It is no secret to anyone with open eyes and ears that Lutherans have lost a shocking number of clergy over the past several years to the East or to Rome. Whenever another one leaves, we sometimes hear quite unrealistic opining over what led them to go. The silliest is that they liked fancy clothes and sweet smelling incense. Please.
The far deeper and harder thing for Lutherans to face is that so many of these pastors have left because they became convinced that Lutherans no longer wished nor intend to BE Lutheran. And so they were drawn to communions where the things that they valued (a stable liturgy, a life of prayer, the centering of the Church's life in the Holy Eucharist, active practice of confession and absolution) were in evidence. And gradually they became convinced by those communions that each one (respectively) WAS the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Creed.
So when word comes that yet another has departed our ranks, I'd suggest that the wiser course is to admit up front that Lutheranism is in a world of hurt; that each departure move us to work all the harder toward the repair of what we can. A day ago or so, several Lutheran blogs posted the wise words of Neuhaus:
"If the Lutheran Church has a future, it will be as the Lutheran Church. It will not be as imitation Baptists, Presbyterians, or anything else. If people are to become, remain, and rejoice in being Lutheran, it is because they understand the distinctively Lutheran way of being Christian. Being Lutheran is an evangelical catholic and catholic evangelical way of being in unity with the entire Church of Christ. The present state of American Lutheranism is not just "not satisfactory." It is a sickness unto death. The alternative is not beating the drums to revive flagging spirits, nor is it to move evangelism a few notches up on the bureaucratic agenda. The alternative is renewal -- theological, pastoral, sacramental, catechetical. The alternative is to be something that others might have some reason to join." Richard John Neuhaus, 1986 (quoted in Forum Letter March 09)
These words need to be taken to heart. I don't know if Lutheranism in this country can be saved or not. But that's not ultimately my job or yours. My task as a Lutheran pastor is to seek to foster that renewal which Neuhaus described: a renewal in theology; a renewal in pastoral practice; a renewal in sacramental life; a renewal in catechesis. He left off what is perhaps the most important of all, for it is where all renewal begins: a renewal in the Word of God and in prayer. These will be LUTHERAN renewal if they are lived out from the joyous "aha" that is AC IV.
It is not ours to judge another Man's servant. Our Lord makes that clear and so does the Apostle. Our task is always to examine ourselves and look to our own repentance. Let us do so cheerfully and with hope. We are indeed sick unto death, but the Lord whose mercy we will be seeking is the Master of raising the dead and restoring hope to the hopeless. Ne desperemus, my brothers and sisters. Ne desperemus - for behold, by the Cross joy has come into all the world (and not merely the Roman or Orthodox corner of it)!
Wishing you each the joy of the Paschal Mystery as we enter into Holy Week!
244 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 244 of 244Ben Harju,
Short comment. You say:
I think your analysis is the direct result of Lutheran ecclesiology (not to mention an overly narrow view of the Gospel).I find this greatly amusing as you state earlier that it is a question within the Orthodox tradition as to whether Lutherans are in fact saved or not.
That certainly is a narrow view of the Gospel...much more narrow than mine.
Mark,
Glad to hear you agree with Walther. Take these words of his to heart:
"It is too bad that such entirely different ceremonies prevail in our Synod, and that no liturgy at all has yet been introduced in many congregations. The prejudice especially against the responsive chanting of pastor and congregation is of course still very great with many people - this does not, however, alter the fact that it is very foolish. The pious church father Augustine said, “Qui cantat, bis orat - he who sings prays twice."
- C.F.W. Walther, Explanation of Thesis 17 in “The True Visible Church”
"It is true that of all the church bodies which have left the papacy, it is precisely the Lutheran Church which is accused of retaining many papal abuses and of having been the least successful in cleansing itself. It is pointed out, for example, that in our church priestly clothing, church ornamentation, pictures, altar, crucifixes, candles, confession, the sign of the cross, and the like are still apparent. But, my friends, whoever regards these innocent things as vestiges of the papacy knows neither what the papacy is, nor what the Bible teaches. The very fact that the Lutheran Reformation was not aimed at
indifferent adiaphora, but retained those things which were in harmony with God's Word, shows that it was not a disorderly revolution, but a Biblical reformation; for whatever did not agree with God's Word was unrelentingly cleansed from the church by the Lutheran Reformation even though it seemed to glow with angelic holiness.
"The Lutheran Reformation, however, was complete not only in the destruction and tearing down of all the idols which had been erected in the church, but also in bringing forth its treasures and in setting up its truly sacred possessions. Luther followed not only the principle, "truth and nothing but the truth," but also the principle, "and the whole truth." Therefore, through his efforts, not only this and that truth, not just half the truth, but the whole truth of Holy Scripture was opened for the church, was used, and made the Christians' common possession. Not only did the Lutheran Reformation get all its doctrines out of the marble quarry of the written Word of God, but there is no doctrine of the Word of God which it did not place on the candlesticks of the church like a heavenly light in its purity. This includes the doctrine concerning God as well as the doctrine concerning man; the doctrine concerning the foundation of salvation as well as those concerning the means of salvation and the order of salvation; the doctrine concerning faith as well as those concerning love and hope. The whole counsel of God for man's salvation was clearly and purely brought to the light of day out of the gold mine of Scripture, beginning with the doctrine of justification; namely, that a man is righteous before God and can be saved only by grace through faith in Christ without the merits of
works. This laid the foundation on which the whole Christian doctrinal edifice rises like a holy diamond temple. In its holy of holies the New Testament mercy seat of the holy sacraments and the absolution is enthroned."
(Excerpt of C. F. W. Walther's 1858 Reformation sermon published in
"Gottesdienst: A Quarterly Journal of the Evangelical-Lutheran
Liturgy" Michaelmas 2000, Volume 8 Number 3 (2000:3), p. 12.
"Gottesdienst" provides us with more from the same sermon which they
reprint from: "The Word of His Grace: Sermon Selections, C. F. W.
Walther", Lake Mills, Iowa: Graphic Publishing, 1978, pp. 50-53.)
“We refuse to be guided by those who are offended by our church customs. We adhere to them all the more firmly when someone wants to cause us to have a guilty conscience on account of them…. It is truly distressing that many of our fellow Christians find the difference between Lutheranism and Papism in outward things. It is a pity and a dreadful cowardice when one sacrifices the good ancient church customs to please the deluded American sects, lest they accuse us of being papistic (i.e., too catholic!). Indeed! Am I to be afraid of a Methodist, who perverts the saving Word, or be ashamed in the matter of my good cause, and not rather rejoice that the sects can tell by our ceremonies that I do not belong to them?”
We are not insisting that there be uniformity of perception or feeling or of taste among all believing Christians – neither dare anyone demand that all be minded as he is. Nevertheless it remains true that the Lutheran liturgy distinguishes Lutheran worship from the worship of other churches to such an extend that the houses of worship of the latter look like lecture halls in which the hearers are addressed or instructed (NOTE: if he were writing today, he’d no doubt add: they look like movie theatres in which the hearers are entertained!), while our churches are in truth houses of prayer in which Christians serve the great God publicly before the world. (Essays for the Church, Volume 1, p. 194 (St. Louis, CPH, 1992).
Pr Louderback,
"it is a question within the Orthodox tradition as to whether Lutherans are in fact saved or not."
Really, the misrepresentation of the Orthodox by Lutherans on this point becomes tiresome.
When Orthodox say that they "do not know" whether Lutherans are saved or not, they are saying nothing different than what Melanchthon says in the Apology: that since we cannot see into the hearts of men, we cannot know whether or not they are saved. Conformance to outward polity (Orthodox, Lutheran, or otherwise) is no guarantee of salvation; and being outside a given outward polity (Orthodox, Lutheran, or otherwise) is not an insuperable barrier to salvation.
"In our churches Mass is celebrated every Sunday and on other festivals when the sacrament is offered to those who wish for it after they have been examined and absolved. We keep traditional liturgical forms, such as the order of the lessons, prayers, vestments, etc."
That's what it says. That's what you promised when you spoke your ordination vows.
If you didn't mean it, you should not have promised it.
This is not rocket science. You are the one muddying the waters because the confessions don't say what you want them to say.
And, of course, such an attitude to the Word of God is what gave us higher criticism. Either the confessions are a correct exposition or they are garbage. It is an all-or-nothing situation. The BOC is not a buffet table as the advocates of PoMoWo would have us believe.
Mark, when you start finding things in the Bible you don't like, I hope you don't start reneging on that vow as well.
Words should mean things, and so should promises.
The vows that most married people take that are worded: "In sickness and in health, for richer, for poorer" are likewise not from the Bible.
But those vows still mean something.
Mark,
You are NOT listening, dude! Not at all.
Walther DOES NOT agree with your position. To even attempt to make the case that Walther would be hip with the contemporary "worship" you and others in our synod are doing today is to reveal that you do not even come close to knowing him. The guy spoke time and time again about maintaining the theology of worship revealed in Holy Scripture and exposited in our Confessions.
What is it with you guys in the contemporary crowd? This ain't rocket science; it ain't even rock science. Walther was a Lutheran. Walther subscribed unconditionally to our Confessions. Walther held to, defended, taught, confessed, and practiced the liturgy. Walther spoke out against adopting the worship practices of the protestants in America.
When Walther says that not all ceremonies have to be alike everywhere, he does NOT mean that we are free to worship like methabapticostals. I means, seriously, have you really even read the man, or has someone passed along to you a few quotes to try to pawn off the idea that Walther would be just fine with the contemporary nonsense done today? What Walther means is the same thing our Confessions mean (which Pr. Beane has pointed out quite clearly a number of times), namely that there can indeed be some variations IN THE LITURGY among us Lutherans, but NOT that we can abandon the traditional liturgy in favor of adopting the worship "styles" and "practices" of those WHOM OUR VERY CONFESSIONS THEMSELVES CONDEMN!
Furthermore, why do you keep dogging Larry as if he is saying something that no one else in our synod believes, teaches, and confesses? This is utterly absurd. What he is saying is what a great many of us believe, teach, and confess.
Earlier upstream you made it seem like all of the seminary profs are just hippy-skippy with contemporary worship. Which profs are they? I'm sure there are some. I just don't know them. I still keep in contact with some of my profs and I can honestly say that not a single one of them is down with contemporary worship. I was NEVER taught that contemporary worship was salutary while at sem. When did they start teaching contemporary worship at the sem? Please, do tell.
I've been engaged in this debate for going on 20 years. I'm so sick of it. Why can't you guys who embrace the "worship styles" and "worship practices" of the methabapticostals just be honest and admit that you are not Lutheran?
I know, I know, I'm just doing that stubborn "polarizing" thing. Yeah, I am. 'Cause your position and mine are, in fact, polar opposites.
Pr. Beane has been patient with you, and he has refuted your position several times over. But, clearly, he is wasting his time. I know the feeling. I've wasted more of my time on this nonsense than I'd care to admit. The simple fact of the matter is that guys like you claim you want open and honest dialogue, but you really don't. You won't listen. You follow the out-of-context, proof-texting method of the Baptists, trying to use Scripture and our own Lutheran Fathers, such as Walther, to your advantage, but the result is simply laughable - or, rather, sad.
But, hey, you got your guys in power right now, and they've been able to implement methabapticostal worship in our midst, so that makes everything okay, right? It sure is better than those pesky days of yesteryear (in the 80s and early 90s) when several guys of your ilk just went ahead and did what they pleased and told their parishioners to keep everything "hush-hush," 'cause the synod hadn't approved following the methabapticostal theology of worship yet. But, now that Jerry and the boys say it's all okey-dokey, that means it must be so.
And, lest you think I'm just some ultra-confessional Lutheran who hasn't the foggiest about contemporary worship, know that I have actually read all of the classic CGM texts, and have been involved in two different LCMS congregations that went full-blown contemporary in the past. And you, Jerry, Jesus Firsters, and everyone else can claim that what you're doing is Lutheran till the cows come home, but it just ain't so.
In the words of that great theologian, Forest Gump, "Lutheran is as Lutheran does!"
If you worship like a methabapticostal, you is a methabapticostal. Duh! Even 7 year olds know this. It is more than shocking that Lutheran pastors, such as yourself, who have been trained, don't know it.
Pastor Louderback wrote:
I find this greatly amusing as you state earlier that it is a question within the Orthodox tradition as to whether Lutherans are in fact saved or not.Response:
As to whether Lutherans are saved or will be saved is different than whether or not Lutherans are part of the Church. They may be the same question for you, Pastor Louderback, but they are not the same question for the Orthodox. Holy Orthodoxy is the Church, the Body of Christ on earth. If you are not in the communion of Christ's Church on earth, then whatever church you are in communion with is certainly not Christ's Church. However, that does not mean you are not saved, won't be saved, or are not a Christian. The status of those outside of the Church is not truly known. There is some diversity in Orthodox thought regarding the question of those not in the Church but who are still clearly Christian.
If you wish, try reading a portion of this online catechism. While not everything in the catechism will make sense to you at this point in your attempt to understand Orthodoxy, this one section hopefully will address the issue for you.
As for me, I'm unsubscribing from this thread. I just can't keep up. My apologies to all.
Dear Mark:
Tom makes a good point about seminary professors. I went to Ft. Wayne (2000-2004), and I can honestly say that I cannot think of a single prof that I had that would agree with you. The "contemporary worship" was not only not taught and not practiced in chapel, it was roundly refuted.
The seminary recruiter that came to Georgia and spoke to me gave me a Kantorei CD and said: "We don't have a praise band at Fort Wayne." I was pretty much hooked at that point.
Now, I realize there are political exigencies that may make things different today. But when our professors were free from those pressures, they were pretty clear about where they stood regarding liturgy.
The late Dr. Marquart even raised a few eyebrows by going so far as to question the validity of sacramental acts done at services that were steeped in entertainment, as Formula Article X (often cited in a vacuum apart from AC and Ap 24 by anti-liturgicalists to justify their anything-goes approach to worship) clearly says that liturgical freedom does not include "frivolity" and "offense."
Marquart felt that such frivolity was blasphemous, and did not believe the Lord was present in blasphemous worship services. Of course, Marquart was not always on the politically correct side in matters of synodical dispute. But he was always a gentleman and always honest.
A friend recounted a time when Marquart was asked to fill in at a local parish that had a "contemporary service." He showed up, looked at the bulletin, and casually said: "Oh, no. We won't be doing this today. We'll be using the liturgy." The congregation used the hymnal on that occasion.
I can think of at least two other professors who at least hinted that they agreed with him on this matter. And again, I can think of not a single prof who was pushing non-liturgical or pop-music based worship at that time.
Perhaps this is different now. Perhaps St. Louis was different. But I don't concede that seminary professors are backing non-liturgical and/or CCM music in Lutheran worship - not in my experience anyway.
During the aftermath of Katrina, I can't tell you how many people who were visiting us doing relief work thanked me earnestly, some with tears in their eyes, because we used the liturgy. In many of their churches, traditional worship has either been marginalized or abolished.
I know people who have to drive more than an hour to go to a church that still has the liturgy. What a disgrace for our synod, and is it any wonder why many of our brightest and best pastors are scandalized and eventually leave? And what of all our faithful lay people who feel betrayed?
It is widely reported that most of the younger pastors are firmly liturgical and are moving away from this trend toward "church growth marketing." I hope so.
William,
Hey. I think I copied too much into my comment. (In fact it seemed I copied the entire comment section.)
Is there any way to delete this?
I'm sorry about this.
Eric Brown,
Uh, listen, I inadvertently copied like all the comments into my comment--as if there are not enough comments on this blog already! But I wanted to make sure that everything I said to you was in one neat commetn block. So I apologize for the re-post, but it will also make it easier to delete the other comment, which I hope WW can do.
Or he can get one of his kids to do it--they'll know how.
====================
Hey. Sorry to take time getting back to you.
Note how quickly this becomes a subjective matter - what they hear, what they can understand, what makes sense to them.Yeah...
Because it is subjective.
And that is why we take care with our presentation to be sure that people understand it.
We find this out by asking them about it, you know? So you say:
That's the inconsistency I see whenever anyone says "This is the way I must present the Gospel for it to be heard".I don't think there is "The" way--but I do know that for some people, traditional worship is certainly not the way for them to hear the gospel.
We can bemoan this. We can insist that they become educated and realize the wonderful gift of the Liturgy and insist they worship this way. We can let other church bodies offer alternate style and let our people drift away to these other churches.
You know...it is subjective, but not impossible to find out.
Does that make sense?
Also - I'm not sure if I buy the idea of they want to hear the Gospel but don't "understand" otherwise. Some of traditional worship is cultural - there is a meaning behind "The Lord be with you/And also with you". One isn't going to understand it - just as a person watching their first football game doesn't understand all the things. But you learn, you are brought into a culture bigger than your own.Yeah, and some people don't understand football. They never get it.
The Gospel is a tad more important.
Why must we have a worship service where constantly you are doing things that people don't understand? There is so much jargon in the traditional service.
Beginning with your example. Because you know full well, that "And also with you" is not what was originally said. "And with thy spirit." was.
So...you know...
Obviously there are going to be parts of a service that people don't understand. The question is "How much?" How much of our cutlture do we want them to have to understand in order to be a part of our family?
And where exactly is the Biblical position for that?
Once again, do you understand my point? I'm not saying "Throw away all," but I am saying "A lot--a LOT--of what is in a traditional service needs to be explained. EAch and every week if you have a visitor each and every week.
Is that really what we want to do?
I think your lack of understanding isn't an inability to understand, but a lack of interest, perhaps a desire for more ________ rather than "I don't hear the Gospel there."Uh....I actually understand the Gospel fully.
Well, I think I do. Obviously Ben and Larry think I've got some truncated Gospel going on...
But I am with you on the subjective Gospel part. And I think that is important.
Translation is a hard thing. It's tricky. It's easy to mess things up. Plus, when you have multiple people doing multiple translations, you get a mass of confusion. You also get false doctrine thrown in quite often due to poor translation.Sure. But it does not mean that we don't try. And nor does it mean that we only depend upon previous translations. Every translation is an interpretation. Every proclamation brings that translation/interpretation to the individual--hopefully in such a way that connects to them in a way that they understand and take hold.
Wouldn't you agree that our Synod ought to be acting in such a way as to make sure that CoWo has guidelines and assistance? Rather than saying "Don't do it. That is your assistance."?
you can e-mail me a bulletinBulletin? How 20th century!
You mean my powerpoint, right? :)
(I know that this is causing some to shudder and throw up just a bit in their mouth. So be it.)
Eric, I'm meeting with someone next week about being baptized. This will be my first adult baptism in a couple of years.
Years.
They only started coming to chruch when we started up our contemporary service.
What do you do with that sort of information? I mean, even if you think that what I am doing is doubtful, there is a family, an infant who is going to be receiving the grace of God, along with his mother. And sister.
Now...could this have happened at my trad service? Sure...but it didn't.
All I want is for others to rejoice with me about this, and to really ask whether they want to shut this down in our Synod.
If I ended my service and became a real Lutheran again, at least their would be one family that received the grace of God. God worked through this service to bring salvation to this house.
I can apprecaite the reasoning that many have about Trad vs Cowo. I really can. At the same time...I think that Cowo does indeed have a place in Lutheran worship.
Thomas Messer,
Walther DOES NOT agree with your position. To even attempt to make the case that Walther would be hip with the contemporary "worship" you and others in our synod are doing today is to reveal that you do not even come close to knowing him. The guy spoke time and time again about maintaining the theology of worship revealed in Holy Scripture and exposited in our Confessions.You are not exactly getting my position right, so I guess you are not the rocket scientist either.
Is this how you want to talk about this issue? As a pissing context? Who is dumber than who?
How about this: why don't you just pretend as though I have an honestly held though out position and we can work from there.
My argument is not "Walther would have luved my worship." My argument is "Walther would have been hesistant--if not antagonistic--towards a position that said "In order to be a Lutheran, you have to worship in this way."
I don't think he would have bought that. For the reasons I have previously rendered: sola Scriptura.
So, sure, you read what Weedon wrote, and Walther was all about doing litugical worship. But let's turn the table around: now people are telling Walther, "You must worship in this style, or you cannot be considered Lutheran"--would he truly countenance that?
The fact of the matter is that we have Walther's words talking specifically about this issue.
It is not rocket science. Either Walther meant "The fact that a truly Lutheran congregation needs neither a definite organization nor a fixed ceremonial instituted by men is attested by Article VII of the Augsburg Confession" or he didn't mean it.
The position that Larry is posting, is saying that ultimately he did not. I'm not sure I buy that.
When Walther says that not all ceremonies have to be alike everywhere, he does NOT mean that we are free to worship like methabapticostals.Once again, that is NOT what he says. The quote here says that a Lutheran congregation does not need to follow a ceremony fixed by man to be Lutheran.
He backs that up with the Confessions.
My argument is that Walther is confessional. And so you can't push aside my position without pushing aside his position.
What Walther means is the same thing our Confessions mean (which Pr. Beane has pointed out quite clearly a number of times), namely that there can indeed be some variations IN THE LITURGY among us Lutherans, but NOT that we can abandon the traditional liturgy in favor of adopting the worship "styles" and "practices" of those WHOM OUR VERY CONFESSIONS THEMSELVES CONDEMN!MMmmmm....he could have said that. He could have said "The fact that a truly Lutheran congregation needs neither a definite organization is attested by Article VII of the Augsburg Confession; but there is a fixed ceremonial instituted by men that without holding to, one cannot be a Lutheran."
He didn't say that....
Furthermore, why do you keep dogging Larry as if he is saying something that no one else in our synod believes, teaches, and confesses?Because he is insinuating that I am not confessional. I don't see his position being held by a minority of our Synod, much less the majority.
At some point, you have to ask yourself whether you are too far out on the limb. You know?
Earlier upstream you made it seem like all of the seminary profs are just hippy-skippy with contemporary worship.Once again, it is hard to talk about the issue, when you are not reading what I write.
This is not rocket science. Right?
My position is not "Professor Scaer is jiggy with CoWo."
My position is thus: Professor Horace Hummel had an article in CTQ recently on...something. In it, he talks about how CoWo stinks.
What he does NOT say is something like "And furthermore, you can't do CoWo and be a Lutheran because our confessions forbid it. You can't be a Lutheran without holding to man-made ceremonies!"
No. He doesn't say that.
Why? Why not? What is stopping him? Retired prof, can say what he wants...but he doesn't say that.
Why is that? Hmm? Why?
I've been engaged in this debate for going on 20 years. I'm so sick of it. Why can't you guys who embrace the "worship styles" and "worship practices" of the methabapticostals just be honest and admit that you are not Lutheran?Well...because we are Lutheran.
That is the rub. You've had twenty years to try and convince others of your point. But you have not been able to do it.
So now Larry wants to come in and force me into worshiping as he does--following a man-made worship style--and forcing me out if I don't.
The whole power play is being used because you lost the debate. The argument was not there for you. reasoned people have looked over the evidence and made reasoned decisions.
Like me.
Pr. Beane has been patient with you, and he has refuted your position several times over.Well...why don't Sem profs hold to this then?
You know, I mean, at some point, if the argument is so sound, why isn't it duplicated?
The simple fact of the matter is that guys like you claim you want open and honest dialogue, but you really don't. You won't listen.Mmm. You certainly have not reproduced my argument accurately. It asks the question whether or not you are actually listening.
You follow the out-of-context, proof-texting method of the Baptists, trying to use Scripture and our own Lutheran Fathers, such as Walther, to your advantage, but the result is simply laughable - or, rather, sad.Well, hey, either Scripture tells us we need to worship in a certain way or it does not.
Either the Confessions insist that we worship in a certain way--rejecting a position of sola Scrptura--or they do not.
But it is my experience when systematicians always gripe about proof texting when exegetes say "Uh, does the text really say that?"
Or they say stuff like "Oh, Satan asked that question!"
But...it is a legit question.
Does Scripture insist on a worship form or does it not?
But, hey, you got your guys in power right now, and they've been able to implement methabapticostal worship in our midst, so that makes everything okay, right?The reason why we are in power is because our arguments are more convincing--Scripturally, confessionally, and reasonably.
And, lest you think I'm just some ultra-confessional Lutheran who hasn't the foggiest about contemporary worship, know that I have actually read all of the classic CGM texts, and have been involved in two different LCMS congregations that went full-blown contemporary in the past.And I went through Sem eschewing contemporary worship.
If you worship like a methabapticostal, you is a methabapticostal. Duh! Even 7 year olds know this. It is more than shocking that Lutheran pastors, such as yourself, who have been trained, don't know it.Yup. Absolutely.
And if you worship as a Roman Catholic...or an Orthodox...hmmmm...
Dear Mark:
Your position is pure sophistry.
It's like arguing that Karl Marx is a fan of private property or that Pope Benedict approves of abortions.
The reason Walther condemned Methodist worship music in Lutheran services is because there is a *theological problem* with it. It wasn't simply a matter of taste. It was, rather, *non-Lutheran!* That was the whole point. Otherwise, he would have resorted to your argument "Show me in the Bible where it says we can't use Methodist hymns?"
It is dishonest of you to try to co-opt Walther in the cause of redefining non-Lutheran worship as Lutheran worship based on an argument from the silence of Scripture.
Walther read the same Bible. Walther read the same confessions. Walther belonged to the same church body. Walther came right out and said there was a theological problem with using Methodist hymns in Lutheran churches.
Horace Hummel, in his refutation of Contemporary Worship in CTQ, isn't saying that he just doesn't really like Amy Grant and Twila Paris, that guitars and big screens are not his particular cup of tea. Rather, he is arguing - on the basis of Scripture - that such "worship" is defective. There is something inherently wrong, flawed, and contrary to Scripture in that type of worship. Do you seriously believe Hummel thinks that this kind of worship is contrary to the spirit of God's word, but we can still embrace it as "Lutheran"?
The principal of the high school I served as campus pastor argued that Lutheran school teachers had a "divine call" (no different than the pastor's call) that authorized them to preach in churches, and even officiate at the Eucharist. When I read the words of Article XIV to him, you will never guess what his answer was. What do you think he said?
"Show that to me in the Bible."
This was a man who had publicly bound himself to those confessions in a quia manner as a member of synod.
The argument of ignoring the confessions and debating based on Scripture alone would be entirely valid - if we were all Baptists. I used to be one myself. We had no creeds, just "sola scriptura." We had no defined worship form, just "sola scriptura." We had no traditions to guide us, just "sola scriptura."
If Lutherans are free to ignore the confessions and simply want to discuss everything on the basis of Scripture alone, why do we even have confessions? Why have creeds? Why did the Lutheran fathers compile the Catalog of Testimonies? Why did Luther (in the Large Catechism) defend infant baptism by an appeal to tradition rather than prooftexts in the Bible?
This discordia in our synod regarding the role of the confessions is why I have met more than a few pastors who use non-liturgical worship who boast (boast!) about how they never crack open their BOC. I guess it is just a coincidence that the number of Lutheran traditionalists that I have met who make the same boast is "zero."
You can't be a "confessional" Lutheran and see the confessions as an option at best, or as a hindrance to the Gospel at worst. And, since all Lutherans are by definition confessional Lutherans, you can't worship like a Baptist, treat the Confessions like a Baptist, preach like a Baptist, hold tradition in contempt like a Baptist, and then expect people to believe you when you claim to be a Lutheran - and even try to co-opt Walther to do it. That's beyond a joke. You really take us for fools.
It's like saying: "I believe the government should control the means of production. I don't believe in private property. I believe the state should run the economy. I am a capitalist."
Even if you get a lot of people to agree with you to embrace such a ridiculous and contradictory assertion, it doesn't make the king any less naked. It just means there are a lot more naked people strolling around with the king. All it takes is one child with eyes to see what is really going on here.
I do believe this fad will pass. As the baby-boomers die off, as the younger pastors embrace tradition and the BOC, and as young people grow up and seek something of depth instead of shallowness and frivolity and pop-culture Protestantism - this too shall pass. Unfortunately, for now, it is passing like a kidney stone.
At least my parishioners can bring their Treasury of Daily Prayer and their Hymnal with them when they go on vacation and pray together as a family rather than be scandalized by going to one of these LCMS "churches."
For, as we've all committed to at our ordinations:
"In our churches Mass is celebrated every Sunday and on other festivals when the sacrament is offered to those who wish for it after they have been examined and absolved. We keep traditional liturgical forms, such as the order of the lessons, prayers, vestments, etc."
Father Hollywood,
The reason Walther condemned Methodist worship music in Lutheran services is because there is a *theological problem* with it. It wasn't simply a matter of taste. It was, rather, *non-Lutheran!* That was the whole point. Otherwise, he would have resorted to your argument "Show me in the Bible where it says we can't use Methodist hymns?"Once again, not my argument.
My argument is that if push came to shove--which is what you are doing--Walther would not have held to a position saying "You must worship this way to be a Lutheran."
Yes, he did see theological problems with it...but that is the issue--is there actual theological issues with our current CoWo worship that would lead for it to be rejected?
If you have an argument you want to make on that, I'm all ears.
But that has not been your arguement. Your argument has been "Lutherans only do traditional worship."
I don't think that Walther would have agreed to that position, even if he felt that it would be best for Lutherans to hold to it.
Walther came right out and said there was a theological problem with using Methodist hymns in Lutheran churches.What is equally humorous about this--that goes unnoticed by you--is that LSB has plenty of Methodist hymns in it.
Not CoWo. LSB.
Which means that today, our own Synod doesn't agree with his position on what is allowable and what is not.
That is to say, a person can be absolutely Confessional, doing traditional worship, and still use Methodist hymns.
Thus the entire point of what Walther is saying: you can't nail down man-made actions as being necessary for one to be called Lutheran.
Horace Hummel, in his refutation of Contemporary Worship in CTQ, isn't saying that he just doesn't really like Amy Grant and Twila Paris, that guitars and big screens are not his particular cup of tea. Rather, he is arguing - on the basis of Scripture - that such "worship" is defective. There is something inherently wrong, flawed, and contrary to Scripture in that type of worship. Do you seriously believe Hummel thinks that this kind of worship is contrary to the spirit of God's word, but we can still embrace it as "Lutheran"?Oh, I have no doubt that he thinks that.
What he does not say, however, is "You can't do that and be a Lutheran because of what the confessions say." Why doesn't he say this?
Why doesn't ANYONE else say this?
Who is saying this Larry? Give me a name; show me an article; point me to something. Surely someone writing in Logia made the point at some time. But a current prof? Maybe candidate for Presidancy?
I just don't see the argument that you are making being made by others. Instead I see people saying "You can't force people into worshiping in a certain way in order to be Lutheran."
I have littel doubt that some CoWo is terrible stuff. My position is that our Synod ought to be doing something about that, encouraging better songs, talking about what makes good Lutheran CoWo music.
Your position is "You can't do anythign other than the Liturgy and be Lutheran."
I wonder if that is truly true. That's all.
Well, that is not all, but you get the point.
If Lutherans are free to ignore the confessions and simply want to discuss everything on the basis of Scripture alone, why do we even have confessions?And once again, the old "You are ignoring the confessions" argument. Sigh.
This discordia in our synod regarding the role of the confessions is why I have met more than a few pastors who use non-liturgical worship who boast (boast!) about how they never crack open their BOC.Does this surprise you? You are using it as a rule book and slamming people with it, lockng them into certain behavior that is not based in Scripture.
Does you see the problem here?
We have an answer for the school principal. We can go to Scripture and back up our words on our position.
You have nothing to say to these pastors and yet you are trying to strong arm them and guilt them into worshiping in a man-made way.
And then you are surprised that they rebell against the confessions?
It's like saying: "I believe the government should control the means of production. I don't believe in private property. I believe the state should run the economy. I am a capitalist."It is not, because the core of Lutheran teaching is Scripture. We hold to the Confessions BECAUSE it is an accurate statement of Scripture.
But where the Confessions don't speak about Scripture, they are not a rule book of Lutherandom.
So, not matter how often people point out to "ever-virgin Mary" in the Confessions, I'm free to disagree. Why? Because Scripture doesn't speak to the issue. Not at all clearly. And that is what it is to be a Lutheran.
You want man-made rules to control what it is to be a Lutheran. And when I bring up quotes from WAlther who says otherwise, you want to ignore his words and my argument.
But there is a reason why our Synod is where it is. It is not because pastors are not loyal to their ordination vows. It is because they are.
Thomas Messer & William Weedon,
In my initial comment to you I said:
Is this how you want to talk about this issue? As a pissing context? Who is dumber than who?This is uncalled for. I am sorry for the language that I used here and the tone of voice that I used as well.
William Weedon's blog ought to be a place of civilized discussion on the issue and not locker room talk.
So, I just want to express my regret and sorrow for my language, and ask for forgiveness.
Pr. Louderback,
If you don't mind, tell me what you think of the following experience:
I worked for a summer in Ohio before getting married and eventually moving to Ohio permanently. While a lifelong LCMSer, I still attended the Methodist church that summer, which was abandoning traditional worship in favor of a "blended" worship, praise band in and powerpoint just above the chancel. These things may be neutral in and of themselves, but the congregation objectively became more ignorant as the Lord's Prayer and other Christian doctrine was left out of worship, and people completely forgot about it.
When we joined our first LCMS church, the pastor asked if I would have a problem if they didn't follow the liturgy. I said, well, no, just as long as the chief parts were there, I guess...the congregation adopted "CoWo", and as the congregation evolved into deciding the service was about how they felt and making themselves feel good (and I'm not trying to be malicious about this), they decided that having young kids in church disrupted their experience, and they decided to hold Sunday School during church, just like the Methodists do. I tried to explain that kids would never appreciate God's Word or the preaching of it if they don't ever hear it in the service, but to no avail. The abandonment of the Small Catechism as well as the chasing out of the unwanted left us sore. We left that church.
The church that I am currently officially a member of has adopted contemporary worship, with hymns that contain significantly less Christian doctrine than even the "methodist" hymns of the LSB. They are also abandoning the doctrine of vocation, implying in the congregation's literature that serving the particular congregation is the best way to serve God. As the head of my family I have the duty to protect my family from false doctrine, and we will move to another congregation soon.
I won't say that CoWo causes scriptural ignorance, but in my experience it correlates. I generally have an open mind when it comes to music matters, even Rock vs. Bach, but the congregations that I see adopting CoWo either have or develop issues that don't fall in line with the faith once delivered to the saints.
Please tell me, in your advocacy of CoWo, what protections are in place to deliver Law and Gospel, Christ crucified for sinners, and sound doctrine to the congregation.
Thank you for your time.
Dan
Dear Mark:
You are correct that LSB contains Methodist hymns - and they are quite often the weakest in the hymnal. My congregation omits several hymns in the LSB (including the pop-ditties that were included as a sop to the NonLuWo crowd).
The good of LSB far outweighs the bad. No book is perfect, but on the whole, I give LSB high marks. Of course, the NonLuWo crowd typically rejects the LSB.
Having said all that, I think Walther's position is harsher than what I would take. For there are Methodist hymns (especially those that don't address sacraments) that can well be sung in our churches without offense. One must use discretion.
But then again, I'm not the one using Contemporary Worship and so-called "praise" songs (many of which have their origins in Neo-Evangelical and even Pentecostal communions) - and then ridiculously appealing to Walther for approval. You are.
Here is what Walther actually said: "A preacher who introduces Methodist hymns, let along Methodist hymnals, raises the suspicion that he is no true Lutheran at heart, and that he believes one religion is as good as the other, and that he is thus a unionistic-man, a mingler of religions and churches."
Did you catch that, Mark? "No true Lutheran at heart."
That's Walther saying that, not me. So knock off this silliness of saying that Walther would call NonLuWo "Lutheran" based on an argument from silence in the Bible.
You can read the rest of Walther's article here. I do think Walther lays out a good foundation of why Lutherans sing what they sing.
You can also buy a little booklet by Chad L. Bird (hymnwriter and former Fort Wayne prof) of the same name from Gottesdienst. I highly recommend it to all Lutherans.
You are free to disagree with Walther, to be sure. But you are not free to put lies in his mouth.
Today's "contemporary worship" includes a lot of things: big screens, dancing girls, skits, rock music, soft-rock music, hands waving in the air, liturgical omissions, pastors strutting about with Britney Spears microphones, not using vestments, not using a lectionary, infrequent communion, etc.
The "movement" (which is, by the way, an excellent name for it) as a whole is alien to the church catholic, to the Book of Concord, and to Lutheranism. And Hummel's article makes a great case that it is offensive to Heaven.
And, as you've honestly demonstrated, in order to practice it in a Lutheran church requires doing violence to the letter and the spirit of the Book of Concord.
For once again, as we Lutherans have vowed since the sixteenth century: "Fiunt enim apud nos missae singulis dominicis et aliis festis, in quibus porrigitur sacramentum his, qui uti volunt, postquam sunt explorati atque absoluti. Et servantur usitatae ceremoniae publicae, ordo lectionum, orationum, vestitus et alia similia."
Another Walther for you Mark - you SURE you want to agree with this man?
Church usages, excepting the case when confession of a divine truth is required, are indeed adiaphora. But they are nevertheless not without an import of their own. Congregations that adopt the church usages of the sects that surround them, will be apt to conform to their doctrines also, more easily and quickly than those that retain their Lutheran ceremonies. We should in Lutheran services, also when held in the English language, as much as possible use the old Lutheran forms, though they be said to be antiquated and not suiting this country. We will mention here the words of a pious Lutheran duchess, Elisabeth Magdalena of Brunswick-Lüneburg. Her court chaplain Prunner relates as follows: “Although her ladyship well knew that the ceremonies and purposes of this chapter (at which Prunner officiated) must have the appearance and repute of popery with some people, she still remembered the instructions which that dear and venerable man, Luther, had once given to her father concerning such ceremonies. I remember in particular that her ladyship several times told me that she did not desire at these present times to commence discontinuing any of those church usages, since she hoped that so long as such ceremonies continued, Calvinistic temerity would be held back from the public office of the church.” (John R. Stephenson, “A Log in One’s Own Eye?”, in Confessional Lutheran Research Society Newsletter, Number 4 [Reformation 1986], p. 6. The quotation is from C. F. W. Walther, The Controversy Concerning Predestination [translated by August Croll] [Concordia Publishing House, 1881], pp. 77-78.)
The Roman Church has the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine Mass (to name its main two). The Orthodox serve the liturgies of John Chrysostom and Basil (and that of James as well in the environs of Jerusalem). But the "Lutheran Liturgy" does not have a name. Ponder on this well, for herein is the (non)answer to what you are debating; you are discussing a non-defined entity without a name.
Daniel,
Nonsense. The Lutheran liturgy IS its name. It is the Roman Mass, reformed according to the norms indicated in the Lutheran Symbols. It has much variation in detail from place to place, but those of us who have long studied Lutheran liturgy can spot it at 100 paces on a dark night. :)
What makes a hymn "Methodist" is not who wrote it, but its dogmatic content. Wesley wrote some fine hymns. One thinks of "Lo, He Comes!" It's not Methodist; it's CATHOLIC, and the proof is that it is sung by Methodists, Lutherans, Roman Catholics and even Western Rite Orthodox!
"Those of us who have long studied Lutheran liturgy can spot it at 100 paces on a dark night."
Pr. Weedon,
(Moreover, Pr. Louderback too,)
Wouldn't it be helpful for those laymen who haven't studied it for long to be able to recognize it, too?
Just saying.
Phil,
I know many a Lutheran layperson who can do so. :)
The Roman Church has the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine Mass. The Orthodox have the Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St Basil. The "Lutheran Liturgy" does not have a NAME. Hence it is amorphous. Ponder this well, for you have been disussing a non-entity.
What I mean is that if one compares TLH pg 15, LW I & II, LSB... (along with all of the other variants out there including Luther's replacement of the Creed with a "dynamic equivalent" hymn; the common parson or person will have a difficulty in identifying what the "Lutheran Liturgy" is.
Daniel,
I think those ordos are sufficiently similar for people to recognize them as distinctly part of that liturgical family known as the Lutheran recensions of the Western rite. Some of the distinctions:
*vernacular for the scripture readings and the Verba (we assume the vernacular at the present time, but for two centuries after the Reformation, Latin held its own in the singing of the Ordinaries)
*the importance of the sermon
*the restoration of what we call "Prayer of the Church" to its historic spot (NOT during the canon)
*the tendency for the Verba to stand starkly alone or (as in Sweden) in distinct prominence and again to be often chanted aloud
*the frequent placing of the Our Father BEFORE the Verba (that is a dead give away to a Lutheran liturgy)
*focus on the musical elements of the service (in contradistinction to the Anglican focus on text)
*the invariable instruction that if there are no communicants, the mass may not be celebrated
*Tendency to use a triple "Benedictus" in the Benedictus qui venit
*use of a post-communion ordinary collect (rather than proper) and Luther's collect from DM almost invariably given preference
*use of the Aaronic benediction in preference over the traditional Mass benediction
There are more, but those come to mind. Look at all the ordos in LSB and note that in all of them the Lord's Prayer CAN come before the Verba, the ordinary post-communion, the standing of the Verba alone, the Aaronic Benediction, etc. They hang together.
P.S. Why does this thread make me want to sing:
Oh it's the thread that never ends,
And it goes on and on my friends...
;)
I don't understand Pr. Weedon's or Pr. Hollywood's interpretation of the confessions.
How do you read the "retention of Mass" quote as a rule binding Christian freedom when the confessions throughout state Lutherans do not do that? The retention quote reads as a response describing current practice, not as a rule. Confessions and Scripture interpret confessions.
The Confessions say Lutherans should be in fellowship wherever the Word is properly preached, and Sacrament rightly administered. It is tragic that anybody seeks to divide fellowship over Hymns or Praise Songs, (pink?) robes or gray suit, or ordinaries & propers or relaxed and informal. There is enough Word being improperly preached (e.g., decision theology, neo-orthodoxy) and Sacrament being improperly administered (e.g., open communion, lack of examination) to worry about.
Scripture and confessions are clear that the church does not bind consciences on rites and ceremonies. This is repeated throughout. Requiring Divine Service looks to me like an obvious violation.
Like here:
Colossians, 2:16-17: Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
Or Here:
But just as the dissimilar length of day and night does not injure the unity of the Church, so we believe that the true unity of the Church is not injured by dissimilar rites instituted by men.
Here:
[We condemn when] such ceremonies, ordinances, and institutions are violently forced upon the congregation of God as necessary, contrary to its Christian liberty which it has in external things.
Here's Luther:
Above all things, I most affectionately and for God's sake beseech all, who see or desire to observe this our Order of Divine Service, on no account to make of it a compulsory law, or to ensnare or make captive thereby any man's conscience; but to use it agreeably to Christian liberty at their good pleasure as, where, when and so long as circumstances favour and demand it.
Finally, taking Pr. Louderback at his word that his cowo service is made up of Pure Word (albeit using different words, in a different order, and different formality) it seems to me that Pr. Louderback is doing what Luther thought was proper; publicly proclaim Word and Sacrament in a way that appeals to the the unchurched:
“The public orders of service should be such that they address the people who are not yet believers – some who come out of curiosity and others to stand and gawk – but some who will eventually come to
believe by what they see and experience in these services.”
Hopefully they'll learn to appreciate the Divine Service, and grow out of crappy praise music, but if not, thank God they are hearing pure Gospel.
Dear Anon,
"Violently force" is the language of the government marching its troops in to enforce a certain form of Divine Service - such was the threat at the time.
You cite Luther at the very start of the German Mass, but omit what he goes on to say in the next paragraphs:
"As far as possible we should observe the same rites and ceremonies, just as all Christians have the same baptism and the same sacrament [of the altar] and no one has received a special one of his own from God."
P.S. About the passage in the Symbols being a description; it is indeed! It describes Lutheran practice.
On the other hand, I think evidence is clear that adopting non-Lutheran practices, pentacostal or orthodox, leads to conforming to those doctrines. Walther was right on that point, for sure.
And, Divine Service is most Lutheran. That is, it is the BEST way to preach the Word and administer the sacraments.
So, I hope those pastors like Pr. Louderback that use cowo insist on offering a weekly Divine Service (and not some blended abomonination) even if only a handful attend. And, those who love the praise band style should be taught the problems with contemporary worship and dangers of the wrong doctrines from which it developed.
But, some ignorant Christians will always reject formal liturgy, for whatever reason. (I think our coarsening culture and declining ability to appreciate real beauty is a big part of it.) And for these, cowo gives them a chance to hear pure Gospel and receive true assurance of salvation. We should not withdraw from fellowship because a congregation refuses to appreciate the beauty of the Word as it is presented in the Divine Service.
I don't think Pr. Louderback has been clear about whether he thinks Divine Service is best, or better, than cowo. But the issue he is arguing is a fellowship issue and an issue on church rulemaking. Can the church demand a congregation follow Divine Service to remain in fellowship? I don't see any Scriptural or Confessional justification for it. Lutherans should use it, and promote it, and praise it. But it cannot be a requirement.
Would you agree that the Synod can require "exclusive use of doctrinally pure Agenda and Hymnbooks"?
Anon, what I hear you arguing is rather along the lines of Loehe in Three Books. Would you agree?
"Yet let us enter our solemn protest against the opus operatum and the overestimation of externals. The Church remains what she is even without a Liturgy, she remains a queen even in beggar's rags. It is better to give up everything else and hold only the pure doctrine than to go about in the pomp and glory of splendid services which are without light and life because the doctrine has become impure - Yet it is not necessary to let the Church go in beggar's rags. Much better is it that her prayers, her hymns, her sacred order, the holy thoughts of her Liturgy, should be impressed upon the people innocently, and in sermon and catechetical instruction be used as a living book for proof and instruction. The true faith finds voice no only in the sermon, but it is prayed through the prayers and sung in the hymns. So the Liturgy becomes the new confirmation of the Church against her enemies; it is a holy weapon of offense and defense in the wars of the Lord." Three Books
Also how Loehe began that chapter:
"The Church not only learns, she prays. She prays not only in her single members in their closets, but together in her houses of assembly. She prays in speech, she prays in song, and the Lord dwells amid her praises with His Sacraments. Her approach to Him, His approach to her, the whole form of her approach and of His coming, we call the Liturgy - These forms are free, few parts are commanded; but in spite of her freedom the Church from the beginning has accepted certain forms. A holy manifoldness of singing and praying has developed itself, and a lovely course of thought in drawing near to and departing from the Lord of Lords has been her delight. Like the planets go about the sun, so the congregation in its services, full of loveliness and dignity, moves about her Lord. In holy childlike innocence, which only a childlike innocent heart rightly understands, the host of redeemed sanctified children of God moves in worship about the universal Father and the Lam, and the Spirit of the Lord of Lords leads them. The spiritual joy and heavenly delight which such enjoy in their participation in the LIturgy cannot be described; it impresses even those who are less devout, and the pure confession has no lovelier form, no more attractive manner, than when it is engaged in adoration and praise.
This was clearly seen at the time of the Reformation. The traditional, beautiful ancient forms of worship were not put away, but cleansed from sin and injury. There is a great store of Lutheran LIturgies, which unite variety with simplicity. Add the glorious abundance of inimitable songs, which for three hundred years have been sung to the glory and praise of God. Our Church has a great store of liturgical treasures, and all that is needed is that she should rightly use it - but it just here that she failed in the days of her deep distress....
But care should be taken not to misuse liturgical freedom in the composition of new liturgies. Rather, by study of the old let us cultivate understanding and taste, before we think ourselves fit to make something new and better. He who has not studied the old, cannot produce anything new. It is distressful that every one forms his own opinions about hymns and Liturgy, without ever having looked into the first principles of the subject. Let a man first learn in silence and not act as if, as a matter of course, every one understands everything; having first learned the old, then a man can use the progress of modern times to the benefit of the Liturgy. - Three Books
Dear Anonymous:
"In our churches Mass is celebrated every Sunday and on other festivals when the sacrament is offered to those who wish for it after they have been examined and absolved. We keep traditional liturgical forms, such as the order of the lessons, prayers, vestments, etc."
This is part of our confessions. And it is such an important part of our confessions that it isn't mentioned in passing - it is an entire article (!) in both the Augustana and its Apology (Article 24).
And, this idea that we have not introduced novelty in the Church's doctrine or practice runs as a thread throughout the BOC. The idea that we are in a seamless continuation with the early church is absolutely foundational to the Lutheran Confessions.
There is only one church. Absolutely. The church's unity isn't found in a common liturgy. I agree. The church even includes pastors and lay people who hold false doctrines - such as belief in the pope being the head of the church by divine rite, or those who refuse to baptize infants.
Even false doctrine doesn't overturn the "unam sanctam"!
But such things do upset the unity of church *fellowship.* We are members of the one holy catholic and apostolic church, but we do not share pastors and sacraments with those of differing communions. Nobody, not even non-denominational churches, will open their altars and pulpits to anyone of any denomination. That's the sad reality.
If we all confess Article 24, let's confess it. If there are those who cannot confess it, let them go in peace. If there are those who cannot abide certain passages of the Smalcald articles, and they might be more at home in the Roman Church than among us. Let them go in peace.
If there are those who cannot abide Luther's appeal to tradition (as opposed to Scripture) to argue for infant baptism in the Large Catechism, they might be more at home in the Baptist Church than among us - let them go in peace.
If there are those who cannot abide the saying "and the Son" in the Nicene Creed, they might be more at home in Eastern Orthodoxy - let them go in peace.
And again, if there are those who cannot join our confession of Article 24, if they could not repeat those words at the altar with the same conviction as the Nicene Creed, or teach them with the same confidence as the Small catechism to confirmands or catechumens, let them go in peace.
Again, it is a simple matter of integrity. This is what Lutherans believe. There are Christians who believe otherwise - to be sure - pious, godly, faithful Christians who partake in the Gospel and salvation - but they are not in fellowship with us because we confess different creeds.
I hope this helps clarify things a bit.
I agree with the Loehe statements. All Lutheran pastors should promote and praise the Divine Service. Those who don't do their congregations a disservice.
But when push comes to shove, and we have a lot of tasteless Lutheran congregations that resist the Word in the Divine Service, but will come to church when the Word is offered in an inferior order, we have to decide whether we will cut off our fellowship because they use an inferior order. I don't see any basis for doing so. From what I've read, Luther grappled with this and decided it would be better to tolerate some error and inferior practices than deal with constant schism. Rules for good order are fine, including approval of materials. But I would not break fellowship with a congregation that used unapproved materials unless I also determined that those materials preached incorrect doctrine.
And I don't see how choice of liturgy is doctrinal. There are better and worse ways to present the Word, but as long as the pure Word is preached, no matter what order or composition, the Word can convey grace.
Further, our confessions don't make liturgy doctrinal. How does a descriptive statement--"we retain Mass"--gets interpreted as a rule--"we require use of Mass"?
I've tried to understand the argument that Divine Service is required by the confessions, but I don't get it. Especially in light of the many parts of the confessions cautioning against binding Christian freedom in rites and ceremonies.
Some statements are descriptive: "this is what we are doing." Others are precatory: "this is what we wish to see happen." Others are commands: "you must do this."
Does a quia subscription mean that one finds only command in every descriptive and precatory statement in the confessions?
XXIV says that the mass was altered to teach the people and "that the faith of those who use the Sacrament should remember what benefits it receives through Christ" "For ceremonies are needed to this end alone that the unlearned be taught [what they need to know of Christ]."
This is the only requirement in XXIV that I see: that the "end alone" of our ceremonies is to teach and remind. Again, I agree Divine Service is best, but I can't agree that it is required.
My final thought is that rather than beating up cowo churches with confession prooftexts, and accusing their pastors of inauthentic Lutheranism, wouldn't it be a better service to the Gospel to praise and educate about the benefits of the Divine Service?
After all, Luther is pretty clear that any conduct performed because of a rule is not "good." Divine Service will not become popular because of a synod rule. It will only come back when Christians love and appreciate the beautiful way in which it presents the Word and Sacrament.
When I argue with my cowo-loving friends, that is the argument I try to make. I gave up trying to show how liturgy was required, because I was tired of making arguments from tradition that sounded more appropriate for (SSPX) Catholics and the Orthodox.
In the meantime, if our society is so fallen that the only way people will come to hear the Word is to dumb down worship to the level of young chidlren, then, I won't condemn pastors that comply. I will save condemnation for if they compromise the Word.
Dear Anonymous:
You write:
"Some statements are descriptive: 'this is what we are doing.' Others are precatory: 'this is what we wish to see happen.' Others are commands: 'you must do this.'
Rubrics work like that. There are "shall" rubrics and "may" rubrics. Of course, if what you believe about liturgy is true, there is no such thing as a "shall" rubric at all! The very concept of a "shall" rubric would be a joke.
But confessions are not rubrics, they are "confessions." You cannot compel people to believe in something. What the confessions do is confess what *we* believe. Others don't. We do.
All of the BOC is *descriptive.*
Take the Nicene Creed, for instance. There is not a single case of "you must..." (which would be proscriptive), but rather "I believe..." (descriptive).
If you believe, you are a Nicene Christian. If you don't, you're not. It's that simple. There is no force, no compulsion, no command, no precation. It's all descriptive.
This is why our confessions say: "We believe... We teach... We confess..." They also say "We condemn..."
In fact, I don't believe there is any part of our confessions that say "you must believe..." or "you must do..."
Often the wording is like this: "Our churches teach..." or "In our churches..." That's all descriptive!
And according to Article 24, in our churches, Mass is celebrated weekly and on holy days. It is a lie if someone says we've abolished it. In fact, we keep the Mass more religiously than our critics. And it is also true that we keep the traditional forms such as lectionaries, vestments, candles, and all of that.
That is the kind of church our confessions *describe.* Just like "I believe in God the Father Almighty" (which in the original Greek is worded "we believe...) describes the belief that is found in our churches.
To slice and dice the confessions the way you're trying to do is simply a ruse to turn them into a cafeteria.
If you believe them, you're a Lutheran. If you don't believe them, you're not. It's not like the Constitution where, if you don't like what is in there, you can muster a political majority in both houses and three-fourths of the states to ratify it, and then you can amend it.
The BOC is what it is.
It *describes* what it describes. It draws a boundary around what is Lutheran and what is not - just as the Nicene Creed draws a border around Trinitarian Christians who believe in the two natures of Christ vs. the people who reject those teachings and thus reject Trinitarian Nicene Christianity.
And I *think* somewhere up this insanely long thread, it was pointed out that at our ordinations, Lutheran pastors are asked:
"Do you promise that you will perform the duties of your office in accordance with these Confessions, and that all your preaching and teaching AND YOUR ADMINISTRATION OF THE SACRAMENTS will be in conformity with Holy Scripture AND WITH THESE CONFESSIONS?" (Lutheran Service Book Agenda, p. 166)
Dear Anonymous:
You ask:
"My final thought is that rather than beating up cowo churches with confession prooftexts, and accusing their pastors of inauthentic Lutheranism, wouldn't it be a better service to the Gospel to praise and educate about the benefits of the Divine Service?"
First of all, no-one is being "beat up." A pastor is being called upon to have integrity to the vows he took. What you are asking us to do is look the other way, shut up, and be "tolerant" of deviant practices (the homosexual lobby uses the same tactic, trying to vilify those who are trying to remain faithful), as well as liturgical innovations and novelties that are not only repudiated in our confessions, but equated with heresy (see AC 24:40).
That's not me speaking, but rather the confessions we have all sworn to use as a "normed norm" of our preaching and teaching. Don't blame me, it was like that when I got here. If you don't like the Lutheran confessions, there are lots of other church bodies that don't confess them.
No, we are called upon to speak the *truth* in love. Love doesn't mean ignoring the truth and embracing that which is wrong. Regardless of one's theological position, it is wrong to vow fidelity to that which one does not believe - be it the Augsburg Confession, the Westminster Catechism, or the 39 Articles.
My parishioners are utterly scandalized when they go on vacation, walk into an LCMS church, and are confronted with such things. I was too when I was a layman.
But nobody seems to care about that.
Nobody seems to care about the hemorrhage of liturgical pastors who are leaving the LCMS and/or the ministry because of this dissonance. Instead, we want the Church to conform to the unbelieving world. Look at how crazy this is! We want the *Church* to repent rather than calling the unbelievers to repent!
Words mean something, or words (including the Word of God) are utterly meaningless waxen noses to be twisted at will. That is the essence of the very postmodernism Mark is dabbling with.
That's why we have confessions. That's why we take vows. If Mark, or any other pastor can't accept parts of the Lutheran Confessions, the honest thing to do is to leave - as my classmate and former colleague Ben Harju did.
It would have been dishonest for him to deny the filoque, or to deny our confession that presbyters can ordain presbyters, or to deny forensic justification, etc. and remain a 'Lutheran' pastor based on the argument that parts of the confessions are optional, and any part that doesn't jibe with his interpretation of the Bible can be ignored, rejected, or repudiated - even in the name of "reaching the lost" (and perhaps *especially* so).
No, I think the wishy-washy hand-wringing has only entrenched this nonsense. Why are the scandalized always asked to tolerate the scandal? If the confessions and the liturgy are worth defending then, it is time for pastors to man-up and speak out.
Lay people are tired of pastors who will not defend the heritage of the Church - through which the Gospel is proclaimed.
If you only believe the liturgy is a nice optional idea, you have missed the point as well.
I believe it is worth fighting for, as is the notion of fidelity to one's vows.
I don't see that this conversation can go much farther.
Pr. Hollywood wants to make a rule requiring all Lutheran churches to use Divine Service, and break fellowship with those that don't. He accuses pastors who disagree of violating their ordination vows (this is beating him up with law).
There appears to be no support for this other than the out-of-context quotation of XXIV. Point me to anything Luther, Chemnitz, Walther, or anybody who passes as an authority wrote that would suggest that the "we retain mass" quote from XXIV binds the conscienses of all Christians to use historical liturgical practices without innovation.
Passages describing the benefit of historical liturgy don't count unless you have passages saying every beneficial liturgical practice should be required by a rule, the violation of which is sin and must end fellowship.
The confessions are much more concerned about binding consciences with extra-Scriptural rules. I can cite passage after passage saying we don't bind consciences on matters of tradition or on rites and ceremonies. I haven't found any comment by Luther on liturgical practice without a comment stating ceremonies do not bind.
Please correct me if I've misstated Pr. Hollywood's position. But if he truly thinks any pastor who does not use historical liturgy is not Lutheran-and in fact sins and violates ordination vows-then I want no part of this tradition-centered, legalistic, phariseeical, conscience-binding "confessional" lutheranism. Fortunately, the Lutheran Confessions condemn this legalism and I'll keep calling myself Confessional.
I should say that I agree that scandalization of parishioners is extremely relevant. I would gladly conform to any worship practice that will avoid scandalizing. But look, we have milliions of Lutherans who would be scandalized by being forced to give up contemporary worship. The entire synod must be taken into account. I could cherry pick them and make the same argument.
Who is weaker in faith? That is who we should accommodate. I don't know the answer to that. Lutherans can't resolve this dispute based on who is more scandalized. I think those strong in their faith should offer to compromise for the sake of the weaker, but nobody is currently offering to give up their cherished rites for the sake of unity.
Perhaps catechizing Lutherans on Christian freedom, until a more uniform practice can be established without scandal, would let us live together in doctrinal unity.
I'm just guessing here, but better emphasizing justification by faith alone and the true Christian freedom found in the Gospel would stem the tide of Lutherans to EO better than rules about liturgy. If you want to bind consciences about liturgy, you are halfway to EO already.
If you want to bind consciences about liturgy ...No one is "binding" anyone. The subscription which LCMS clergy and congregations make to the Lutheran Confessions is freely made. To recall someone to that freely-made subscription is not "binding"; if a pastor or congregation has made that subscription, they have "bound" themselves.
... you are halfway to EO already.You say that like it was a bad thing ;)
Seriously, if this is something that the Orthodox have right (and it is), then there can be no problem with following our own Confessions, even if they lead us "halfway to EO."
Dear Anonymous:
Since I don't know who you are, (pastor or lay, Lutheran or non-Lutheran), I'll assume you're not familiar with this, but I'm not binding anyone. LCMS pastors all voluntarily *bind themselves* to the BOC. And LCMS pastors make a *quia* (unconditional) subscription. If Pr. Louderbach were an ELCA pastor, his position would be just fine, as they make a *quatenus* (piecemeal) subscription.
SO the only one who is binding Pr. Louderbach is Pr. Louderbach himself by *by his ordination vows*.
It is like a marriage vow. There is nothing in the Bible that requires me to be married to anyone. There is nothing in the Bible that binds me to any particular woman. But when I got married, I voluntarily bound myself to one woman.
And if I stray from that vow, it is indeed a matter of the law. When we give our word, when we make a promise, it becomes a matter of the 8th commandment not to renege on it or seek workarounds. That doesn't work with marriage vows, and it shouldn't work with ordination vows either.
So, you are partially correct that this is a matter of the law. When a man takes an oath, especially one that is collective in nature (such as Pr. Louderbach's ordination vow), he has not only bound himself to that oath, but has bound himself to the rest of us. He promised not only God, but the rest of his colleagues, that his preaching and teaching submits to the BOC.
You also raise a good point about the state of our synod. If we were to restore worship practices with integrity to the BOC across the synod, it would cause offense to those who have strayed.
It's a bad situation.
I favor the sainted Dr. Marquart's idea of a peaceful negotiated divorce. That is why I say "go in peace." I think the solution is to dissolve the LCMS, and divide its assets, and let us treat the issue of fellowship in an honest manner.
"In our churches Mass is celebrated every Sunday and on other festivals when the sacrament is offered to those who wish for it after they have been examined and absolved. We keep traditional liturgical forms, such as the order of the lessons, prayers, vestments, etc."So I have been thinking about this, and thinking "How do I explain my position about this?" and it occured to me to talk about Jewish evangelism.
So, back when I was in Fl-Ga district, we had focused work on jewish evangelism. Now, when they worshiped, did they worship on Sunday mornings using a Western liturgy?
If they instead used a messianic jewish formula, worshiping on Friday and Saturday, and connecting the old jewish rites to Christ--would that in fact be illegitimate?
I know that many former Jews are happy in worshiping in regular Lutheran services (both trad & cowo); but is it once again, non-Lutheran, to have a service on Friday?
Some want us to look at the Confessions and say "No. You have to worship on Sunday."
I find this problematic.
Does that not make sense?
Dear Anon:
You wrote:
"There appears to be no support for this other than the out-of-context quotation of XXIV. Point me to anything Luther, Chemnitz, Walther, or anybody who passes as an authority wrote that would suggest that the "we retain mass" quote from XXIV binds the conscienses of all Christians to use historical liturgical practices without innovation."
Look, why do you and Mark say I'm "quoting out of context?" I'm quoting the passage word for word. It is what it is. If you can quote a portion of the confessions word for word and claim it is out of context, than the entire BOC can be dismissed as irrelevant.
And this is exactly what happened in unionistic churches, the very movement that drove the Saxons to emigrate to Missouri in the first place!
I've quoted nothing out of context. If Article 24 is "out of context" on its face, than so is the Nicene Creed.
Furthermore, the Confessions *are* the authority - not Luther, Chemnitz, Walther, or anyone else. Why should I have to cite a non-authoritative non-confessional writing to convince you that a confessional writing is authoritative?
This is simply preposterous.
If you think Article 24 no longer applies, has been revoked, or is optional, I think the burden of proof is on you, not on me. And furthermore, if you and Mark are correct, we need to change the ordination vows from *quia* to *quatenus* - or we need to make major revisions in our confessional writings themselves.
Finally, not "all Christians" are bound to the Lutheran confessions. That's the point. They are *Lutheran* confessions. *Lutheran* pastors (and congregations) subscribe to them. If Mark were the pastor of a non-denominational megachurch, that would be just fine. But it is simply disingenuous to claim that something that quacks and has feather is a frog - and then to accuse someone who points out the obvious of being a Pharisee.
Dear Mark:
The first Jewish Christians chose to honor the Lord by worshiping on His day, the Day of Resurrection, the first day of the week. That was basically a Jewish decision that we Gentiles have honored for two thousand years.
I'm afraid that some modern Jewish Christian groups are more interested in their cultural Jewishness than being part of the Church Catholic (just as some of my Eastern Orthodox friends complain of the tendency of some folks in their communion to treat their ethnicity as their religion - something Lutherans are hardly exempt from ourselves).
I've baptized two Jews in the past couple years. They come to Mass on Sunday like the rest of us. We don't have special Jewish services for them. Nor do we have Kwanzaa for our black members, Cinco de Mayo for our Hispanic members, Earth Day for the hippies, and special 3pm Red Bull services for young party animals who want to rave all night long Saturday night and sleep in on Sunday.
This is part of the "cultural supremacist" methodology of Contemporary Worship and the Church Growth Movement. It is the idea that young people, cowboys, headbangers, little old ladies, blacks, whites, football fans, and classical music aficionados all need their own balkanized "special" services. It makes a mockery of the concept of "ekklesia."
In Scripture, everybody attended the Temple and everybody attended the synagogue. In fact, the first syllable of the latter speaks to the collective nature of worship.
I think ghettoizing Jews or any other demographic group is a mistake - even if they want the segregation themselves.
Our confessions also speak approvingly of having Mass daily (AC 24:36). I know a few Lutheran churches that do that today, and I commend them, but I simply don't have the time to do it, nor would I have any communicants most of the time.
One could make the same argument that we are free to celebrate Easter in July and abolish Christmas in our churches - since neither holiday is mandated by Scripture. But doing so would certainly be just one more way to give the finger to the Book of Concord and the catholicity of the church, and to further divide people into different groups.
Weedon.
Another Walther for you Mark - you SURE you want to agree with this man?Well, yeah, of course.
I mean, not with everything he ever said. But I don't understand why you might think that what he says makes me queasy.
He is Lutheran, I am Lutheran, we are cut from the same cloth, and you know, there you go.
Mainly I think that you have some binary understanding of worship...and Walther...that makes it impossible for you to see how I can look to him for support.
Church usages, excepting the case when confession of a divine truth is required, are indeed adiaphora.Naah. They are required by the confessions. You must worship in man-made ways in order to claim to be Lutheran.
So I disagree with this.
Not.
But they are nevertheless not without an import of their own.Absolutely.
I am not stupid, WW. I've seen bad CoWo. I've sat in bad CoWo. I've seen bad teaching.
But in all honesty, I've seen bad teaching both ways. I don't think the worship style matters that much. Bad teachers bring across bad things whether they are trad or CoWo.
So, overall, I don't have any problem with warning pastors "You can import bad stuff with Cowo."
But nor, on the other hand, do I think that every switch involves a rejection of Lutheran teaching (re: fronting of communion).
Okay, back to Walther:
Congregations that adopt the church usages of the sects that surround them, will be apt to conform to their doctrines also, more easily and quickly than those that retain their Lutheran ceremonies.Also true.
At a PLI conference Andy Bartelt said "Listen when you do your own service, you are your own doctrinal review." So yeah, this is true.
Once again, though: I don't believe that it is impossible to be Lutheran.
We should in Lutheran services, also when held in the English language, as much as possible use the old Lutheran forms, though they be said to be antiquated and not suiting this country.So what exactly does he mean "As much as possible"? How crazy is that!
If he were a quia subscriber to the Confessions, he would say "We should in Lutheran services, also when held in the English language, only use the Mass. Otherwise, outta here!"
I can only surmise that Walther, like me, was not confessional.
We will mention here the words of a pious Lutheran duchess, Elisabeth Magdalena of Brunswick-Lüneburg.His claim of "pious Lutheran" is suspect. Since he thinks that we can dump the confessions, she might have denied the resurrection of Jesus or thought that God was a bird.
So, I don't know if I can trust this at all.
Her court chaplain Prunner relates as follows: “Although her ladyship well knew that the ceremonies and purposes of this chapter (at which Prunner officiated) must have the appearance and repute of popery with some people, she still remembered the instructions which that dear and venerable man, Luther, had once given to her father concerning such ceremonies. I remember in particular that her ladyship several times told me that she did not desire at these present times to commence discontinuing any of those church usages, since she hoped that so long as such ceremonies continued, Calvinistic temerity would be held back from the public office of the church.”Once again, I have no doubt that this is true.
My position, William, is such:
1. The Western/Eastern liturgy is not the only legit confessional worship for Lutherans.
2. Our Synod ought to do what it can to give assistance to pastors doing CoWo.
Your position is that Walther and myself are in error; being Lutheran means that we can only do a certain man-made worship service. He does not say this and I don't say this as well.
But yeah, a pastor using CoWo needs to tread carefully. I talk about our CoWo service with my staff. We had a consultant from Synod come. I talk about this with PLI pastors.
None of this matters right?
"In our churches Mass is celebrated every Sunday..." So, Walther & me, with our flexible ways, will have to see if there is another Lutheran church body that will take us.
Post a Comment