a lack of understanding what it is to be a Lutheran. It is just deciding that an english word is not suited for the right purpose. That's all.
It seems that you have some "I" trouble.
Sigh.
Well, if you would rather, how about this:
Our Synod — or, perhaps more ostentatiously — but admittedly accurate — the visible church on earth — has stated, quite clearly, that Scripture does not prohibit lay readers.
So, I go with what the visible church on earth says.
This is pretty much what Father Curtis says above:
Of course, in our Synod nothing can ever quite be that strong. You can ignore anything the Synod says if you want to be pig headed and chances are nobody will do anything to you.
In this case, you are going against what the visible church on earth is saying. You are ignoring what the Synod says because of your own personal preference.
So, who has the I problem now? :)
Seriously—you can't have it both ways. You can't speak about "we" but then turn away from the decisions that our church body has made. You can't crack on me for saying "I" when you are holding to personal opinions differing from the Synod.
I don't care if you do all the readings. But in what I am doing, I'm not on my own. I'm being faithful to the Word of God and the Synod.
If everyone can read the scriptures in the public liturgy, why not have everyone preach?
(shrug) If women can teach children in the home, why not have them teach on Sunday morning in the service?
Answer: because it is not the same thing.
After all, everyone a minister, right?
No.
The Word must be interpreted....
Er...you miss the point here.
The problem with the Jehovah's Witness is not that they reject what the church catholic holds to — it is that they reject what the Word of God teaches. Their interpretation is wrong.
If we look at the church catholic, we see that is teaches falsehood and gets things wrong. The majority of the church catholic teaches against the Word of God.
Which is why we are Lutheran. And it is why we have our confessions—to say "This is what the Word of God holds to." The reason why there is a Lutheran church in Africa has nothing to do with liturgy—it has to do with their holding to Scripture and the Word and teaching it in all truth.
Which is not what the church catholic does.
FH, (the end) :)
ReplyDeleteNow, if by "church catholic" you don't just mean the entire christian church on earth, but just are referring to the Lutheran church, then I would ask you, What makes one Lutheran? Here, my answer is "Holding to Scriptural as the Lutheran Confessions teach." That is what I do.
So, I am no cowboy. But what you are doing is moving away from the teaching and interpretation of Scripture and looking at the traditions — which are all fine and well, but certainly many of them are not Scriptural. It doesn't say to wear a stole in Scripture. Or to have or not have children's messages. Or to do any number of things.
Now obviously, for good order, and out of love, we follow tradition and set up ways to do things. But these ought not to be confused with what is truly important: and that is the Word of God.
That is the distinction that I is important to me. The Catholic practices? They may or may not be of good use. To me it is just a question of "How much more do I want to add to my service?" I'm comfortable where it is now.
Unless we're content to be (as Scaer once quipped) Baptists who use real wine at communion.
Well, as opposed to being Roman Catholics who receive the bread?
That is to say, I'm sure that for many worship services out there, you could not tell a Lutheran service from a Roman Catholic service. Does that mean the theology is identical? No, not at all.
My service might look baptist, but it is not. Just as your service might look Roman Catholic but it is not. Why? Same reason: because of our doctrine. That is the distinguishing aspect about being a Lutheran. What we say about what Scripture teaches. Justification. Grace.
It is not, repeat not, about doing the Liturgy. That is no more a distinction that color is on a person. Well, not exactly, but you get the idea. A person is a person whether they are white or black. A Lutheran is a Lutheran whether they are worshiping with LSB or CoWo.
Dear Mark:
ReplyDeleteThere are multiple problems with "children's sermons." First, a practical observation. I've seen a lot of them over the years. They typically degenerate into a cute (and banal) little show. The attention is not on Jesus and His Word but on little Sally and Timmy's antics. The pastor (or sometimes a layman of either sex) acting as the "preacher" often becomes a kind-of Art Linkletter emcee coaxing out funny responses from the kiddoes. Often he has to use gimmicks: puppets or toys. Typically, the "preacher" has his or her buttocks planted squarely on the floor of the chancel with his or her back to the holy altar - which is often merely feet away.
This kind of thing is acceptable in a Protestant setting because there is no sacramental sense of holy space, and the service is basically the communication of data. But to us who confess the Lord's Real Presence and the fact that the altar and chancel are sacred spaces, they should not be used as a stage or a place of entertainment - even with the best of intentions. We're talking about the holy mysteries - unless, of course, you don't believe in that sort of thing. I once ran into a chaplain who was putting golf balls in front of the altar. What a scandal, and an even worse scandal that he was not ashamed - even when I was clearly distressed by it.
Moreover, a separate sermon based on age has never been done in the millennia that the Triune God has been worshiped - not until the Boomer generation decided that children needed to be treated this "Sesame Street Church" kind of way. Did Jesus do "children's sermons" in the synagogue? Did the apostles or the apostolic fathers insert such a thing in the liturgy? Luther was a catechist of catechists who loved children and loved teaching children. Did he have children's sermons?
No, they didn't, because they did not indulge the entertainment impulse the way well-intentioned but misguided pastors do today. They send the kids a message that church has to be "fun." And when it ceases to be fun, they will simply leave. I don't believe for a second that the "bait and switch" thing works - which is how advocates of Entertainment Worship often try to justify it: "we'll lure them with puppet shows and Starbucks, and then we'll 'disciple' them and eventually get them to the liturgical service." Right.
What is acceptable in Sunday School is not acceptable in divine worship - that is unless we are willing to join our Protestant brethren in jettisoning the confession that certain space is sanctified by the sacred mysteries of Word and Sacrament.
continued...
continued...
ReplyDeleteAnd as far as "what I like" - there are many things that I do liturgically that I don't like - for the sake of unity and pastoral concern. I don't like Divine Service One, "and also with you," and other weak translations in that text; I don't like not using chancel bells, only rarely using incense, having to use shot glasses for communion, etc. I would like to consecrate our elders as deacons and have them wear vestments when they assist - but neither they nor the congregation wants to do it.
I'm not a fan of our polity, but for the sake of love and unity, I submit to it. I'm also not a fan of the ESV - but I submit there as well, as it is used in our hymnal and in our Treasury of Daily Prayer breviary. I don't like having five orders of the Mass - but again, I think having all our churches on LSB is better than everybody doing what is right in his own eyes.
And so there is a give and take between what we think is best and what is practical in our congregations. But there are limits. One of my classmates (one of the most brilliant in the class) was sent to a parish where the people kept yammering to have a Polka Service - since the local Methodists and Roman Catholics did it. He eventually left the LCMS because of the dissonance between our confession and practice. As a pastor, he said "no" to the Polka nonsense. But he did put up with a lot of stuff that he didn't like - and so do all of our pastors.
Unless, of course, you write your own liturgy. Then you can overrule the consensus of synod, of the LSB, of the Book of Concord, of 500 years of Lutheran tradition, and 2,000 years of church history - and instead do all the stuff you like, the things that will tickle your listeners' ears and make you popular. Don't like confession? Cut it out. Don't like the Creed? Re-write it. Want some fun? Add a children's sermon. Want some self-centered indulgence? Add stadium seats, cup holders, rock music, big screens, and dancing girls. That is pure American worship of the self, a form of narcissistic religious egotist, wrongly filed under "E" for "Evangelism."
Dear Mark.
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"Well, words lose their meaning and gain other meanings. The term "mass' I tend to think refers to the false teaching of the sacrifice of the mass which is taught in the Roman Catholic church."
This is a canard. Ask any person on the street what the word "Mass" means in terms of worship (as opposed to physics), and they will not speak of propitious sacrifices and give you a theological discourse about the medieval canon. Instead they will say "a catholic church service." In the days of the Reformation, one would expect your answer - since the RC misunderstanding of the Mass as a propitious sacrifice was (unlike today) a front-burner issue - even among Lutherans. According to your logic, the word "Mass" would have been an even bigger issue for them. And yet, what did the reformers do?
The word "Mass" is the single most commonly used term in the Book of Concord for the Divine Service!
If *they* used the term without confusion, how can anyone say this is a problem today? That's just nonsense!
The real problem is: 1) Confessional illiteracy and 2) misidentification with American Protestantism. And I can prove it.
Do a survey of your own parishioners, Mark. What percentage of them own a Book of Concord? What percentage of them read it regularly? How many classes a week do you offer a Book of Concord class? How often does the Book of Concord come up in Bible class? Unlike our German hymnal, the LSB does not include the foundational Augsburg Confession between its covers. Moreover, how many of your parishioners who serve in the military will attend the Protestant service in chapel? How many of your parishioners would argue that they are closer to Baptists than to Roman Catholics? I recall fellow parishioners in Georgia who thought a Lutheran marrying a Roman Catholic was a mixed marriage, whereas one marrying a Baptist was not. And yet, which one is going to cause a crisis of faith when it's time to baptize the child?
Some American Lutherans are offended by the word "Mass" for the same reason that a majority of them won't make the sign of the cross or genuflect during the Creed: because they have been raised in a culture that is bigoted against Roman Catholics to the point where Lutheran practices have been gotten rid of based on that fact. This is nothing new - Walther complained bitterly about it. He did not even allow Methodist hymns to be sung in his congregations.
The solution is not for us to receive "among us, in doctrine or in ceremonies" things that are "contrary... to the church catholic." In fact, I think that's exactly the opposite of what we should do. Luther catechized. He did not yield to the Anabaptists and the Reformed, but rather retained the catholic ceremonies and taught, taught, taught.
Our problem is twofold: 1) a general ignorance about the faith, and 2) a laziness among the pastors to overcome this ignorance through teaching. That is hard work. Entertaining people instead of insisting that they learn the confessions is not what we have been called to do.
Besides, the world is a smaller place. Lutherans all over the world use the word "Mass." It's only a hang-up here in America where we are bombarded by TV infomercials about the Rapture and where everyone claims to be an expert on the Bible when they have only seen a Discovery Channel program on it.
When people actually read, study, and take to heart the Book of Concord - those prejudices of ignorance melt away right along with the desire to be entertained on a Sunday morning. Depth replaces shallowness, and a hunger for communion with God replaces the desire for a latte in the pew.
You should give it a shot, Mark!
Dear Mark:
ReplyDeleteI think your remark:
"That is the distinction that I is important to me. The Catholic practices? They may or may not be of good use. To me it is just a question of "'much more do I want to add to my service?' I'm comfortable where it is now,"
is most telling.
Look at the terms you're using here:
- "important to me"
- "I want"
- "My service"
- "I'm comfortable"
It's all about you! That's your problem. And it is also our problem as a church. The Mass is also called the *Divine* Service, not the *Louderback* Service. You seem to think it is yours to monkey around with. Moreover, you would not be "adding" to the service, rather you have - by your own admission - cut a lot of it out. Luther took a scalpel to the medieval Roman Mass, and you (being wiser than Luther perhaps) are unilaterally wielding a chainsaw upon the modern Lutheran Mass. Does that even make sense? Yikes!
Furthermore, your comfort should come from His Word, not from your own customizations to the *Church's* Liturgy, to *God's* Service.
I think you've made it very easy to identify the problem.
The good news is that you can fix it by God's grace! You are not alone! We're all in this together - you, me, Luther, centuries of pastors, the apostles, and Jesus Himself!
You don't need to reinvent the wheel, Mark. The time-tested, Scripture-drenched, Gospel-laden liturgy is already worked out, printed in a book, and ready-for-use every Sunday. Just think how salutary it will be for your parishioners to go on vacation and actually know the liturgy and be able to participate - even if they are in another country. What a blessing the traditional liturgy is!
Dear Mark:
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"That is to say, I'm sure that for many worship services out there, you could not tell a Lutheran service from a Roman Catholic service. Does that mean the theology is identical? No, not at all."
Luther modified the Roman Mass. A good chart comparing the two can be found in the McCain edition of the Book of Concord. Aside from the omission of the canon, Luther and the reformers changed almost nothing. But the changes they made were important; those changes corrected false doctrine.
And if it wasn't broke, they didn't fix it.
There is a reason there is a lot of similarity between RC (at least the old Mass) services and the Lutheran service.
The Lutheran Mass is an Evangelical Service of Word and Sacrament. The medieval Mass was reformed to get rid of the false doctrine.
Does the traditional Lutheran service convey any false doctrine, Mark? I don't think it does. I'm willing for you to correct me if you think it does, though. Is it broken? Does it need fixed? What bad theology does the Lutheran Common Service convey? Is there some Roman Catholic doctrine being conveyed in any of our congregations?
Since "Contemporary Worship" is so radically different from place to place, I can only make observations based on generalizations - but I have a laundry list of theological errors that I have seen confessed in such services. I have yet to see any false doctrine in a traditional Lutheran service using traditional hymnody.
There is great safety in the bosom of the Church. It's a mistake to leave the ark and claim to be wiser than Noah.
Father Hollywood,
ReplyDeleteChildren's messages
See, the thing about Children's messages is that I grew up with a pastor who did them and I still remember some of them.
That would be 30 years ago...
I'd kill to have people remember a sermon of mine for 30 years. So, you know...you can go on about how insipid they are or gimmicky or whatever—but that is not my experience with them.
As to whether it is a good idea or not to have a time in the service to bring a contextual message to a lower age...our knowledge of how kids learned has grown. So, yeah, it makes sense that how we teach kids changes.
Once more, in my own experience, when i was thinking about becoming a pastor, I contacted the very same pastor who did children's messages. I left that congregation in the sixth grade, before confirmation. Once again, showing the connection that he made.
I hope that you are swayed by my personal experiences just as Paul swayed those in Jerusalem with the stories he told of gentile conversion.
Children's messages can indeed be a good thing.
FH,
ReplyDeleteAnd so there is a give and take between what we think is best and what is practical in our congregations. But there are limits.
I would agree with this. I just want the limits to be a bit larger than you would have them...
After all, let's clarify my position: I'm not doing anything that the Synod thinks is wrong. Some people in the Synod think it is wrong. Some people disagree with it. But that is not the same thing.
I don't think what I am doing is confessionally wrong. The Confessions, at the core, are about the Word of God and a proper interpretation of that Word. We all know that there is nothing in Scripture about how we are to worship—that is to say, whether we ought to use the western liturgy or not.
I appreciate your wanting to hang "narcissism" on me—but I will address this further down.
FH,
ReplyDeleteThis is a canard. Ask any person on the street what the word "Mass" means in terms of worship (as opposed to physics), and they will not speak of propitious sacrifices and give you a theological discourse about the medieval canon. Instead they will say "a catholic church service."
Err....by "catholic church service" do you think that they mean "universal church service" or "Christian church service"?
Or do they mean "a Roman Catholic worship service"?
I'd bet on the last one.
Do they understand the false teaching of the Roman Catholic worship service? I think they have ideas...
So, I disagree that it is a canard. I think you rather would use the term . Which is fine—but I just see it as another personal choice.
According to your logic, the word "Mass" would have been an even bigger issue for them. And yet, what did the reformers do?
Well, we did move away from it, didn't we?
If *they* used the term without confusion, how can anyone say this is a problem today? That's just nonsense!
Different language. Different time. There are many words that have meanings that have changed that we just don't use any more.
The real problem is: 1) Confessional illiteracy and 2) misidentification with American Protestantism. And I can prove it.
I'll let you know. :)
Do a survey of your own parishioners, Mark. What percentage of them own a Book of Concord?
It is probably small. My teaching comes from the small catechism more than the large. I've only been here a year—you have to start where people are.
How many of your parishioners would argue that they are closer to Baptists than to Roman Catholics?
Probably most...and they would be right. The Baptist churches teaches wrongly on justification (adding acceptance)—they don't condemn it.
Look, I know that we have plenty in our Synod who think that the RC church is a false church, not a Christian church, and we accept their baptisms merely because they are Trinitarian in nature. I get that.
But the RC Church has done much to deserve this. Antichrist issue aside.
But I do think that this is a distinction between so-called Confessionals and so-called Missionals—I'm sure that you identify more with the RC church and I identify more with the Evangelical church.
And yet, which one is going to cause a crisis of faith when it's time to baptize the child?
Here, I have found that both baptists and Roman Catholics make good Lutherans. We can indeed teach our positions from Scripture.
The term "mass" is not a term used in Scripture and we have a perfectly fine word "worship service". I don't see the need.
because they have been raised in a culture that is bigoted against Roman Catholics
Once again, much of that can be laid at their own feet—I draw your attention once again to Trent...but the modern RC church is not the church of Trent either, I fully agree with that.
Our problem is twofold: 1) a general ignorance about the faith, and 2) a laziness among the pastors to overcome this ignorance through teaching. That is hard work.
And here is what you miss: it is hard work with no payoff. So you can use the word "Mass"? Whopdeedoo. Who cares? Does it make you more Lutheran? Really?
I don't think we should use it; I think the word is lost and there are some battles that just are not worth fighting. Remember, we are not talking about people who speak German and Latin—we are talking about an English word. And I think the English word is done.
You should give it a shot, Mark!
Using the term Mass or reading the book of Concord? Have I told you about the Confessional reading group I'm in now? So, I'm all over it. :)
I do agree with you that we need to teach, teach, teach our people. My point would be, with limited time, what exactly do we want to teach, teach, teach them?
FH,
ReplyDeleteThe Mass is also called the *Divine* Service, not the *Louderback* Service.
Oh, I didn't know we had another word to refer to it as... :)
Furthermore, your comfort should come from His Word, not from your own customizations to the *Church's* Liturgy, to *God's* Service.
This is the oddest sentence ever...
Anyway, I always put things in terms of my opinion. I've never been one to bring in other sources —like that whole "visible church on earth" thing (that you conveniently ignored).
The thing is, the catholic church is doing CoWo. I'm not alone. I'm not the lone wolf here.
Before I started my service, I had the opportunity to see what other Lutheran Churches were doing—and contrary to what you saw, i never saw any false teaching or all of the wacky stuff that you guys post on the blog. None of it.
So, I am not doing my own thing—I'm doing what others in my church are doing.
In addition, I have those around me as well in my circuit—both my missional and confessional buds. We keep each other in check. We encourage and question.
It is nice. I love the fact that I have a good circuit.
And then, I have Lutherans in my church who also work with me.
So, this is not the narcissistic, me-focused occasion that you paint it to be. Rather, i think it points to Christ and Him crucified. We are sacramental—with a baptismal font at our entrance and communion each Sunday.
Obviously, much of what we do is by my call—but hey, I write a sermon each week. I don't just pull from the church fathers.
Luther his lifetime, I have heard, knew about 5 unchurched people. All of the rest were Roman Catholics (or former RC). We live in a different world and so I have a service that is designed to bring Christ to people in a contextual way.
Does it? (shrug) Obviously I have no way that would satisfy you do I?
Does the traditional Lutheran service convey any false doctrine, Mark?
Once again, an odd statement...
Is there some Roman Catholic doctrine being conveyed in any of our congregations?
Weeeeelllll...you tell me my friend.
Do I name names of pastors who have left the Synod for the RC Church? We both know they exist. Why does this happen? Because of the liturgy? I would say "No." It happens because they have faulty theology.
My point is: their doing the liturgy didn't keep that faulty theology from developing.
FH,
ReplyDeleteIn closing then...well, I do appreciate the conversation and your willingness to engage. Thanks for that.
I am unconvinced that in every circumstance, in every place, in every situation, that the western liturgy is the best way to proclaim the Gospel message of Christ.
Oh, wait—must I say "People like me" as opposed to "I"? But the fact is that I am convinced of this.
So, I do CoWo. I do it as a Lutheran would. I bring my theology to the service.
"Reverence" is not a theology and I think it is overplayed. The point of the service is not to be reverent to God. The point of the service is to receive the gifts God is giving to us. And then responding.
I do think that the so-called confessionals like yourself are just doing things because they once were done. I don't mean this in a bad way. I think that gives you comfort. I think that the sameness of the liturgy is appealing to you. It is not so appealing to me. And to others.
I do think that there are boundaries though and I would not mind lining out a best practice of CoWo. But I'm interested in doing that with someone who doesn't think "The best practice of CoWo is to not do it. Period."
That's me.
Dear Mark, you wrote:
ReplyDelete"'Reverence' is not a theology and I think it is overplayed. The point of the service is not to be reverent to God. The point of the service is to receive the gifts God is giving to us. And then responding."
You mean like Isaiah in Chapter Six? You mean like the priests in the Temple? You mean like Moses at the burning bush? You mean like Peter in Luke 5:8?
Since you do use the Small Catechism, the explanation of the First Commandment does say that we are to "fear" God. That is reverence. Worship that is not reverent is not worship of God - and it is typically worship of the self, of pleasure, or of entertainment in some capacity.
Even the makers of the movie Dogma see through this movement towards popular casualness in the church (i.e. the "Buddy Jesus"). Lack of reverence in the face of Almighty God is a lack of faith, a lack of belief. If you *truly believe* that a miracle happens on our altars, that the very same 2,000 year old man Jesus in His flesh - the same flesh cradled by Mary and blessed by Simeon - and in His blood, truly and bodily present in a time-and-space warping miraculous encounter with the Transcendent One giving us His gifts of life and salvation, if you really believe that is His true blood - the selfsame blood shed at Golgotha - in the chalice (or the disposable plastic shot glass) - what will be the response?
I think it's all summed up in the t-shirt: "Jesus is my homeboy." Which, by the way, dovetails nicely with the "Jesus My Boyfriend" sing-songs that typify a lot of this kind of "teenager in love" worship.
FH,
ReplyDeleteYou mean like Isaiah in Chapter Six?
Isaiah in chapter 6 is having a vision. He's not attending a worship service is he?
You mean like the priests in the Temple?
Actually, yes.
Like the priests in the temple who were there to bring forgiveness of sins to those coming with their sacrifices.
You mean like Moses at the burning bush?
Once again, not a worship service.
But I'll bet you leave your shoes on...
I'm missing what you want these passages to say exactly...
Since you do use the Small Catechism, the explanation of the First Commandment does say that we are to "fear" God. That is reverence.
And just to nail this down, how exactly does this carry on in your life outside of church? Do you walk with no shoes on? Do you...do you what? I'm not sure what else I can go with.
I want my reverence of God to be how I act towards Him whether I am in His house or not. I don't think that is entertainment. I think that is simply seeing reverence differently from you. If you want to have incense, as a reverential act, that is fine. If I don't, that does not make me less reverent.
If you want to use an organ, that is fine. My praise team does not make the service less reverent.
If you want to wear robes, etc.
I want my life to be a part of that reverence. So, I wear in church what I wear outside. My language out of church is like my language inside of church. I don't have to — and I don't want to — have a huge distinction of in church behavior from out of church behavior.
Yes, I understand the presence of God for me that is a part of church—but once again, I don't see it as the defining aspect of what church is.
Even the makers of the movie Dogma see through this movement towards popular casualness in the church (i.e. the "Buddy Jesus").
Three things:
#1: Surely that was the vision of Kevin Smith. Not the "makers" but the one person who wrote the script. Come now, are you not a Kevin Smith fan? Did you know that he had a dedication in his first movie to God and would still publicly say he is a Christian? Whether he is or not, the confession is still one that ought to be commended.
And George Carlin is funny.
#2: Your point, of course, backfires, because the issue here is one of doctrine—Christ is our Savior by His death on the cross and resurrection from the grave. That is the problem with the Buddy Christ.
Let's hear how they speak about it in the movie:
While it has been a time honored symbol of our faith, Holy Mother Church has decided to retire this highly recognizable, yet wholly depressing image of our Lord crucified. Christ didn't come to Earth to give us the willies... He came to help us out. He was a booster. And it is with that take on our Lord in mind that we've come up with a new, more inspiring sigil.
See, that is the issue with Buddy Jesus.It is what is said about Him. And that is why CoWo is not about Buddy Jesus—because we are not about downplaying the cross of Christ.
#3: Once again, if I were saying "I think Jesus should be my homeboy" sure. But I'm not. I'm saying that reverence is not the end-all-be-all and I think this shows a basic distinction in worship.
But it doesn't show a distinction in theology, etc.
what will be the response?
Watch my worship services and find out, eh?
Dear Mark:
ReplyDeleteI think this is a helpful discussion.
You see no connection between Isaiah 6 and worship. But this vision is indeed a Worship Service. It is Gottesdienst. The angel places the burning coal on the lips of the sinner and his sin is taken away.
Even my youngest confirmands immediately see what is going on here. Bo Giertz makes this point brilliantly in the first novella of Hammer of God. This is the Mass!
Your disconnect with this reality explains why you feel free to jettison the Sanctus and replace it with something more worldly, something more to your liking, something you think your parishioners would like better.
You have lost touch with what the word "holy" means, and you have lost touch with the fact that worship is holy. This kind of holiness is an intimacy with God that we experience based on His own institution. And just as our "casual" culture cheapens sexuality, so it cheapens the intimacy we have with Almighty God by turning it into something chincy and shallow - if not outright tawdry.
As Lutherans, as sacramental Christians who confess the Real Presence, we do make a distinction between certain sanctified places and things - whereas Protestants don't.
This is why, for example, we have a rite of blessing for graves. We bless vestments (they are not "robes"). We bless crosses and homes - and even our food. We bless the bread and the wine with the Lord's Words and we partake of the miracle of His bodily Presence.
Protestant worship sees all of this as symbolic and of no substance. It is information at best, and entertainment is a means to the ends of seats in the seats.
And the fact that so many of our churches have violated Walther's warning and imported Protestant hymns and worship styles has proven that we have lost touch with that which is holy.
In other words, nothing is sacred.
As a church, we should all prostrate ourselves before the Lord and plead "Kyrie eleison" for forsaking Him for the golden calf of worldly entertainment.
That's my take on it. I know you disagree. I don't think you are evil or malicious - but I do think you have completely missed the point of why the Lord comes to us sacramentally.
Fr. Louderback,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
Yes, I understand the presence of God for me that is a part of church—but once again, I don't see it as the defining aspect of what church is.
The presence of God is not a part of church, it (HE) is the Church. Our Lord Jesus Christ is THE defining aspect of what Church IS.
That you don't see the presence of our Lord as the defining aspect of what Church is doesn't register with me, as a Lutheran. It would have registered well with me way back when I wasn't a Lutheran.
I think this really gets at the heart of our differences, which, at the end of the day (heck, even at the beginning of the day), are not limited to differences in style or taste or likes, etc., but are rather fundamental theological differences.
Lutherans worship the way they do because they recognize that Christ is Present among them. In fact, it is not too much to say that the only reason to gather together for Divine Service is to come to where Jesus IS Present for us with His Divine Gifts.
Protestants and Americanized Evangelicals don't believe this. They don't believe Jesus is Present when we gather together in His Name for Divine Service. He's "up there." Thus, the whole point of their "worship" is to create some kind of mystical "experience" for the worshiper to somehow get in on and "feel" the far-away "presence" of Jesus "up there." Thus, the entertainment, since entertainment does the best job of manipulating the emotions of those gathered, so they can "experience" Jesus in those emotions.
But, not so for Lutherans. We actually believe Jesus IS there. Really there. And His Presence among us IS the defining aspect of our worship.
And, we didn't just make this up. It is Biblical, as Fr. Beane pointed out with the few examples he sighted. Our Lutheran theology of worship comes straight from the Bible, which, contrary to your repeated assertions, does reveal to us how our God is to be worshiped. Try as you might, you simply will not be able to find any Biblical precedent for the sort of "worship" that has our Lord someplace else than right there in the midst of His people. In every instance where our Lord gathers His people for worship, it is a holy, reverent encounter with Him.
The reason our Lutheran forefathers did not abolish the Mass and retained all of the usual customs, including the historic liturgy, is because they recognize the very Real Presence of our Lord among us when we are gathered together in His Name. The reason Zwingli, the Anabaptists, et. al. abandoned the Mass and got rid of the usual customs, including the historic liturgy, is because they don't believe Jesus is Present. Our Lutheran forefathers rejected and condemned them for this. Their point is to make clear to Rome that they are not like those "radicals," who, indeed, were guilty of starting their own new thing, based on a new and false theology.
Anyway, as I said, I think this really gets at the heart of our differences. In fact, I think we could really sum up the ongoing "worship wars" among us with the question: Is Jesus Really Present among us or not? The way we answer that question will be seen in our practice.
As Dr. Weinrich pointed out to us at the Gottesdienst Central conference earlier this week, "All Ecclesiology is Christology." Christ and His Bride (His Church) are One Flesh. Where Christ is, there is His Church. Where His Church is, there is Christ. That has major implications on the question of worship, no?
"CoWo pastors tend to be inspiring. You listen to them and you want to drop everything you are doing and follow them. TradCo pastors make you think. It is a good balance." -- Rev. Louderback
ReplyDeleteFalse angels of light can be inspiring. It's probably why blessed St. Paul urged his spiritual children to think, think again, and avoid them and their flummery.
But do understand: I appreciate Rev. Louderback's free-wheeling and free-associating, honesty. This website is as good as a blank screen, when it comes to the projecting psyche. Rev. Louderback's revelations of his churning psyche are as generous, as they are distressing for the orthodox Lutheran.
What have we learned from him, then? That the "CoWo" minister's emphasis on his worship service, hypnotic beat and style ... okay, it's really a Reformed church's style ... stimulates the poor layman to follow him. Rev. Louderback admires this drop-dead personal charisma. So do the Pepsodent-toothed tele-evangelists, who don a cloaking chasuble with no great frequency.
The "TradCo" pastor, vested to divert attention away from transient fashion and human idiosyncrasy, makes the properly catechized you think of the crucified Christ. The vast majority of traditional liturgical sentences are lifted directly from the Word, the Word which testifies of Christ; the focus of the "my" worship service mentality cannot help but point to one human's genius in crafting an ordo of his own devising. Even the cross of the "TradCo" pastor, more often than not bearing a corpus, makes one think of the crucified Christ.
When it's all about Christ, any cheap talk of a "balance" is frankly unbalanced.
The difference between "CoWo" and "TradCo" is fully theological, reflected in attitude and behavior. This is meaningfully revealed in the following petulant outburst of the rebellious self:
"I don't have to — and I don't want to — have a huge distinction of in church behavior from out of church behavior."
God Himself disagrees, and chooses to make a enormous distinction between the different spaces. Inside the local manifestation of the Church at large, the Lord comes to us, truly, under the guise of consecrated bread and wine. The bread and wine found outside the church are temporally sustaining, to be sure, but do not carry the Peace which delivers from sin, death and the power of the devil.
His man Ezekiel also disagrees. When he looked and saw the glory of the Lord in His temple (and Who is the Glory of the Lord, but our Redeemer Himself?), he revered the Presence of God in a manner quite different from the mundane acts of every-day life: he fell prostrate, flat on his face (Ez 44:4).
So there we have the Lord's precious body and blood, on the holy altar, and a Lutheran cleric is teaching the laity that we're to act in its general vicinity as though we're filling up the jalopy with corn-based ethanol?
We should have seen it coming. Cole Porter already wrote, seventy years or so ago, "Anything goes." The Anglican C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, wrote that primitive man's sense and fear of the presence of the Numinous was inbred and reflexive. So during this age of ever-casual apostasy, we have regressed from fear to a yawn. Apparently, God has gotten His 15 minutes of fame. Now it's time for the praise bands of the Lutherans to jack up our emotions, and get theirs.
By the way, I can hear "raise(hell)-bands" in my neighbor's garage, almost any day of the week. The difference from Rev. Louderback's in-church version is that the riffs of the neighborhood rascals are better, harder, and actually contemporary.
M.L. Anderson
FH
ReplyDeleteYou see no connection between Isaiah 6 and worship. But this vision is indeed a Worship Service. It is Gottesdienst. The angel places the burning coal on the lips of the sinner and his sin is taken away.
No connection is a little strong. I simply do not see that as the example that we should use from Scripture for our worship service. It is an individual vision that Isaiah has about his encountering God. It is not the people of God coming together to receive forgiveness, hear the Word, etc.
Your disconnect with this reality explains why you feel free to jettison the Sanctus and replace it with something more worldly
"Something more worldly" — you keep saying stuff like that and you have to know that I scratch my head every time I hear it. The Gospel is not "more worldly" — it is just as non-worldly as the sanctus is. Even more so, I would dare to say, because of course, most pagan religions could imagine their God to be holy and righteous, etc.
I — and I see this as a distinction — I am just not doing things to do things. That is what I lightly see you doing. What is old? That is what I will do.
For me it is, what will communicate the Gospel? What will bring this message of grace to the people?
Sometimes it involves meeting people where they are, no doubt about it. But the praise team is no more or less "worldly" than the organ. Robes are no more or less worldly than plain clothes.
Just wanted to touch that base.
Re: holy
I have sympathy with what you say. I can appreciate your position on reverence and holiness and having the worship be set apart as opposed to being familiar.
I understand what you mean about information as opposed to presence of God.
But, no I am not convinced. Why? Couple reasons. First, because I see the over-all ignorance of people when it comes to Scripture and the like—even the Gospel. The culture that we live in is not the culture of yesteryear, where Biblical literacy was simply greater. So, there is plowing that needs to be done.
I have a friend of mine and he talks about how most of the kids he worked with are pious pagans. They can speak churchy language but have no concept of who Christ truly is. I don't want that.
Second, you can keep on pushing on my service as "entertainment" but it slides off—no doubt it is just the same as when I say that the term "Mass" ought not to be used. You can hear the arguments again and again, but they don't convince you.
I don't see what I am doing as entertainment. I do see that what I am doing people like. That makes it easier to proclaim to them the Gospel. That is not a bad thing.
Finally, as I have said — and as you yourself understand — holiness is being set apart. That is the basic meaning, as compared to profane. That is why the robe is not a robe but a vestment.
But in this way, the Christian is set apart. But not merely when they are in the holy space of church—they are set apart wherever they are. Isn't that what we mean when we speak about people being "called out"?
So, I don't need the service to "look different" from what people would encounter in the world, any more than I want them to "look different" on Sunday. That is not the goal of the service. I can appreciate reverence, but it is not the goal.
Bringing people to know the Triune God and who He is, is the goal. That will bring reverence naturally. It will bring love naturally. How else do you respond to the creator? To your savior?
That's how I see it. I appreciate that you don't see me as the enemy—because obviously we know who the enemy is—I would rather you saw me as Lutheran, I have to admit. But either way, I hope that you would understand why I do what I do.
Even if that is the best to hope for, it is not bad.
TM,
ReplyDeleteLutherans worship the way they do because they recognize that Christ is Present among them. In fact, it is not too much to say that the only reason to gather together for Divine Service is to come to where Jesus IS Present for us with His Divine Gifts.
See, this sentence is really a core point. You have to say this:
"the only reason to gather together for Divine Service is to come to where Jesus IS Present for us with His Divine Gifts."
Because you can't say this:
"the only reason to gather together for Divine Service is to come to where Jesus IS Present."
Why not? Because the presence of God without the giving of His gifts is without point.
My point is — and I feel you pulled the quote a tad out of context — is that Father Hollywood is pointing to the presence of God side of the equation; I am pointing to the giving of the gifts side.
Obviously it is both, but I'm saying where my emphasis is, is in the giving of the gifts.
Make sense?
Try as you might, you simply will not be able to find any Biblical precedent for the sort of "worship" that has our Lord someplace else than right there in the midst of His people.
This is correct, and nor would I—I mean, after all, we do celebrate the sacrament every sunday—but is is not merely the presence of God, but the presence of a loving God who saves us by His grace.
That once again is where I point to.
The reason our Lutheran forefathers did not abolish the Mass and retained all of the usual customs, including the historic liturgy, is because they recognize the very Real Presence of our Lord among us when we are gathered together in His Name. The reason Zwingli, the Anabaptists, et. al. abandoned the Mass and got rid of the usual customs, including the historic liturgy, is because they don't believe Jesus is Present.
Sure...but this has nothing to do with why Lutheran churches do CoWo, right? I mean, you understand that, right?
Is Jesus Really Present among us or not?
I disagree, because I would say "Yes, He is." The issue is, "Well, what does the worship look like then?" And it is here that I think we would have differences.
But they would A. not be differences of Scripture — as CoWo comes from Scripture and B. they would not be the differences between the Protestants and Lutherans that you kids are so fond of talking about.
Believe it or not, I still am Lutheran. ;)
"All Ecclesiology is Christology."
Everything is Christology. That's why we do CoWo, right?
Dr Anderson,
ReplyDeleteAs usual, I appreciate your comments and thoughts, but I just think you have it entirely wrong.
My worship is Lutheran, not Roman Catholic or Reformed.
I don't see the Theological distinctions that everyone claims to be between CoWo and TradCo — I can you say them in a sentence that I would agree with?
You, of course, twist my words about the distinction (or lack of distinction) between worship and secular life—yes, not every washing with water is a baptism, but nor was that really my point.
The difference from Rev. Louderback's in-church version is that the riffs of the neighborhood rascals are better, harder, and actually contemporary.
This certainly may be true. But even so, it hardly seems A. kind. I'm sure that most organists aren't the best in the world. Do we mock them? B. Have a point. My band is good enough and I'm blessed, we're blessed, the community is blessed by them.
Ok then!