Seems to be more of the same (an Ichabod want-a-be)--Lutherans who seem to never be satisfied and in my opinion jettison the 8th commandment in this blog-sphere in the name of orthodoxy. Should spend more time sharing the gospel than bitch'in about people who don't the way you like.
"Icabod want-a-be"? You've got to be kidding, really. Jackson slanders at will (please don't make me re-read his rants to illustrate this). These "Angry Lutherans" comment on public matters. Please illustrate where this group has jettisoned the 8th commandment as you opine. Even if a feather or two is ruffled, as a Wisconsin Synod letter writer to Logia once said, we should be more concerned about God's name than our own. This was in response to someone ripping on him (not Him). And how do you know that they spend more thim "bitch'in" (sic) than "sharing (sic) the gospel"?
Reread the past discussions and comments on contemporary worship, Church and Change, and Dr. Braun. I am all for lively debate but at times it seems to me there is this "if you are really Lutheran you will" attitude that leans toward legalism.
To maintain a Lutheran practice which reflects Lutheran doctrine is not legalism. The defense of the Gospel is not legalism. Perhaps you could be more specific.
Is it more important to you to be Lutheran or Christian? I've read this blog for some time and I must be honest and tell you that you come across caring more about being Lutheran and making sure people express themselves in a "Lutheran" manner rather than making sure they hear the Gospel truth. It seems to me that you are more concerned about "how" than "what". And please don't give me the line, "If you have a Reformed style in worship, you will believe like the Reformed." Hey, traditional worship looks pretty Catholic and Anglican to the outside person, extremely liberal. Do you worry about that????? Does the same "line" of "reasoning" apply to that style?
You write, "Is it more important to you to be Lutheran or Christian? I've read this blog for some time and I must be honest and tell you that you come across caring more about being Lutheran and making sure people express themselves in a 'Lutheran' manner rather than making sure they hear the Gospel truth."
Incredible! You got that all from one post in which I said, "To maintain a Lutheran practice which reflects Lutheran doctrine is not legalism. The defense of the Gospel is not legalism." You noted you have been reading my post for a long time (...must be a slow reader...)
It seems that you know little of Lutheranism to make this antithesis between "Lutheran" and "Christian." If you take the time to reread the post, I spoke of Lutheran doctrine which is always reflected in Lutheran practice. The Lutheran doctrine is the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures, i.e. Christian. What in Lutheran doctrine do you think is not Christian, or what in the Holy Scriptures does Lutheran doctrine miss?
To use your term, the Lutheran church "expresses herself" by right proclamation of the Gospel and the right administration of the Sacraments. That is the "how," by the way, of the Gospel. The "how" cannot be disconnected from the "what". The "how" delivers the "what." No "how," no "what." Bad "how," bad "what." Good "what," good "how." Should we encourage people, then, to "express themselves" in a non Lutheran manner?
I worship like a Lutheran because I am a Lutheran. And yes, the Reformed worship like the Reformed because they are Reformed and when you do, which I assume is from the heart, you are Reformed, which I assume you are. That's not hard to figure out, is it?
"Lex orandi, lex credendi. It's catholic, not Catholic, though it may appear Catholic in keeping with the catholic, which was the original intention. The ignorant, such as you show yourself to be, should keep their thoughts to themselves and seek an education."
A fine example of elitism! Do you think the person who attends a very liturgical church sees the service with a "c" or a "C"? Dismount from your high horse!
Can one be a Lutheran (in your educated view) worshiping in a "contemporary" format?
No elitism here. If you don't understand what I wrote, I suggest you get yourself some book learnin'. Start with the Book of Concord.
Why do you think visitors are stupid? As many Catholic churches have now gone "contemporary", a person attending a Lutheran congregation which prays the historic catholic liturgy of the church will see Lutheran worship. Why are you so intent on aping the E-Frees?
For someone with the laid-back pseudonym of "Just shout'in", you seem quite upset. Take Master Flanders' advice and have some wine.
The same argument goes round and round on this blog. You have no knowledge of or respect for what the Lutheran church confesses. You are part of the problem in the Lutheran Church. Fortunately for me, you will take up no more of my time.
John: Keep up the good work. The more these idiots try to defend their aberrant practices, the more they marginalize themselves.
If you cannot argue the point on the merits of Lutheran doctrine and practice then save us your name calling, a very Icabod like trait. It seems debate is not for you.
What makes us Lutheran is our adherence to the Gospel in Word and Sacrament expressed by Luther with the three solas, especially sola gratia. I have no argument with those merits and am willing to die for them. But what I cannot agree with is how some seemingly confuse the issue by intimating that being Lutheran means you must be liturgical. I can bring people to the font, nurture them in the Word, and have them dine at the Table of His Forgiveness in a blended or contemporary format, all focusing on Christ.
And as far as the name calling . . . c.f. "idiots" in a previous comment. You will there note yet another example of ecclesiastical elitism.
You write "But what I cannot agree with is how some seemingly confuse the issue by intimating that being Lutheran means you must be liturgical."
This sentence shows two things. First, you read things into what others write and (as one wit said) you are delighted to have found them there. Where is this confusion, as you call it, in what I or others here write? (I dare say the confusion is yours.) Lutherans worship like Lutherans, Baptists like Baptists, etc. That is a simple truth. What you do not seem to recognize is that there are deep doctrinal structures behind the "manner" in which one worships. Deep structures which may not be so obvious to the unschooled yet which affect the worshipper. When Lutherans worship like Baptists they become Baptists. Why is there in the Wisconsin Synod such an opposition to kneeling, bowing, the every Sunday Sacrament, making the sign of the Holy Cross, private confession and absolution etc. and great love for Pietistic praise music and lay lead Bible studies? (Answer, the WS is mildly Lutheran.)
Second, you do not understand the matter at hand. EVERY church service is "liturgical." There is no such thing as a "non-liturgical" service aside from pure anarchy. The liturgy is what you do. The key is what is your liturgy and what does it say. All this talk of "blended" and "contemporary" is pointless and obfuscates the matter at hand. How and what happens is what matters. The richly Sacramental service of the church I attend would undoubtedly be termed "high church" by most in the Wisconsin Synod and it is very "blended" and "contemporary." The point is what do we blend. (We sing newer hymns in the hymnal, the choir new music along with the rich treasury of the church). Our sevice is always "contemporary" but with what do you wish to be co-temporus? The passing fads of the day? We celebrate every service the eternal wedding feast of the Lamb with saints and angels in the timeless words of Holy Scripture. (By the way, what part of the historic liturgy offends you or others?)
What I have witnessed, however, in so called "blended" or "contemporary" services more often than not elevates and focuses on the individual and when that is the case it is not Christocentric. The WS church in DePere (as others in most Lutheran synods) have amply shown that by virtue of their web sites. That proponents of such "worship" find the historic western rite "an impediment" to "worship" one knows something is wrong. Yet this is liturgy with roots in the Old Testament and in the book of Revelation. Dressing up like a clown and acting like one is liturgical, however, it is not Lutheran, is not Scriptural. Disdain for the historic liturgy of the Lutheran church indicates a serious problem.
Lutheran churches have/should have/used to have kneelers in the pews. Many a modern contemporary church has cup holders in the cushioned chairs for your latte. (And I can hear the Biblicists saying, "the Bible doesn't say we have to ....)
I find it interesting that Lutheran "confessionalists" (whom I believe have distorted that name) believe that Tradition is more important than Scripture. They proclaim a 6th Century theologian for their "modus oporendi" rather than the Bible. Use tradition, but stop "worshipping it" or consider going back to Rome. We can use the liturgy without being legalistic and demanding a lock-step stormtrooper type approach.
20 comments:
Seems to be more of the same (an Ichabod want-a-be)--Lutherans who seem to never be satisfied and in my opinion jettison the 8th commandment in this blog-sphere in the name of orthodoxy. Should spend more time sharing the gospel than bitch'in about people who don't the way you like.
Just shout'in
Just Shout'in,
"Icabod want-a-be"? You've got to be kidding, really. Jackson slanders at will (please don't make me re-read his rants to illustrate this). These "Angry Lutherans" comment on public matters. Please illustrate where this group has jettisoned the 8th commandment as you opine. Even if a feather or two is ruffled, as a Wisconsin Synod letter writer to Logia once said, we should be more concerned about God's name than our own. This was in response to someone ripping on him (not Him). And how do you know that they spend more thim "bitch'in" (sic) than "sharing (sic) the gospel"?
R. Flanders
R. Flanders writes,
And how do you know that they spend more thim "bitch'in" (sic) than "sharing (sic) the gospel"?
or "time?"
R. Flanders
Reread the past discussions and comments on contemporary worship, Church and Change, and Dr. Braun. I am all for lively debate but at times it seems to me there is this "if you are really Lutheran you will" attitude that leans toward legalism.
Just shout'in
8th Commandment! Legalism! Matthew 18, anyone? Anyone?
Just shout'in,
It seems to me that you don't know the attitudes of those you criticize. That is quite unloving.
Just shoutin'
To maintain a Lutheran practice which reflects Lutheran doctrine is not legalism. The defense of the Gospel is not legalism. Perhaps you could be more specific.
R. Flanders
R. Flanders,
Is it more important to you to be Lutheran or Christian? I've read this blog for some time and I must be honest and tell you that you come across caring more about being Lutheran and making sure people express themselves in a "Lutheran" manner rather than making sure they hear the Gospel truth. It seems to me that you are more concerned about "how" than "what". And please don't give me the line, "If you have a Reformed style in worship, you will believe like the Reformed." Hey, traditional worship looks pretty Catholic and Anglican to the outside person, extremely liberal. Do you worry about that????? Does the same "line" of "reasoning" apply to that style?
WELS37
R. Flanders,
Where is the Gospel being attacked?
Just shout'in
WELS37,
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
It's catholic, not Catholic, though it may appear Catholic in keeping with the catholic, which was the original intention.
The ignorant, such as you show yourself to be, should keep their thoughts to themselves and seek an education.
WELS37...
You write, "Is it more important to you to be Lutheran or Christian? I've read this blog for some time and I must be honest and tell you that you come across caring more about being Lutheran and making sure people express themselves in a 'Lutheran' manner rather than making sure they hear the Gospel truth."
Incredible! You got that all from one post in which I said, "To maintain a Lutheran practice which reflects Lutheran doctrine is not legalism. The defense of the Gospel is not legalism." You noted you have been reading my post for a long time (...must be a slow reader...)
It seems that you know little of Lutheranism to make this antithesis between "Lutheran" and "Christian." If you take the time to reread the post, I spoke of Lutheran doctrine which is always reflected in Lutheran practice. The Lutheran doctrine is the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures, i.e. Christian. What in Lutheran doctrine do you think is not Christian, or what in the Holy Scriptures does Lutheran doctrine miss?
To use your term, the Lutheran church "expresses herself" by right proclamation of the Gospel and the right administration of the Sacraments. That is the "how," by the way, of the Gospel. The "how" cannot be disconnected from the "what". The "how" delivers the "what." No "how," no "what." Bad "how," bad "what." Good "what," good "how." Should we encourage people, then, to "express themselves" in a non Lutheran manner?
I worship like a Lutheran because I am a Lutheran. And yes, the Reformed worship like the Reformed because they are Reformed and when you do, which I assume is from the heart, you are Reformed, which I assume you are. That's not hard to figure out, is it?
R. Flanders
Just Shout'in,
"Where is the Gospel being attacked?"
Everywhere.
R. Flanders
PS And calm down, drink a little wine.
"Lex orandi, lex credendi.
It's catholic, not Catholic, though it may appear Catholic in keeping with the catholic, which was the original intention.
The ignorant, such as you show yourself to be, should keep their thoughts to themselves and seek an education."
A fine example of elitism! Do you think the person who attends a very liturgical church sees the service with a "c" or a "C"? Dismount from your high horse!
Can one be a Lutheran (in your educated view) worshiping in a "contemporary" format?
Just shout'in
No elitism here. If you don't understand what I wrote, I suggest you get yourself some book learnin'. Start with the Book of Concord.
Why do you think visitors are stupid? As many Catholic churches have now gone "contemporary", a person attending a Lutheran congregation which prays the historic catholic liturgy of the church will see Lutheran worship. Why are you so intent on aping the E-Frees?
For someone with the laid-back pseudonym of "Just shout'in", you seem quite upset. Take Master Flanders' advice and have some wine.
The same argument goes round and round on this blog. You have no knowledge of or respect for what the Lutheran church confesses. You are part of the problem in the Lutheran Church. Fortunately for me, you will take up no more of my time.
John: Keep up the good work. The more these idiots try to defend their aberrant practices, the more they marginalize themselves.
Riding off on that high horse into the sunset...
Where have I heard language like that before??? Oh, yes, Ichabod. Thanks for supporting my first comment.
Just shout'in
Just...
(I posted here earlier but it did not appear.)
If you cannot argue the point on the merits of Lutheran doctrine and practice then save us your name calling, a very Icabod like trait. It seems debate is not for you.
R. Flanders
R. Flanders,
What makes us Lutheran is our adherence to the Gospel in Word and Sacrament expressed by Luther with the three solas, especially sola gratia. I have no argument with those merits and am willing to die for them. But what I cannot agree with is how some seemingly confuse the issue by intimating that being Lutheran means you must be liturgical. I can bring people to the font, nurture them in the Word, and have them dine at the Table of His Forgiveness in a blended or contemporary format, all focusing on Christ.
And as far as the name calling . . . c.f. "idiots" in a previous comment. You will there note yet another example of ecclesiastical elitism.
Just shout'in
J.S.
You write "But what I cannot agree with is how some seemingly confuse the issue by intimating that being Lutheran means you must be liturgical."
This sentence shows two things. First, you read things into what others write and (as one wit said) you are delighted to have found them there. Where is this confusion, as you call it, in what I or others here write? (I dare say the confusion is yours.) Lutherans worship like Lutherans, Baptists like Baptists, etc. That is a simple truth. What you do not seem to recognize is that there are deep doctrinal structures behind the "manner" in which one worships. Deep structures which may not be so obvious to the unschooled yet which affect the worshipper. When Lutherans worship like Baptists they become Baptists. Why is there in the Wisconsin Synod such an opposition to kneeling, bowing, the every Sunday Sacrament, making the sign of the Holy Cross, private confession and absolution etc. and great love for Pietistic praise music and lay lead Bible studies? (Answer, the WS is mildly Lutheran.)
Second, you do not understand the matter at hand. EVERY church service is "liturgical." There is no such thing as a "non-liturgical" service aside from pure anarchy. The liturgy is what you do. The key is what is your liturgy and what does it say. All this talk of "blended" and "contemporary" is pointless and obfuscates the matter at hand. How and what happens is what matters. The richly Sacramental service of the church I attend would undoubtedly be termed "high church" by most in the Wisconsin Synod and it is very "blended" and "contemporary." The point is what do we blend. (We sing newer hymns in the hymnal, the choir new music along with the rich treasury of the church). Our sevice is always "contemporary" but with what do you wish to be co-temporus? The passing fads of the day? We celebrate every service the eternal wedding feast of the Lamb with saints and angels in the timeless words of Holy Scripture. (By the way, what part of the historic liturgy offends you or others?)
What I have witnessed, however, in so called "blended" or "contemporary" services more often than not elevates and focuses on the individual and when that is the case it is not Christocentric. The WS church in DePere (as others in most Lutheran synods) have amply shown that by virtue of their web sites. That proponents of such "worship" find the historic western rite "an impediment" to "worship" one knows something is wrong. Yet this is liturgy with roots in the Old Testament and in the book of Revelation. Dressing up like a clown and acting like one is liturgical, however, it is not Lutheran, is not Scriptural. Disdain for the historic liturgy of the Lutheran church indicates a serious problem.
R. Flanders
Example of the above post.
Lutheran churches have/should have/used to have kneelers in the pews. Many a modern contemporary church has cup holders in the cushioned chairs for your latte. (And I can hear the Biblicists saying, "the Bible doesn't say we have to ....)
I find it interesting that Lutheran "confessionalists" (whom I believe have distorted that name) believe that Tradition is more important than Scripture. They proclaim a 6th Century theologian for their "modus oporendi" rather than the Bible. Use tradition, but stop "worshipping it" or consider going back to Rome. We can use the liturgy without being legalistic and demanding a lock-step stormtrooper type approach.
Post a Comment