What is the main thing? If it is Christ and his salvaic work for mankind, then the Orthodox also do so.
And since when has there been a Lutheran Litrugy, Fr. Weedon? I was always under the impression that Lutherans used the historic Liturgy (though modified) of our Father among the Saints, Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome.
To speak of a "Lutheran liturgy" is to engage in a non-sequitur, at least from the vantage point of the original Reformers. It is also to admit the chiefest argument of their Catholic opponents (i.e., the heresy of "Lutheranism" rather than a continuation of the western catholic church)--an argument that Chemnitz, for example, took great pains not to admit.
Alright, you two! To speak of the Lutheran liturgy is simply shorthand for the USE (meaning that in its technical sense) of the Western rite among Catholics who profess the Augsburg Confession. How's that? :)
To Provide Guidance and Direction for Use of Diverse/Contemporary Worship Resources RESOLUTION 2-02A Report 2-02 (CW, pp. 52–54); Overtures 2-07–11 (CW, pp. 141–142) WHEREAS, Many LCMS congregations are regularly making use of contemporary worship songs to the glory of God and the edification of His people; and WHEREAS, There is a need for contemporary worship songs that reflect Lutheran theological and liturgical emphases, including justification by grace through faith in Christ, Holy Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and the church year; and WHEREAS, There are LCMS pastors, teachers, directors of Christian education, and musicians who are composing contemporary worship songs that reflect Lutheran theology and address the theological and liturgical emphases of Lutheran worship; and WHEREAS, There exists in the LCMS no means of gathering, reviewing, and disseminating songs and resources that might be shared with the church-at-large and so enhance the worship life of congregations throughout the LCMS that make use of contemporary worship songs; and WHEREAS, The 2004 convention of the Synod directed the Commission on Worship “to initiate a process leading toward the development of diverse worship resources” (Res. 2-04, 2004 Proceedings, p. 124); therefore be it Resolved, That the Commission on Worship implement the recommendations included in its report to the convention (CW, p. 54), as follows: Recommendation #1 Develop a publication or Web distribution of a quarterly “magazine” or resource package which would include articles dealing with worship planning, modeling, review of new songs, utilization of new media and technology, teaching new music, etc. Recommendation #2 Offer worship arts and music seminars/conferences to inform and educate the church which consider and build on the diversity of worship styles extant across the Synod. Recommendation #3 Develop regularly updated Web-based lists of appropriate and accessible resources that are easily and readily available to pastors and music leaders. Include an exchange listing of available worship leadership positions as well as names of musicians and others skilled in worship arts who are interested in such positions. Recommendation #4 Collaborate with the seminaries of the Synod in developing curriculum and experiences that train and mentor future pastors in diverse worship practices, modeling these diverse worship practices in the worship life of the campus. Recommendation #5 Assist the Board for University Education in encouraging the establishment of at least one of the schools in the Concordia University System as a site for a worship arts degree program. This course of studies would include music instruction and worship direction in a full range of styles, use of media in worship, dramatic and theatre arts, extensive training in contemporary as well as traditional music, etc. Completion of this program by a student would lead to a music degree with a contemporary emphasis leading to rostered status as a director of parish music. Recommendation #6 Develop a Lutheran Composers Group to network those Lutheran composers who wish to exchange and make available to others materials which may be suitable for worship. This network would be a place where Lutheran composers could put their materials on the Web for sharing, for critique, and for support. Action: Adopted (6) (During discussion, a substitute motion advocating that this resolution be tabled until the 2010 convention was ruled not in order because a convention cannot postpone an action from one convention to another. A motion to amend the resolution by deleting “to the glory of God and the edification of His people” failed, but a motion to amend the main motion by including at the end of the resolution the referenced text from the Convention Workbook was agreed to by the committee. The resolution was adopted as changed [Yes: 856; No: 310].)
Atrocious, isn't it? But I would still maintain that this resolution does not replace the "Use" of the Lutheran Liturgy - which use for the Synod is found in her published Agendas and Hymnals - especially in Lutheran Service Book. Wish you could have heard the discussion of the matter in our recent pastoral conference!
St. Paul, it is to be remembered, "hung around" the synagogue and even the Temple; it was there he was arrested and began his trek to Rome. No disciple, however humble, is above the master.
And the flinging of epithets is no substitute for substantive biblical and theological argument. The "use" of the western rite in the Lutheran confession is plainly seriously compromised, and that with the official endorsement of the LCMS's highest governing authority: the Synod in convention.
But remember that the Synod has adopted LSB; it is the Synod's liturgy. As far as what will yet be produced in the area of "diverse worship" (what a ghastly term!) neither you nor I have a clue. But whatever is produced, the fact remains that LSB was officially adopted and for that reason I would argue that it remains properly our use.
LSB (and TLH, and LW) is the Synod's liturgy. The same Synod in convention which approved LSB, of course, also gave its blessing to "alternative worship forms"--which renders them in principle no less officially adopted. And therein lies the problem. You cannot appeal to "use," without recognizing what is actually being used, under the blessing of the convention.
I can appeal to LSB as the use because to date it is the only liturgy the convention actually adopted (excepting the predecessor books). The decision to create additional materials does not undo the fact that the LSB is the Synod's official liturgy. At the Synodical convention in Houston, for example, Divine Service IV was followed to the letter (and the celebrant conducted the liturgy in a chasuble even!).
"The decision to create additional materials does not undo the fact that the LSB is the Synod's official liturgy."
To say that the LSB is the Synod's official liturgy, is to say that a convention passed a resolution approving its use.
But that same convention, on the very next vote (I was there), passed a second resolution directing the COW to prepare alternative worship materials.
If the vote of the Synod makes the one official, it makes the other official too. That the Synod did not approve a given liturgical ordo in sanctioning contemporary worship is beside the point, since by definition the alternative worship materials have no set ordo, but vary from week to week and place to place. Alternative worship has received all the approval it could possibly get, when it was recognized in principle.
Aaron's decision to make a golden calf did not undo the fact that the worship Moses witnessed on Mt. Sinai was Israel's official worship. And God vetoed that Synodical/Aaronic resolution--what with God being bishop and all, he could do that. :-)
What is the main thing? If it is Christ and his salvaic work for mankind, then the Orthodox also do so.
ReplyDeleteAnd since when has there been a Lutheran Litrugy, Fr. Weedon? I was always under the impression that Lutherans used the historic Liturgy (though modified) of our Father among the Saints, Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome.
To speak of a "Lutheran liturgy" is to engage in a non-sequitur, at least from the vantage point of the original Reformers. It is also to admit the chiefest argument of their Catholic opponents (i.e., the heresy of "Lutheranism" rather than a continuation of the western catholic church)--an argument that Chemnitz, for example, took great pains not to admit.
ReplyDeletefwiw
Alright, you two! To speak of the Lutheran liturgy is simply shorthand for the USE (meaning that in its technical sense) of the Western rite among Catholics who profess the Augsburg Confession. How's that? :)
ReplyDeleteWell, not to pile on, but:
ReplyDeleteTo Provide Guidance and Direction for Use
of Diverse/Contemporary Worship Resources
RESOLUTION 2-02A
Report 2-02 (CW, pp. 52–54); Overtures 2-07–11 (CW, pp. 141–142)
WHEREAS, Many LCMS congregations are regularly making use of contemporary worship songs to the
glory of God and the edification of His people; and
WHEREAS, There is a need for contemporary worship songs that reflect Lutheran theological and liturgical
emphases, including justification by grace through faith in Christ, Holy Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and the church
year; and
WHEREAS, There are LCMS pastors, teachers, directors of Christian education, and musicians who are
composing contemporary worship songs that reflect Lutheran theology and address the theological and liturgical
emphases of Lutheran worship; and
WHEREAS, There exists in the LCMS no means of gathering, reviewing, and disseminating songs and
resources that might be shared with the church-at-large and so enhance the worship life of congregations throughout
the LCMS that make use of contemporary worship songs; and
WHEREAS, The 2004 convention of the Synod directed the Commission on Worship “to initiate a process
leading toward the development of diverse worship resources” (Res. 2-04, 2004 Proceedings, p. 124); therefore be it
Resolved, That the Commission on Worship implement the recommendations included in its report to the
convention (CW, p. 54), as follows:
Recommendation #1
Develop a publication or Web distribution of a quarterly “magazine” or resource package which would
include articles dealing with worship planning, modeling, review of new songs, utilization of new media and
technology, teaching new music, etc.
Recommendation #2
Offer worship arts and music seminars/conferences to inform and educate the church which consider and
build on the diversity of worship styles extant across the Synod.
Recommendation #3
Develop regularly updated Web-based lists of appropriate and accessible resources that are easily and
readily available to pastors and music leaders. Include an exchange listing of available worship leadership
positions as well as names of musicians and others skilled in worship arts who are interested in such positions.
Recommendation #4
Collaborate with the seminaries of the Synod in developing curriculum and experiences that train and
mentor future pastors in diverse worship practices, modeling these diverse worship practices in the worship life
of the campus.
Recommendation #5
Assist the Board for University Education in encouraging the establishment of at least one of the schools in
the Concordia University System as a site for a worship arts degree program. This course of studies would
include music instruction and worship direction in a full range of styles, use of media in worship, dramatic and
theatre arts, extensive training in contemporary as well as traditional music, etc. Completion of this program by
a student would lead to a music degree with a contemporary emphasis leading to rostered status as a director of
parish music.
Recommendation #6
Develop a Lutheran Composers Group to network those Lutheran composers who wish to exchange and
make available to others materials which may be suitable for worship. This network would be a place where
Lutheran composers could put their materials on the Web for sharing, for critique, and for support.
Action: Adopted (6)
(During discussion, a substitute motion advocating that this resolution be tabled until the 2010 convention was ruled
not in order because a convention cannot postpone an action from one convention to another. A motion to amend the resolution
by deleting “to the glory of God and the edification of His people” failed, but a motion to amend the main motion by including at
the end of the resolution the referenced text from the Convention Workbook was agreed to by the committee. The resolution was
adopted as changed [Yes: 856; No: 310].)
Now, about that "use"...
Atrocious, isn't it? But I would still maintain that this resolution does not replace the "Use" of the Lutheran Liturgy - which use for the Synod is found in her published Agendas and Hymnals - especially in Lutheran Service Book. Wish you could have heard the discussion of the matter in our recent pastoral conference!
ReplyDeleteIf that wasn't to pile on, then what was it for?
ReplyDeleteThey leave, but they just never go. Always hanging out at the edge of the flock trying to pick of a few stragglers.
ReplyDeleteSt. Paul, it is to be remembered, "hung around" the synagogue and even the Temple; it was there he was arrested and began his trek to Rome. No disciple, however humble, is above the master.
ReplyDeleteAnd the flinging of epithets is no substitute for substantive biblical and theological argument. The "use" of the western rite in the Lutheran confession is plainly seriously compromised, and that with the official endorsement of the LCMS's highest governing authority: the Synod in convention.
Robb,
ReplyDeleteBut remember that the Synod has adopted LSB; it is the Synod's liturgy. As far as what will yet be produced in the area of "diverse worship" (what a ghastly term!) neither you nor I have a clue. But whatever is produced, the fact remains that LSB was officially adopted and for that reason I would argue that it remains properly our use.
LSB (and TLH, and LW) is the Synod's liturgy. The same Synod in convention which approved LSB, of course, also gave its blessing to "alternative worship forms"--which renders them in principle no less officially adopted.
ReplyDeleteAnd therein lies the problem. You cannot appeal to "use," without recognizing what is actually being used, under the blessing of the convention.
Robb,
ReplyDeleteI can appeal to LSB as the use because to date it is the only liturgy the convention actually adopted (excepting the predecessor books). The decision to create additional materials does not undo the fact that the LSB is the Synod's official liturgy. At the Synodical convention in Houston, for example, Divine Service IV was followed to the letter (and the celebrant conducted the liturgy in a chasuble even!).
Bill, you said:
ReplyDelete"The decision to create additional materials does not undo the fact that the LSB is the Synod's official liturgy."
To say that the LSB is the Synod's official liturgy, is to say that a convention passed a resolution approving its use.
But that same convention, on the very next vote (I was there), passed a second resolution directing the COW to prepare alternative worship materials.
If the vote of the Synod makes the one official, it makes the other official too. That the Synod did not approve a given liturgical ordo in sanctioning contemporary worship is beside the point, since by definition the alternative worship materials have no set ordo, but vary from week to week and place to place. Alternative worship has received all the approval it could possibly get, when it was recognized in principle.
Aaron's decision to make a golden calf did not undo the fact that the worship Moses witnessed on Mt. Sinai was Israel's official worship. And God vetoed that Synodical/Aaronic resolution--what with God being bishop and all, he could do that. :-)
See new thread.
ReplyDelete