Anonymous said...
"Christ-centered worship that highlights Word and Sacraments and rightly presents Law and Gospel in a liturgical or non-liturgical worship format is truly Lutheran; both are fine with me."This sounds great in theory, but it just doesn't work this way in real life. The liturgy was specifically designed to do exactly what you said--be Christ-centered, highlighting Word and Sacrament, Law and Gospel. The church has found this to be true over the course of 2 millennia.Non-liturgical (contemporary) worship was designed by those who wanted worship to be man-centered, who didn't value Word and Sacrament or Law and Gospel, and who were arrogant enough to throw away 2 millennia of church history in favor of its own trends.Thus, if you want to be Lutheran, if you want to be Christ-centered, valuing Word and Sacrament, Law and Gospel, you must follow the liturgy. Not because this is a Scriptural law, but because there is no other option out there which does the same thing.
August 9, 2008 11:04 AM
87 comments:
I think many feel most worship is Christ-centered if the name of Christ is mentioned. But I think there's a difference between singing about Christ crucified and singing he's worthy of my praise. That's what I like best about Lutheranism, being unapologetic in its focus on the message of justification - over and over again. That is the Gospel. It's what I need to hear every week for the comfort of my soul. I'm grateful those who crafted the historic liturgy knew that. It never gets boring to me.
Rob
Rob,
Well said. Many supporters of contemporary worship appeal to the Psalms, claiming that they are just like modern praise songs.
But if they actually would read the Psalms, they would notice that the Psalms praise the Lord because of what he has done for hie people (e.g. bringing them up out of Egypt, giving them victory in battle, showing his mercy to them, etc.) Thus, the Psalms praise God by proclaiming his saving activity.
Modern praise songs used in contemporary worship do not follow this pattern. They talk about praising God simply because he's generically great or because of how it makes us feel.
This is the difference between liturgical and contemporary worship. Liturgical worship praises God by proclaiming what he has done for us. Contemporary worship praises God by focusing on what we are doing for him and how it makes us feel.
Saying that both are good because both praise God is simply incorrect.
"Thus, if you want to be Lutheran, if you want to be Christ-centered, valuing Word and Sacrament, Law and Gospel, you must follow the liturgy. Not because this is a Scriptural law, but because there is no other option out there which does the same thing."
If it is not a Scriptural law, then what backs up your claim it is a "must"?
Below is a link to St. Mark De Pere's website outlining their service. I have been there many times and come away appreciating the Christ-centered preaching and lyrics. Here is an evidence of a non-liturgical service done well. Here is an option that you say doesn't exist. Be careful of generalizations.
stmarkpartners.org/downloads/Worship.pdf
WELS58
Let's see the use of the "arrogant" label used to describe those with whom you disagree and the use of "must" with admittedly no Scriptural basis; liturgical legalism rears its ugly head once again on BW.
"If it is not a Scriptural law, then what backs up your claim it is a "must"?"
Did you even read what I wrote? It's a must because, as I already explained, there are no other options for Christ-centered, Word and Sacrament focused worship. Thus, if there are no other options for Lutheran worship, you must use the liturgy if you want to have Lutheran worship.
"Below is a link to St. Mark De Pere's website outlining their service. I have been there many times and come away appreciating the Christ-centered preaching and lyrics."
Umm, the pastor there has been proven to steal sermons word for word from Baptist websites. I wouldn't exactly call that good Lutheran preaching.
Besides, St. Mark De Pere uses the standard contemporary worship format. This means, by default, that the focus is meant to be on the emotional response of the worshiper, not on proclamation of the gospel. That's what contemporary worship was designed to do; that's what it does, no matter where you use it.
"Let's see the use of the "arrogant" label used to describe those with whom you disagree and the use of "must" with admittedly no Scriptural basis; liturgical legalism rears its ugly head once again on BW."
Umm, if someone throws out the wisdom of 2000 years of Christian history and experience, in favor of something trendy that they just thought up, what else would you call them except arrogant? If someone thinks they that they know how to worship better than Christ, the apostles, Augustine, and Luther, what else would you call them except arrogant? Arrogant is as arrogant does.
And, once again, regarding the "must", go back and reread what I said. Let me give you an example of what I'm saying. Let's say you're on a desert island. The only thing you have to drink is water. In that case, if you want to stay hydrated, you MUST drink water. It's the only choice. It's not a law, no one will force you to drink it, but it's still a must.
If there's only one option for Christ-centered worship, then you must do that, not by law, but simply by necessity.
Here are some gems from the supposedly Lutheran St. Mark De Pere:
"Opening Praise Songs (2)"
Do you know why there are 2 praise songs? I do. Contemporary worship gurus have determined that at least 2 songs are needed at the beginning of worship to get people into the right "emotional mindset" to make their decision for Christ during the service. Gotta love it. Mental manipulation and decision theology!
"Gathering around the Word
Scripture readings
Mission Statement
Praise song/hymn"
Mission statement? What?!? Gathering around the Word means reading a mission statement? Ugh. is this a worship service or a business meeting?
"Gathering for Thanksgiving
Offering
Prayers
Praise Song
Q & A period or The Supper"
Q & A period OR the Supper?!? My first question would be, "Why can't we have the Supper?"
"Contemporary Service
among Evangelicals"
Huh? They're blatantly telling us that this is an Evangelical service, not a Lutheran service? Wow. Just wow.
"based on the services
of the American
Tent Revivals
1820-30s AD"
Shocking. Just shocking. A "Lutheran" church basing its worship on the American Tent Revivals? You have got to be kidding me. The tent revivals were hotbeds of every single false doctrine that plagues American Christianity today. Every single element of these services were meant to manipulate emotions. The focus was exclusively on man, not on Christ.
This is supposed to be a good example of good Lutheran worship without using the liturgy? Are you serious? This is a good example of what happens when you don't use the liturgy.
Anon 12:26 pm,
"This is the difference between liturgical and contemporary worship. Liturgical worship praises God by proclaiming what he has done for us. Contemporary worship praises God by focusing on what we are doing for him and how it makes us feel.
Saying that both are good because both praise God is simply incorrect."
That last statement is simply arrogant, legalistic falsehood!
You clearly have no experience in anything other than traditional worship. Yes, there is a difference between traditional and liturgical. Many of the WELS churches that choose to use a contemporary format do what you say can't be done. Your statement is simply at best personal preference or at worst, judgementalism. Your statement is certainly not fact as you have errantly written.
Those congregations that use a contemporary format (like ours) work very hard to find contemporary songs that not only praise God but remind the worshippers why we praise him. Such praise songs do exist. Your statement indicates you may have not researched the subject. If you would like examples, I'd be happy to provide them.
WELS58
WELS58,
If your examples of good contemporary praise songs are anything like your example of supposedly Lutheran worship at St. Mark, bring it on. I'd love to see them.
we shouldn't even be having this discussion in the wels. either you like our historical, traditional, liturgical WORSHIP SERVICE, or you either join a reformed church, another lutheran synod who does allow this celebration form of worship program, or start your own church and make it any way you'd like. please leave our church the way luther and the founding lutheran fathers intended. if you don't like it... leave it!! our church made a huge mistake when they let the proverbial camel's nose slip under the tent a few decades back. now that the camel is inside, who is going to shoot it???
"We're not gonna take it!"
Twisted Sister
Seems to me that if you honestly compare St. Mark's traditional service (CW) to its contemporary service there is not much difference in its format other than an extra song and mission statement. Their listing of an Evangelical format is there to show the difference between the two (I called them and asked rather than slander them). St. Mark's contemporary service has confession/absolution and Scripture readings, sermon, Lord's Prayer, Creed, Supper (every weekend at one of the sites) and benediction. I have not found those elements in an any Evangelical service but did notice them in Christian Worship!
It seems to be there are some who are equating liturgical to biblical. There simply are no biblically commanded worship formats. In fact, anybody who knows his Bible knows there are very few prescriptive passages concerning worship and those that exist say nothing about format but do talk of focus. To insist that there is only one format (with no biblical basis) that can be Christ-centered is not only arrogant but ignorant. Anybody who intimates that is or suggests people who like a "contemporary" format need to be "shot" are sinning. Twisted Sister, since when did the WELS decided to jettison Christian freedom?
"To insist that there is only one format (with no biblical basis) that can be Christ-centered is not only arrogant but ignorant."
This is a complete strawman. Stop, go back, reread. No one said there CAN be only one Christ-centered worship form. I said that there currently only IS one Christ-centered worship form.
No matter how you spin it, contemporary worship, at its core, has man as its focus. That's what it was designed to do. That's what it does. Can you twist it to sorta do something it wasn't meant to do (i.e. focus on Christ)? Maybe, but why would you want to do that when we already have a worship form specifically designed to keep Christ at the center?
If your goal is to pound a nail into a board, could you kinda, sorta make a screwdriver work? Maybe. But why would you do that when you have a trusty hammer right there?
"Anybody who intimates that is or suggests people who like a "contemporary" format need to be "shot" are sinning."
Umm, do you understand how analogies work? In Twisted Sister's analogy, the camel is analogous to contemporary worship, not individuals who support contemporary worship. Thus, Twisted Sister intimated that contemporary worship should be shot, not people.
Those who accuse people of sin based on their own ignorance of common figures of speech are sinning.
Here's a list of people who worshiped using the liturgy:
Jesus Christ
The Apostles
The Early Church Fathers
St. Augustine, et. al.
Martin Luther
Here's a list of people who worshiped using contemporary worship:
Bill Hybels of Willow Creek (who has since admitted it was a mistake)
St. Mark, De Pere, WI
WELS58
Which of these groups do you think know more about what it means to be Christ-centered? How arrogant must one be to suppose that he or she can disregard and discard 2000 years worth of wisdom and experience in favor of one's own likes and dislikes? It's been said that the baby-boomer generation is the most self-centered generation in human history. This is true in the church too. They are the first generation that has ever been brazen enough to put its own tastes and trends above the tradition of the church. God save us.
(By the way, before anyone breathlessly write that Christ didn't use the liturgy read Luke 4 and then research the history of the liturgy. Thanks.)
Yes, Christ sat when he preached, used Scripture readings, and had a Q & A period; exactly what St. Mark does!
After seeing the contemporary format of St. Mark, it does not look like they have disregarded the liturgy. My pastor said when he was in seminary (80's) he was told being liturgical was confession/absolution, Scripture readings, sermon, creed, benediction and church year. With such a definition, St. Mark and others are liturgical. Who changed the definition?
Your insistence in having to use the Liturgy (with your own definition) and the labeling of "arrogant" for those who don't indicates someone is "wrong". There is simply no prescriptive passage for worship format; just many descriptive such as Luke 4 and the Psalms.
If what St. Mark and others are using is wrong or unbiblical or not Lutheran, they would be under discipline. On the contrary, I know that the past Synod president, synod officials, professors, and district president have all attended and had very positive comments. BTW, for the Issues people the new president hasn't contacted St. Mark and declared them in error . . . and I don't believe he will because he has no biblical cause.
You don't have a biblical leg to stand on.
"Yes, Christ sat when he preached, used Scripture readings, and had a Q & A period; exactly what St. Mark does!"
You need to study the ancient synagogue service and how early Christians based their worship upon it. Your simplistic summary of it demonstrates that you lack understanding of these things.
"My pastor said when he was in seminary (80's) he was told being liturgical was confession/absolution, Scripture readings, sermon, creed, benediction and church year. With such a definition, St. Mark and others are liturgical. Who changed the definition?"
The seminary, until fairly recently had a very weak worship curriculum (due to the lasting influence of pietism on the WELS). What your pastor was told is simplistic and incomplete. The definition of "liturgical" hasn't changed; the WELS has simply come to understand what the real definition actually is. Besides, St. Mark does not follow the church year in its contemporary services. I was going to prove that to you by listing the recent sermon texts, but sermons are no longer available at their website. (Do you think it might be because the pastor was caught plagiarizing Baptist sermons? I do.)
"Your insistence in having to use the Liturgy (with your own definition) and the labeling of "arrogant" for those who don't indicates someone is "wrong". There is simply no prescriptive passage for worship format; just many descriptive such as Luke 4 and the Psalms."
I'm seriously banging my head against the wall right now. Listen to me very carefully. I never, ever said there was a prescriptive passage of Scripture saying we have to be liturgical. I never, ever said that the liturgy is a law. Before you respond to this, go back and reread everything that's been said. You are taking this argument in circles.
"If what St. Mark and others are using is wrong or unbiblical or not Lutheran, they would be under discipline."
If the District President of that district had the courage to stand up for the Lutheran church, they would be under discipline.
"On the contrary, I know that the past Synod president...attended and had very positive comments."
Umm, if Gurgel went and liked it, then there must be something wrong. He was a church growth guy to the core.
By the way, I'm still waiting for an example of contemporary music that proclaims Christ as well as Lutheran hymnody does. What's the delay? Or can't you find a contemporary praise song that doesn't start every line with the word "I"?
"Their listing of an Evangelical format is there to show the difference between the two (I called them and asked rather than slander them)."
Who slandered them? I merely quoted what the website says--that the service is based on American tent revivals. How can you claim that this service is basically liturgical when they themselves admit its not based on the liturgy but on the most anti-liturgical services in history.
And by the way, if their services are based on tent revivals, I'm assuming that they do faith healings, speak in tongues, and have a time for people to make their decision for Christ. Those things were all essential parts of tent revivals. How in the world can you claim to be Lutheran if your worship is modeled after such things? Do you really think you can find much of value in a worship form based on such theology?
Anonymous at 4:41 pm, August 9 --
Checking out the St. Mark website, I think that the fourth column of their worship descriptions wasn't saying that they were having a "worship service among the evangelicals" at St. Mark, but rather, it was showing the difference between the contemporary worship at St. Mark and the contempory worship at most evangelical services.
It notes that most evangelicals sing songs, have an offering, do a sermon, and sing some more songs, while at St. Mark they continue to make use of confession/absolution (Gathering for forgiveness), the reading of the Word (Gathering around the Word), the Sacrament, and closing benediction.
That could be made more clear on their chart, and could be confirmed by contacting St. Mark. It is also the most charitable reading of the chart.
Yes, who was it that changed the definition of liturgy? I have searched the web and found a number of different definitions. It seems to have changed through the years with only a handful of elements the same. The ancient songs aren't even present in the two most used formats in CW.
I think much of this is the definition of liturgical and then people's insistence on following theirs.
Searching & wondering
Searching & wondering,
I agree that people in the WELS have not always understood very well what exactly the liturgy is. As others have said before, this is the result of pietism, which still influences the synod to this day. But this lack of understanding is not an excuse to say, "Well, no one agrees, so we can just throw the liturgy out the window." It's a reason to continue studying and learning about the rich treasury that our Christian fathers have left us in the liturgy.
According to St. Mark's worship chart contemporary worship actually started in 150 AD and the traditional liturgical service only dates back to 600 AD.
After all these years we finally see that Martin Luther had the wrong information...
So those using liturgical service should be under church discipline??
Here again St. Mark's didn't cite the source for the information presented. Reminds of the great plagerized sermon issue at St. Marks.
John,
You're right. Either they are incredibly ignorant or incredibly deceptive. Liturgical worship has its roots in the synagogue service which dates back before the time of Christ. Contemporary worship (as the name itself implies) dates back to the 1960s or so.
I hope that it was just ignorance and not deception.
By the way, I'm still waiting for one (just one) example of a contemporary praise song that matches or exceeds traditional Lutheran hymnody in Christological content.
Is it true that WELS has recently made changes at seminary to pursue the use of a more historic, Lutheran liturgy? That would be divine. I have seriously feared WELS will follow in the tradition of many LCMS with the CG stuff. If they see the current CW as inadequate due to its pietistic roots, what's in the works to correct it? I've heard about some supplements to the hymnal, but are these intent on recapturing historic Lutheranism? I recall seeing one of the pre-cursor videos to the conference talking about blending worship (new with old) and assumed this was the direction of WELS. Sounded CG. But some of these comments indicate maybe there is a change in the other direction?
Hopeful of that.
Rob
Here are a few examples of Christ-centered praise songs:
Grace:
Lord, I’m grateful
Amazed at what You’ve done
My finest efforts are filthy rags
But I’m made righteous
By trusting in the Son
I have God’s riches
At Christ’s expense
‘Cause it’s grace!
There’s nothing I can do
To make You love me more
To make You love me less
than You do
And by faith I’m standing on this stone Of Christ and Christ alone
Your righteousness is all that I need ‘Cause it’s grace
Called and chosen
When I was far away
You brought me into Your family
Free, forgiven
My guilt is washed away
Your loving kindness is life to me
‘Cause it’s grace!
There’s nothing I can do
To make You love me more
To make You love me less
than You do
And by faith I’m standing on this stone Of Christ and Christ alone
Your righteousness is all that I need ‘Cause it’s grace
Grace loves the sinner
Loves all I am and all I’ll ever be
Makes me a winner
Whatever lies the devil throws at me
Freely given
But bought with priceless blood
My life was ransomed at Calvary
There my Jesus
Gave ev’rything He could
That I might live for eternity
In Christ Alone:
Christ alone my hope is found
He is my light, my strength, my song
This cornerstone, this solid ground
Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love
What depths of peace
When fears are stilled
When striving cease
My Comforter, my all in all
Here in the love of Christ I stand
In Christ alone, who took on flesh
Fullness of God in helpless Babe
This gift of love and righteousness
Scorned by the ones
He came to save
‘Til on that cross as Jesus died
The wrath of God was satisfied
For ev’ry sin on Him was laid
Here in the death of Christ I live
There in the ground His body lay
Light of the world
by darkness slain
Then, bursting forth in glorious day
Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory
Sin’s curse has lost its grip on me
For I am His and He is mine
Bought with the precious blood
of Christ
No guilt in life, no fear in death
This is the pow’r of Christ in me
From life’s first cry to final breath
Jesus commands my destiny
No pow’r of hell
No scheme of man
Can ever pluck me from His hand
‘Til He returns or calls me home
Here in the pow’r of Christ I stand
‘Til He returns or calls me home
Here in the pow’r of Christ I stand
In Christ alone…In Christ alone
"Grace loves the sinner
Loves all I am and all I’ll ever be"
Yikes. So much bad theology in just a couple of lines.
First of all, it denies forensic justification, the hallmark of Lutheranism itself. God does not love all we are. We are sinners. That would mean that God loves sin. That's heresy. Rather, by grace, God credits Christ's righteousness to us. Thus, he loves us because of who Christ is, not because of who we are.
Second, God does not love all we'll ever be. This turns the Gospel into a license to sin. It is improper to say that God will forgive the sins we will commit in the future. Scripture never speaks this way. Scripture tells us the sins we have committed have been forgiven, and then encourages us very bluntly to go and sin no more.
As for the second song quoted, I wouldn't exactly consider that a contemporary praise song. It's really a modern hymn. There are many very, very fine modern hymns being written right now. But let's not confuse modern hymns with contemporary praise songs. Those are two very different things.
Still waiting for a good contemporary praise song.
I think it would be helpful if there could be a nice statement or chart that broke worship down. You need a bailingwater Confession that defines your terms and criteria.
For instance what criteria determine if something is CG. What is the norm that is the undisputed litmus test that allows judgements to be made. Do all songs and hymns have to have every doctrinal element in them or can they be a good hymn/song if they only focus on a particular doctrine? Is praise forbidden in worship? If it is allowed..what elements have to be present to allow fitting praise? What are teh acceptable liturgies to be considered worship worthy?
There are numerous churches in the WELS that call a service a contemporary service but they do it by putting contemporary settings on old hymns within a liturgy. They may project the hymnal liturgies and lyrics on the wall, the pastor may add a prop or picture to his sermon. Has that turned CG? If it did, what pushed it over the line? So if the only change to your service was that a band played the hymns with contemporary instrumentation is this CG? does having a band automatically disqualify you from being liturgical. Is there an approved instrument list?
My point is there are so many different implementations of historical worship that nearly each situation needs to be evaluated seperately. Its a shame to see such generalizations and labeling occuring. I mean we know that we can even argue over one line in one verse but must we throw out the baby with the bathwater everytime?
It seems as if the term "CG" is bantered about so freely but really shouldn't there be a CG "Scale", a nice 1-100 index that rates a service as to its trueness to the goal of Christ Centered worship. But then of course what one person thinks is Christ Centered another might not. I'm pretty sure you could never find any agreement out there anyway.
I think it might do well to clarify these points. I'm not sure everyone can tell you the difference between a contemporary praise song and a contemporary hymn. If we go about labeling contemporary as CG without our disclaimers and sid quo pros, it lacks credibility.
Carl
Carl,
You seem to have the attitude that since there is no exact definition of church growth or contemporary music that we shouldn't even worry about them and that everyone should do whatever they want.
Sadly, your argument is the exact argument that people use to justify false doctrine. They say, "Well, who's to say what false doctrine really is? Different people might have different interpretations. If we came up with a scale of false doctrines, here are the really bad ones, here are the not so bad ones."
Church growth theology and contemporary praise music are serious and destructive forces in the Church today. Watch out that you don't take them so lightly.
Here are some brief answers to a few of your questions...
"For instance what criteria determine if something is CG?"
Church growth, in summary, is the belief that churches or church leaders can effect certain measurable results within the church by changing or hiding things in or adding things to the Word. It is a lack of trust in the Holy Spirit to work through his Word when and where he wishes. If anything fits this criterion, it is CG.
"Do all songs and hymns have to have every doctrinal element in them or can they be a good hymn/song if they only focus on a particular doctrine?"
This is such a strawman I can't stand it. Of course all hymns don't have to cover every single piece of doctrine. NO ONE EVER SAID THAT! Hymns that proclaim just one doctrine WELL are wonderful. Unfortunately contemporary praise songs don't proclaim ANY doctrine.
"Is praise forbidden in worship?"
Of course not! Once again, an ugly strawman. NO ONE EVER SAID THAT! Praise is immensely important in all worship. But, you can not praise God without proclaiming what God has done for us. Read the Psalms for hundreds of examples of this. Praise that doesn't proclaim God's wonderful work of salvation is no praise at all. Praise that focuses on my work of praise is no praise at all.
"If it is allowed..what elements have to be present to allow fitting praise?"
See above. Praise must include proclamation.
"What are teh acceptable liturgies to be considered worship worthy?"
This statement demonstrates your lack of understanding of what the liturgy is. There are no such thing as "liturgies". There is one historic liturgy. Other worship formats might be liturgical in structure, but they aren't the liturgy. There are plenty of resources out there which explain this in detail. Do some research.
"They may project the hymnal liturgies and lyrics on the wall, the pastor may add a prop or picture to his sermon. Has that turned CG?"
Maybe, maybe not. It all depends on why they do these things. Do they do these things because they really and truly believe that such things draw attention to Christ, or do they do these things because they want to seem hip and attract big crowds? Sadly, in most cases its the latter.
"So if the only change to your service was that a band played the hymns with contemporary instrumentation is this CG?"
In contemporary worship the praise band in placed front and center. In all of the contemporary services I've seen, the band completely obscured the altar (just as the PowerPoint screens obscured the cross). Does this draw attention to Christ? I can't see how. Having a praise band up front, rocking away, draws attention to the band, not to Christ. So, yes, it is CG.
"Unfortunately contemporary praise songs don't proclaim ANY doctrine."
Really, what about the above quote:
Freely given
But bought with priceless blood
My life was ransomed at Calvary
There my Jesus
Gave ev’rything He could
That I might live for eternity
Looks like doctrinal content here!
There's clear proof that you are blinded by your own personal preferences. How else can you explain your comment.
Just shout'in
what do non CG churches do to spread the gospel? (yes i'll give u "preach the gospel in word and sacrament" as a freebie) I'm not asking the what, I'm asking the how, to whom, in what way questions.
If a church "does" something to spread the word or evangelize it would seem to automatically make it subverting the Holy Spirit. Is the argument against church growth an argument against mission work?
So what can a church do to evangelize that isn't trying to grow the church. I try to make my church grow. last i knew the holy spirit hasnt talked to many of my co-workers. I know i cant work faith in someone's heart and neither can they, but I know the holy spirit wont either if we dont share the gospel.
Then it would seem my church should do as many things as possible to create opportunities to tell people. based on the definition above as long as there is no error in motives or doctrine that a church should run as many programs as possible to put christians in front of unbelievers to share the good news.
I see that we should all be supporters of church growth. Not of churches/leaders that do it in error or for wrong motives, but we should support of the concept. Isn't that what Christ asked us to do?
I think the previous post sums it up well: Does it focus on Christ crucified for our sins or something else? Where is your attention drawn? Are changes being made to make people feel more comfortable or make it all more attractive? Does the Holy Spirit need a bit of extra help with today's generations?
Rob
Post by anonymous at 6:50 was the one to which I was referring.
As to the post at 8:23, what does that mean to "do as many things as possible to create opportunities to tell people"?
I don't think opponents of CG tactics are opposed to those called to the mission field. I think the discussion here is about changing the worship service. What is the role of the church? Only to look for inventive ways to attract new members at the expense of feeding the existing flock?
Rob
Just shoutin'
Read what's been written. I already demonstrated that the song you quoted denied the doctrine of justification, the central doctrine of Scripture. How then can you claim that the song is doctrinally strong?
Anonymous at 8:23,
Everything you said only proves the dangerous heresy that is church growth. Let's take your statements one by one, shall we?
"what do non CG churches do to spread the gospel? (yes i'll give u "preach the gospel in word and sacrament" as a freebie)"
Excuse me? Are you implying that preaching the gospel isn't enough? Are you implying there's something else? Your obvious disdain for Word and Sacrament clearly demonstrate that you are not a Lutheran.
"If a church "does" something to spread the word or evangelize it would seem to automatically make it subverting the Holy Spirit. Is the argument against church growth an argument against mission work?"
If a church proclaims the gospel, it IS doing mission work. What you're talking about is doing other things besides proclaiming the gospel to make the church grow. That is what is "subverting the Holy Spirit". When you believe that something you do (other than proclaiming the gospel) has a role in growing the church, you are denying the power of the Holy Spirit.
"I try to make my church grow."
Only God himself has the power to make the church grow. Do you consider yourself God?
"I see that we should all be supporters of church growth....Isn't that what Christ asked us to do?"
Well, at least you admit that you are a supporter of the church growth movement. But no, Christ never once asked us to make the church grow. I dare you to find that passage in Scripture. Christ has asked us to proclaim the gospel, and leave the growth completely to him.
Go and study Mark 4:26-29 and repent of your heresies.
"Does the Holy Spirit need a bit of extra help with today's generations?"
This is the exact question at the heart of the CG heresy. CG says this, "You know, for two thousand years the Holy Spirit has been able to grow the church around the world, for two thousand years the Word and Sacraments have had the power to create faith in the hearts of people in all cultures, but, you know, they don't really work with today's generation. We can't really trust them anymore. We need something stronger than the Word. We need to do it ourselves. We need to insert our own wisdom and trends. We need to make the Word a little more comfortable and palatable. We need to hide the Word behind programs and personalities."
That's what CG is all about. It is heresy, and it has also proven to be a failure. Bill Hybels of Willow Creek, the guru of CG himself, recently admitted it has been a failure. Statistics prove that CG has actually caused the church to shrink.
Why are people in the WELS still clinging to and advocating such a miserable heresy and failure?
"If a church proclaims the gospel, it IS doing mission work. What you're talking about is doing other things besides proclaiming the gospel to make the church grow."
What I was actually talking about is doing things that proclaim the gospel. Who here is arguing for using tricks and gags to get people into church or watering down doctrine. No kidding these things don't work. Even those who support contemporary know that Saddleback and the favorite whipping boy here, Willow Creek (which ironically i had never heard of until coming to this site) have the largest backdoor losses of any church.
Does anyone read over things here and see how many times someone says that preaching the gospel in word and sacraments is the only way. Who denies that here? You're preaching to the choir. Nobody here disputes that. What people dispute is the HOW not the WHAT.
So again I'll ask What programs THAT DO PROCLAIM THE GOSPEL can a church run that are considered to NOT subvert the Holy Spirit's work? Again no one here denies that the growth of faith and the church is all God (unless there are some reformed hanging out..and really why would they hang here?). No human works faith or grows the church but Humans do proclaim the gospel and proclaiming the gospel will make the church grow.
So what are some acceptable God-pleasing ways for churches/humans to proclaim the gospel to the NON-believers? Can we go on TV? Noooo others who do err are on TV so we shouldn't try that. Should we do contemporary songs that are christ centered..write our own (Chad Walta) or what ever it takes to winnow out the bad ones. Noo CG churches have done contemporary so it couldnt be done in a christ centered way. Can we run community programs and use them to proclaim the gospel? Nooo CG churches run programs and it becomes about the program and not about the Gospel.
You do realize there are many people out there working to faithfully proclaim the gospel in the various ways that have been labelled CG here but trying to faithfully do it in doctrinally sound way and avoid the errors of "CG" as you have described it?
My impression of those who seem to disdain any new way to proclaim the gospel is that u sit on your liturgical hands, say that only the Holy Spirit can create faith, humans have no part in that so I don't even have to do outreach because its the Holy Spirit's job. It probably is comforting that all you have to do is run regular liturgically certified services with communion each week and your church's work in the kingdom is complete. Then you can say that "at least we didn't sell out to CG" and make yourself feel better as your numbers dwindle. Probably because you decided that having a program that proclaimed the gospel would subvert the Holy Spirit. There is no trust that we in the WELS can actually separate the bad from the good and actually spread the gospel in modern ways without watering down or detracting from the true Word.
The problem is not in WELS churches who are doing things that CG churches have tried. The failure of CG is not so much about the details of their programs and methods..all of which we can study and learn from. The problem with CG is the lack of the foundation of the Word and sacraments. A bad foundation creates flawed motives, flawed missions, flawed doctrine and flawed christianity. CG's house was built on sand. However any method you want to pick, contemporary music done well, alternative service types, outreach programs, etc... done always with a firm foundation in the Word and sacraments will proclaim the Gospel in the way it was intended.
"Can we go on TV? Noooo others who do err are on TV so we shouldn't try that."
Sure, but all of those who have done it (i.e. Jeske) water down their doctrine to make it work. Not to mention Jeske's money guys who travel the country begging for hundreds of thousands of dollars so they can but air time, allowing Jeske to preach his watered down doctrine in more places.
"Should we do contemporary songs that are christ centered"
No such thing. Contemporary praise songs, by definition, are not Christ-centered, they are man centered. The inability to quote even one solid song here proves this. (By the way, was not capitalizing the name of Christ a typo, or is your theology slipping through?)
"Can we run community programs and use them to proclaim the gospel?"
Community programs do not proclaim the gospel. Feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless are good, but they do not proclaim the gospel. They proclaim the social gospel, which is a damnable heresy.
"You do realize there are many people out there working to faithfully proclaim the gospel...and avoid the errors of "CG" as you have described it?"
Umm, if they're so worried about the errors of CG, why do they spend all of their time and effort trying to do things exactly as the CGers do them?
"My impression of those who seem to disdain any new way to proclaim the gospel is that u sit on your liturgical hands, say that only the Holy Spirit can create faith, humans have no part in that so I don't even have to do outreach because its the Holy Spirit's job."
Who said liturgical churches don't do outreach? The fastest growing churches in our synod (I won't name names) are solidly liturgical and do a whole lot more outreach than you've ever done. This is slander and judgmentalism of the worst kind. (By the way, having a praise band and PowerPoint screens isn't evangelism. The gospel needs to be present for that.)
Gotta go. More later.
"Who said liturgical churches don't do outreach? The fastest growing churches in our synod (I won't name names) are solidly liturgical and do a whole lot more outreach than you've ever done."
From Parish Services 2008:
Congregations with the largest growth in worship attendance (15+ per year for 10 years):
1. St. Mark, DePere, WI (386)
2. Bloomington, Bloomington, MN (245)
3. St. Marcus, Milwaukee, WI (234)
4. Messiah, Green Bay, WI (233)
5. Christ, Pewaukee, WI (222)
6. St. Luke, Watertown, WI (195)
7. St. Thomas/Santo Tomas, Phoenix, AZ (184)
8. Grace, Milwaukee, WI (174)
9. Divine Savior, Doral, FL (166)
10. Beautiful Savior, Clarksville, TN (166)
11. Cross of Christ, Boise, ID (164)
12. Redeemer, Tucson, AZ (156)
13. Wisconsin Lutheran Chapel, Madison, WI (152)
The first four offer contemporary services, others may as well.
The lack of research about what's available for "contemporary" worship music and the CG boogyman hysteria is sad. I really don't believe anyone here is trying to advance the Kingdom by any other means and power that God has given us. And yes, Jesus does use us as his mouth pieces or ambassadors to share his message, empowered by his Spirit. We cannot grow His Church but we can increase the number of people who reach with His Means in the church and community. The reaching is our mission; the conversion is his work. Seeking avenues by which you can reach more people with the means of grace is not CG; it is seeking the lost in Christ's name.
Just as every hymn may not be suitable for worship, so it is with contemporary songs. Here is just three "contemporary" songs that are very suitable for worship in any format (although I'm sure someone will claim they found some error).
In The Cross Alone I Glory by Brian Petak 2005 worshiptogether.com songs, admin. by EMI CMG Pub.
In the cross alone I glory recognition laying down; Greatest treasures count as worthless
Standing next to heaven’s crowns.
Standing next to heaven’s crowns
In the cross alone I glory ever reaching for the prize;
Pressing on and laying hold of
That for which my Savior died.
That for which my Savior died
In the cross alone I glory nothing of my own to give;
Only that which Christ has offered
For my soul that I may live;
For my soul that I may live
Never will I seek the glory that was never meant for me;
Always heavenward reflecting
All for Jesus to receive.
All for Jesus to receive
Only Your Mercy by Scott Wesley Brown 1997 ThreeFold Amen Music
Only Your mercy - Only Your grace
Only Your Spirit brings us to faith
O what a wonder that You chose us first
Not by our merit but Your perfect work
Only Your goodness - Only Your love
Only Your pardon poured out in blood
Your righteousness exchanged for our sin
O what a Savior - O what a Friend
Chorus:
Jesus we long to worship You
And give You all glory and praise
All that You are
All that You have
We have received by faith
Search Me Know Me by Mildred Rainey & Kathryn Scott 2003 Vertical Worship Songs
Create in me a heart that’s clean
Conquer the power of secret shame
Come wash away the guilty stain of all my sin
Clothe me in robes of righteousness
Cover my nakedness with grace
All of my life before You now I humbly bring
All of my life before You now I humbly bring
More later . . . .
"It probably is comforting that all you have to do is run regular liturgically certified services with communion each week and your church's work in the kingdom is complete."
All we HAVE to do? Why is it that CG guys always have an obsession with the law? Probably because CG itself is built on the law, not the gospel. Celebrating the liturgy and communion are not things we have to do. They are things we get to do, with great joy. You should try it someday. It beats the heck out of CG worship, in which you have to be hip, have to have a praise band, have to, have to, have to in order to force the church to grow.
"Then you can say that "at least we didn't sell out to CG" and make yourself feel better as your numbers dwindle."
Again, your presupposition is false and slanderous. As I noted above, the fastest growing churches are liturgical. CG-wanna-be churches are the ones that are dwindling or will dwindle as soon as trends change.
"The problem with CG is the lack of the foundation of the Word and sacraments. A bad foundation creates flawed motives, flawed missions, flawed doctrine and flawed christianity."
EXACTLY!!! If CG is flawed to the foundation, then why in the world would you want to adopt it?!? If you recognize that CG's flawed foundation results in flawed motives, missions, and doctrine, why are you supporting it?!? You should read your own words. They argue against you better than I ever could.
"ny method you want to pick, contemporary music done well, alternative service types, outreach programs, etc... done always with a firm foundation in the Word and sacraments will proclaim the Gospel in the way it was intended."
Why in the world would you take a rickety tin shack which was designed by shoddy architects and thrown up quickly and which doesn't even match the foundation and place in onto a good foundation? What's the use of that? Wouldn't it be better to place onto that foundation a beautifully lavish mansion which was designed by the greatest architects of history and constructed by the finest workmen in the world, which perfectly suits the foundation? (PS, I'm talking about the liturgy.)
Correction: Messiah Lutheran in Green Bay does not offer a contemporary service.
Sorry. My mistake. I was thinking of Beautiful Savior in Green Bay.
The first three in the previous list do.
Anon 4:40,
Just a suggestion:
People may take your words more seriously and the discussion no doubt will contain fewer sweeping statements (both sides) thus more constructive if you would share the definition of CG with which you are measuring the methods and motives of others.
Just shout'in
"From Parish Services 2008:
Congregations with the largest growth in worship attendance (15+ per year for 10 years)..."
Ah, statistics. You can make them say whatever you want them to say. Notice please that those statistics measure growth by number, not by percentage. Also note that the list only includes congregations that have been in existence for 10+ years. If you included all congregations and listed them by percentage growth, you'd see a truer picture.
By the way, using statistics in the first place is dangerous ground. They prove nothing in the church. If they did, men like Elijah and Jeremiah and Christ would all be considered failures. And Joel Osteen would be considered the greatest Christian preacher ever. Just because people are in the pews, it doesn't mean they're in the kingdom. And when all they hear is praise music, its hard to believe they know much about the kingdom anyways (besides that it's awesome and stuff).
And yet, CG people revel in statistics because all they care about is forcing external growth by any means.
"In the cross alone I glory recognition laying down; Greatest treasures count as worthless
Standing next to heaven’s crowns.
Standing next to heaven’s crowns
In the cross alone I glory ever reaching for the prize;
Pressing on and laying hold of
That for which my Savior died.
That for which my Savior died
In the cross alone I glory nothing of my own to give;
Only that which Christ has offered
For my soul that I may live;
For my soul that I may live
Never will I seek the glory that was never meant for me;
Always heavenward reflecting
All for Jesus to receive.
All for Jesus to receive"
Does anyone notice the dominant theme of this song? "I...I...I...I..." Sure, it mentions Christ a couple of times, but the focus is on my attitude toward Christ and what I do for Christ (I glory, I reach, I give, I seek), rather than what Christ has done for me.
"Chorus:
Jesus we long to worship You
And give You all glory and praise
All that You are
All that You have
We have received by faith"
Once again, where's the focus? WE long, WE worship, WE give..." Again, it mentions Christ, but again only in the context of how WE feel about him and react to him.
"Create in me a heart that’s clean
Conquer the power of secret shame
Come wash away the guilty stain of all my sin
Clothe me in robes of righteousness
Cover my nakedness with grace
All of my life before You now I humbly bring
All of my life before You now I humbly bring"
Two problems here, although both are more subtle. First, again, the focus is on ME. MY life...I bring..."
Second, the song doesn't proclaim what Christ has done, it invites Christ to come and do something. This isn't necessarily a problem if other songs proclaim what Christ has done (and thus why we can ask him to do these things) but with contempo music, that proclamation is hard to find. Shouldn't we let people know why we can ask Christ to wash our sins away, how Christ is able to clothe us with righteousness, etc...
Sorry three more strikes here. Are these songs all bad? No. Do they all contain false doctrine or faulty focus? Yup. Do they stand up to traditional Lutheran hymnody? Not even close.
hold on there..lets read a little more carefully.
you said, "No such thing. Contemporary praise songs, by definition, are not Christ-centered, they are man centered." However i said "contemporary songs that are christ centered" note the lack of the word "praise". You have a pretty narrow musical world if you think that contemporary = praise. I'm pretty sure I can find at least 50 CW hymns in a contemporary arrangement. I also can find plenty of contemporary hymns and original music that you can't call praise songs. Believe it or not there are churches that work hard to use these contemporary arrangements of solid hymns and new original work that is solid. Look at 3 songs I included at the bottom of the post.
You said "Community programs do not proclaim the gospel. Feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless are good, but they do not proclaim the gospel. They proclaim the social gospel, which is a damnable heresy."
again you must have a narrow view of what reaching out to the community is. I saw 55 unchurched/other-churched kids of 65 total kids come to a soccer bible camp recently. Each day they got 3 hours of soccer instruction with good lutheran role models and 30 minutes of devotion and singing. The bible lessons of David and Bathsheeba etc..were basic law gospel every day. Sunday there was 33% more people in church because of the camp and they all were unchurched/other-churched. This same thing has been repeated for the Easter for Kids program and the Christmas for Kids programs that are run in the City Library. Everytime we run the programs new unchurched members of the community join the adult instruction classes. We had a family fest for the community with children's games and a Chili Supper that brought 3 families into the church because some members sat down with them at dinner and started conversations about the gospel. There was a community concert with childrens games and 8 muslim teenagers came over and read every word of the story of creation and the flood on posters that were near the children's games. 200 people heard a devotion during the concert of some hardcore Law and Gospel.
See church programs can proclaim the gospel. An event is just an event but its the proclaiming the gospel at the event that has the power. After that soccer camp at the family cookout I noticed that Pastor could hardly keep up with all the people who wanted to talk to him about religion in general and the church. Although social welfare like programs are not necessarily bad and I'm sure charity work has its place but a church that does these things without proclaiming the Gospel while doing them does not know how to run a church program.
You Said... "Umm, if they're so worried about the errors of CG, why do they spend all of their time and effort trying to do things exactly as the CGers do them?"
The point is we do NOT try to do the exact things. We are active trying many things without sacraficing the Gospel to do them. I'm just trying to point out to people that before such broad strokes are painted to categorize "contemporary" or "church Programs" or what ever else gets your dander up as CG you might want to dabble in the details a bit more before you judge.
You said..."Who said liturgical churches don't do outreach? The fastest growing churches in our synod (I won't name names) are solidly liturgical and do a whole lot more outreach than you've ever done."
I have no doubts about this..I didn't say they don't do outreach. What I asked basically was...What are they doing? Roll out the list of examples. What works? What didn't? What outreach and evangelism "programs" are being used by these solid churches. How do they get the unchurched into bible classes? or even tougher, how do they get them into church? How do they reach into the community and proclaim the gospel? Do they use their LES or daycare or Teen Programs? How successful are they? I know liturgically sound churches can grow. Our church has sent 7 families in the last year to several of the surrounding churches after going through bible instruction because that type of worship was more their style. I'm basically fishing to find someone in the non-CG camp to say that "My non-CG church has a bunch of successful outreach progr...oops i mean outreach...activities that proclaim the gospel" Thats my point oft repeated...that a WELS contemporary church can do contemporary the right way and not be CG and that basically we are running the same "programs" as our liturgical friends but when done by a contemporary church are immediately branded CG.
I'd be careful making personal judgements about how much outreach has been done by me or anyone else. As an active member of one of the top 3 growing if not THE fastest growing WELS lutheran church in the synod and remarkably we do it without taking WELS people from other churches (or WELS money) and by staying focused on unbelievers and unchurched. Outreach and evangelism is all we do.
Here are the song lyrics I mentioned above. These are new songs taken directly from scripture.
ALL TO THE LIGHT Pastor Chad Walta
Arise, shine, for your light has come
And the glory of the Lord rises upon you.
See, darkness covers the earth,
thick darkness is over the people.
But the Lord rises upon you.
Then his glory appears over you.
CHORUS
Nations will come to your light
And kings to the brightness of your dawn.
Lift up your eyes and look about you,
All assembled and come to you, your sons from afar
And your daughters are carried on the arm.
No longer will violence be heard in your land,
No ruin or destruction within your borders.
The sun will no longer be your light by day
Nor the brightness of the moon shine on you.
But you will call your walls salvation,
And to your gates you’ll give the name praise.
CHORUS
Then you’ll look and be radiant,
Then your heart will throb and swell with joy,
Then your people will be righteous
And you’ll possess the land forever.
CHORUS
or this one....
GREAT LIGHT Pastor Chad Walta
The people walking in darkness have seen a great light.
To those who live in the shadow of death, a light has dawned.
As people rejoice at the harvest,
As men rejoice at dividing the spoils.
They rejoiced before you at the prince of peace.
The yoke that burdens them, the bar across their shoulders
He has shattered them as in the day of defeat.
CHORUS
To us a child is born, to us a son is given.
He will be mighty God, he will be prince of peace.
And the government will be on his shoulders
His rule will be no end
He will reign on David’s throne
With justice and righteousness.
To you who walk in the darkness, have no fear this night.
The zeal of the Lord has accomplished this in Christ the king.
The yoke that burdens you, the bar across your shoulders
He has shattered them as in the day of defeat.
CHORUS
or this one....
PIERCED Pastor Chad Walta (music & lyrics: C. Walta)
He was despised and rejected by men.
A man of sorrows and familiar with suffering.
He was despised and we esteemed him not.
Like one from whom men hide their faces.
Surely he took up our weakness,
And carried our sorrows upon himself.
Yet we considered him stricken by God,
Smitten by him and afflicted.
CHORUS
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities.
The punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
And by his wounds we are healed.
We all like sheep have gone astray.
Each of us has turned to his own way.
And the Lord has laid upon him
All the sins we are guilty of.
CHORUS
Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer.
And though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering,
He will see his offspring and prolong his days,
And the will of the Lord will prosper in his hands. / CHORUS
Notice in the praise songs cited in "Here is just three "contemporary" songs that are very suitable for worship in any format." How much of the focus is on "I" and what I'm doing or going to do?
"u sit on your liturgical hands, say that only the Holy Spirit can create faith, humans have no part in that so I don't even have to do outreach because its the Holy Spirit's job." Yes, I believe that's true. You nailed me. If the Holy Spirit chooses to use me in that, it's still not me doing it. So I will sit and serve in the vocation God has called me to do. I will attempt to love my neighbor. And I pray I will repent as often as I fail.
But for those called to office, say the pastor, is he doing nothing if he faithfully administers Word and Sacrament with use of a Lutheran liturgy? Is that really sitting on his hands because he is not looking for ways to be creative? Is feeding the flock who is there, doing nothing? See the emphasis for church growth? It's that man has to do something because God is incapable. Man has to.
My thoughts.
Rob
Messiah in Green Bay DOES have contemporary services. I personally know a person in their Praise Band.
Anon 5:42,
The two songs considered to contain "false doctrine or faulty focus" are based on the inspired words of David (the "me" focus) and Paul (the "I" focus) - direct quotes. Know your Bible. Let's call such a comment what it is folks, pharisaical legalism. Another stark example of personal preference overrunning biblical truth and trampling Christian freedom with the boot of "shouldn't we". You also assume that those who use a contemporary format in our fellowship do not express justification.
Since you are fond to the "shouldn't we" -- shouldn't we refrain from making manmade laws about "disputable matters"? (cf. Romans 14). That's not my opinion, that's Scripture.
"The two songs considered to contain "false doctrine or faulty focus" are based on the inspired words of David (the "me" focus) and Paul (the "I" focus) - direct quotes. Know your Bible."
Ahh, the usual argument of the contempo music lover: "These are just direct quotes from Scripture, so they have to be good, they are immune from criticism."
Wrong. Scripture always has a context. Those songs ripped the words from context, thus changing their meaning. Did David and Paul say such things? Sure. But only after lengthy proclamations of what the Lord had done for them. In the entire context of David and Paul's writings, Christ is the focus. But when you focus just on the "I" sections out of this Christ-focussed context, the focus of the words changes.
Here's what I'm talking about. Let's say my friend is having some problems. I want to comfort him with the Word. So I quote two passages to him: "Judas went and hanged himself." "Jesus said, 'Go and do likewise.'" The contempo music people would say I didn't do anything wrong because I simply quoted the words of Scripture. But I most certainly did do something wrong because I pulled these words out of context, thus changing their focus and application.
See the point? So, no, just because songs quote Scripture, it doesn't mean that they proclaim the truth of Scripture.
Maybe I'm not the one who needs to "know your Bible".
"Let's call such a comment what it is folks, pharisaical legalism."
Oh vey. Seriously, do people actually read previous posts before they comment? I have stated several times that Scripture does not contain any laws mandating how we need to worship to earn our salvation. If I claimed that, then I would be guilty of "pharisaical legalism". BUT I NEVER SAID THAT! I don't know how I can make that point any clearer. If you need such strawmen to defend contempo worship, you must not have much of a case. Legalism is an awfully serious charge, not one to be thrown around without even reading or knowing what I actually said. If you would like to know what I actually said, read the initial post and several subsequent posts.
"Another stark example of personal preference overrunning biblical truth"
Yup, another classic of contempo argumentation: "Worship is simply a matter of personal preference." Not true. The church has always said, "Lex orandi, lex credendi." The basic translation of that phrase is: "If you worship like the Evangelicals, you will become an Evangelical." The format we use influences what we believe. Contempo worship was designed to focus on man. If we use that format, we will inevitably, even if we try not to, focus on man.
"You also assume that those who use a contemporary format in our fellowship do not express justification."
Do you have any proof that contempos do express justification? The only proof we've had so far are songs that focus on "me" (and one that blatantly denied forensic justification) and a pastor who steals Baptist sermons. Based on that, how can you conclude anything other than the fact the contempo worship doesn't clearly proclaim justification?
"Shouldn't we refrain from making manmade laws about "disputable matters"?"
Since when is the clear proclamation of Christ a disputable matter?
Dude if you set up any more "contempo" straw men to hack to pieces there won't be enough room to draw your sword.
You really are doing a great job in your own mind though. It is funny to watch you spit and sputter with the same generalized, arrogant attacks on positions that people don't hold and then cry- BUT I DIDN'T SAY THAT.
Keep up the good work and stay classy
"Dude if you set up any more "contempo" straw men to hack to pieces there won't be enough room to draw your sword."
I noticed that you didn't give even a single example of a strawman I've set up.
"It is funny to watch you spit and sputter with the same generalized, arrogant attacks on positions that people don't hold and then cry- BUT I DIDN'T SAY THAT."
First, I can guarantee that I have typed all of my posts without even a hint of expectorating.
Second, I noticed that you didn't give even a single example of my generalized or arrogant attacks. In fact, I've quoted specific websites and songs and posts. How is that generalized?
Third, when people accuse me of saying things I never said, of course I will "cry" that I didn't say those things. Do you expect me to admit saying things I never said or what?
Look, if you want to argue with me then quote specific points I've made and demonstrate with facts how I'm wrong. It's that simple.
"The contempo music people would say I didn't do anything wrong because I simply quoted the words of Scripture. But I most certainly did do something wrong because I pulled these words out of context, thus changing their focus and application."
Dear child the above is the example of hacking apart a straw man. Arrogantly attacking a position that NO ONE HOLDS. NO ONE HERE WOULD TELL YOU THAT YOU CAN DIVORCE SCRIPTURE FROM ITS CONTEXT.
I despise CCM, I have no use for Contemporary worship, I encourage Pastors and congregations to study the history of the Western Rite and understand (value, use, and love)the liturgy.
What I also despise is someone who does me no favors in teaching these truths because they are so arrogant and unloving with what they write that people shut their ears to anyone who says, "I believe 'contemporary' worship wrong in its focus and confusing it its ability to teach the truth".
But like I said. Keep up the spitting and sputtering. Maybe it will just become obvious that there is a difference between those who seek to speak the truth in love and those who resound like a gong.
Stay Classy
"Dear child the above is the example of hacking apart a straw man. Arrogantly attacking a position that NO ONE HOLDS. NO ONE HERE WOULD TELL YOU THAT YOU CAN DIVORCE SCRIPTURE FROM ITS CONTEXT."
No need to patronize me, child.
Would supporters of contempo music bluntly say, "It's ok to divorce Scripture from context?" No probably not. Do they argue that it's ok by their actions? Yes, most certainly, as has been demonstrated here.
"What I also despise is someone who does me no favors in teaching these truths because they are so arrogant and unloving with what they write that people shut their ears"
You should read your Bible, dear child. Attacking false doctrine with force and severity is immensely Scriptural. The prophets did it, Christ himself did it, the apostles did it. And guess what? People thought all of these men to be arrogant and unloving. Heretics always despise those who shine a light on their heresy.
What is your goal, child? To be gentle and loving with heresy in a vain attempt to coax it into submission? Weeds need to be pulled, not cultivated.
Or do you not believe the Church Growth movement to be heretical?
"The contempo music people would say I didn't do anything wrong because I simply quoted the words of Scripture. But I most certainly did do something wrong because I pulled these words out of context, thus changing their focus and application."
"Would supporters of contempo music bluntly say, "It's ok to divorce Scripture from context?" No probably not."
It appears that you have admitted it was a straw man. But please carry on the discussion
A casual observer
A Casual observer,
No I don't think he has admitted that.
But Stay Classy anyway
"It appears that you have admitted it was a straw man. But please carry on the discussion"
Huh? How did he admit it was a strawman? Didn't you read the very next sentence of his post? "Do they argue that it's ok by their actions? Yes, most certainly, as has been demonstrated here."
Would the average Roman Catholic admit, "Yes, we teach the false doctrine of works righteousness."? Of course not. But their actions prove that they do. Same with church growth supporters. Same with all people who support heresy. None of them publicly admit they teach false doctrine. Does that mean we can't argue against them because doing so would be a strawman? Of course not. Jesus told us, "By their fruits you will know them."
The songs that anonymous quoted prove that CCM music takes Scripture out of context, which is the exact thing he accused them of. So it was most definitely not a strawman.
A classy observer
One more thing....
Stay Classy, I'm glad that you don't like CCM or contemporary worship and that you do like the liturgy. But don't you think that if you (and the many others like you) actually took a stand like anonymous is doing and boldly and unabashedly spoke against Church Growth, that the WELS could be rid of this false doctrine within a year?
I think it was Churchill who said that all it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to stay quiet.
I don't understand why most of our good confessional, liturgical pastors are so afraid to take a stand against CG.
Bloomington Lutheran was the first Lutheran church of which I was member. I came there from evangelicalism, with 15 years of contempo./CG worship under my belt.
I lasted just over two years there.
Some may think they are "spoiling the Egyptians", but they are making off with brass-plated dung.
ELSer
I'm still waiting for the definition of CG with which some people here are measuring the methods and motives of others. I think it is interesting some can so clearing identify "contempo" falsehood (or at least hack down the straw men with the opinion katana) but cannot offer a simple (or elaborate) definition of what CG is. I think it would lead to a more civil and fruitful discussion on an obviously important subject.
Just shout'in
What differentiates "contemporary Lutheran" worship from evangelical praise worship?
And do those who enjoy it think there is or needs to be any differentiation?
If it is very similar, why come to a Lutheran church as opposed to any other evangelical church?
Is all worship adiaphora?
Why choose to go "contemporary" - to attract new members? For the benefit of the existing flock?
Rob
Just shout'in,
Have you not read the previous posts in this thread? Several of them have contained very good, concise definitions of CG. Go back and reread them and you should have your definition.
If you don't want to do that, I'll give you a very quick summary: church growth trusts methods rather than the Means and judges results by external not internal standards.
Simple enough?
Rob
I'll take a stab at your questions
What differentiates "contemporary Lutheran" worship from evangelical praise worship?
the "praise" part. Evangelical worship is about praise, emotions, and getting your Jesus fix for the week. It might only take you to Wednesday before you need a midweek service to pump you up again.
Good Lutheran contemporary worship is much like traditional worship and usually will follow the common service. The part that makes it contemporary is not that we get all praisy..its that it is different. Although my church uses some non-hymn contemporary music that is carefully selected, we usually have 2-3 hymns that are just played by the band in a modern arrangement. The band is tucked away in a corner and due to logistics is not very visible. We purposely put the screen on the other side of the church to diminish any focus on the band.
And do those who enjoy it think there is or needs to be any differentiation?
Oh wow does there ever. it seems for some contemporary means evangelical praise and only evangelical praise. For me it means updated. We don't update the message. we update the environment the message is proclaimed in. I find it hard to believe that all musical innovation had to stop 200 years ago. That worship instrumentation is limited in some way.
If it is very similar, why come to a Lutheran church as opposed to any other evangelical church?
I've been to both and they are worlds apart. The message you hear of law and gospel is why you go to the Lutheran church. I know that many here could not /will not believe that the message is different but it clearly is.
Is all worship adiaphora?
except for being done regularly and in good order....yes.
Why choose to go "contemporary" - to attract new members? For the benefit of the existing flock?
it could be both or neither. I belong to an all contemporary mission church. there are 4 churches within 3 miles of ours that all have traditional. the options exist for people who want that. We are a daughter church of a congregation with 4 traditional and one contemporary every week.
I personally believe the contemporary service can be a benefit for members who want that kind of worship experience. If a church only has one traditional service though i think they should keep it. If they want contemporary they should add a new service. Both options should exist for members.
As a mission church specifically designed to reach unchurched, the contemporary service can be more attractive. Most of the people we see have zero experience with any kind of church. it has taken them a long time and probably a few months of bible study before they even break the barrier of coming to a church service. One of the greatest barriers for that new person in coming back to the church is the friendliness and welcomeness they feel in the church. This can be accomplished in any kind of church however. The casualness is very helpful. many unchurched have asked or had concerns about what to wear in church. One couple was afraid to come because they had no dress clothes. Pastor called me the night before and asked if I would wear jeans to church so they would feel more comfortable. I have ever since.
I guess a contemporary service can meet the needs of a demographic. So does a taize service. so does traditional. if a church has the ability i think it should try to meet every demographics worship needs in the best way. Clearly i stand out here because I don't believe traditional is the only way of worship. also clearly others dont see other types of worship as valid and honorable. It doesn't make them right. it is then just a matter of preference, taste, narrow-mindedness or lack of detailed information on other types of worship.
Tim
"if a church has the ability i think it should try to meet every demographics worship needs in the best way."
And here, Tim, you summarize the entire problem in one sentence. (There were other problems with the other things you said, but let's focus on this for now.) To you worship is about satisfying the felt needs of demographic groups. (Did you realize that this philosophy is one of the core tenets of the Church Growth movement?) What you are saying is that Christians should worship in the way that unbelievers want them to. How does that make any sense at all? Why should Christians base their worship on the mindset of unbelievers? Why should we be like politicians who look to the polls to determine what we're going to do?
The purpose of worship is to proclaim what Christ has done for us in the best and clearest way possible. That's not a matter of adiaphora, it's essential. You yourself admitted that the praise band and the screen distract attention, thus being put into corners. So if you realize that they distract from Christ, why even have them at all? Why not do away with them completely? Or are you willing to compromise a little, have them distract a little from Christ for the sake of growth? If so, then you are trusting in the band for growth at the expense of the Word--which is the definition of Church Growth.
Worship is not about demographics. It's not about felt needs. It's not about being cozy and welcoming. It's about Christ, and Christ alone. Anything that gets in the way of Christ must be removed, even if it seems to be causing external growth.
Anon of 7:59am
This post is exactly what I would like to see more of. It speaks the truth in love.
Polar opposite from:
"You should read your Bible, dear child. Attacking false doctrine with force and severity is immensely Scriptural. The prophets did it, Christ himself did it, the apostles did it. And guess what? People thought all of these men to be arrogant and unloving. Heretics always despise those who shine a light on their heresy. What is your goal, child? To be gentle and loving with heresy in a vain attempt to coax it into submission? Weeds need to be pulled, not cultivated."
What is ironic is that you may be the same anon. You just woke up in a different mood today and choose to patiently teach Tim instead of viewing him as a weed that needed to be pulled.
Still Classy
ELSer,
Glad to have you pipe in on this discussion -- I infer from your comments that you are happy to have left behind your contempo/CG past. If I understand correctly, then we are of kindred spirits. I have a feeling that there are far more among us former Evangelicals -- who are now Confessional Lutherans -- who sit back rather bewildered at this flirtation with Contemporary/Charismatic/CG worship. I know of at least two other families in my own small WELS congregation, who are former Evangelicals, who laugh at the notion of going back to that contemporary crap -- and the same goes for other disenfranchised Evangelicals currently under instruction in our congregation. No way are we going back to that stuff. We love the liturgy. We love these historic expressions of faith -- truly catholic expressions of faith -- in ways that contemporary/charismatic forms can never satisfy.
It seems to me that what contemporary/charismatic worship Enthusiasts in our circles are trying to pass-off is the notion that “Contemporary Worship” is merely worship that is “new,” or merely of popular/current musical forms. “That's all,” they seem to ignorantly, or innocently, say. Do they seriously think they own the definition of “Contemporary Worship,” that the history and development of “contemporary” worship forms in “contemporary” America has no bearing on what “Contemporary Worship” is? Let's be clear. The “contemporary” phenomenon known as “Contemporary Worship” that is universally practiced in Evangelical and Pentecostal churches across America (which our own quasi-Enthusiasts are trying import “in ways which respect Lutheran traditions”) actually has it's genesis in the Brethren movements of Europe in the early/mid-1800's (the left-overs of Scandinavian and German Pietism), which found their way to America at about the same time that a religious charlatan known as Charles Finney exploited the use of such forms in America's “Second Great Awakening,” strengthening the Brethren movements and touching off the Holiness movements in Methodism (which later developed into Pentecostalism). By the mid- to late-1800's, such radical forms were definitional of “American Worship” -- and it was precisely these forms that Walther and the Old Norwegian Synod notoriously and specifically condemned. By engaging in such forms, the Old Norwegian Synod insisted, Lutherans will wind up singing their way out of their own Confession (a sound application of lex orandi, lex credendi).
Although such worship forms fell out of fashion in the 1900's (as “contemporary” forms have a habit of doing), Pentecostals continued to cling to them, and continued to develop them alongside their theology, despite the fact that their number dwindled over the decades to insignificance. Vatican II finally revived such forms in greater American Christianity, by encouraging Catholics to reach out to Protestants through investigation and even experimentation with forms that appeal to them. Following this advice, a group of priests from the University of Notre Dame visited a Pentecostal church, and, as a result, imported Pentecostal worship forms into the Catholic church, starting the Catholic Charismatic movement. This spread rather quickly to the Episcopalians and liberal Lutherans, and from there to greater American Christianity. The Charismatic Renewal of the 1970's started with the Catholics in the mid-1960's, and by the late 1970's, the Church Growth movement had sprung from it's seedbed -- contemporary/charismatic worship. “Contemporary Worship” and the doctrinally faulty and proven worthless theories of Church Growth are inseparable. Period. And juvenile attempts by our own “contemporary” quasi-Enthusiasts to throw the rest of us off the scent unmistakably rising from the stink of “contemporary” Church Growth worship formats are nothing but a canard. Everyone who frequents this blog has had to contend with statements like, “Contemporary Worship is just new music, that's all...” and “All our traditional hymns were 'contemporary' at one point in time...”, as if there has been no distinction throughout the history of the Church between Ecclesiastical and Secular forms, between forms that are Holy, or set apart for God, and forms that are Vulgar, or base and common. The fact is, a truly catholic appraisal of the “contemporary” phenomenon known as “Contemporary Worship” can regard it as nothing but Vulgarity.
An immediate objection to this claim is an appeal to the confessional content of “contemporary” worship pieces: “Surely, 'contemporary' music that confesses Christ must be Holy, and is certainly fitting for the Church!” Such claims ignore what has long been a recognized worship principle: lex orandi, lex credendi, the rule of prayer is the rule of faith, or “how we worship teaches us what we believe.” Entertainment forms and instrumentation that are well-fitted for coffee houses, saloons, or rock-n-roll arenas, are not fitting for the Church, regardless of their confessional content.
And what do these “contemporary” forms teach? One thing is for certain, whatever they teach, Confessional Lutheranism has had no hand in forming such teaching. We have no ownership whatsoever over what these “contemporary” worship forms teach. In their wisdom, our predecessors condemned such forms and kept us far from them. Rather, such forms were invented by adherents of unspeakable heterodoxy, to teach and reinforce their own false doctrine. Such forms do not teach our doctrine, but strive to overthrow it.
In a previous post to John's blog (https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8818242304034182219&postID=2226706317640324623&isPopup=true), I summarized in points (a) through (e), some of the false doctrines that “contemporary” forms teach. I'll expand by referencing what influential “contemporary” Evangelical “theologians” have to say on the subject. Let's start with Wayne Grudem, author of the imminently successful Systematic Theology (1994/2000, Zondervan).
In Chapter 48 of this Evangelical "gem," Grudem covers the Means of Grace. Offering a distinctly anthropocentric definition for such Means, he states, “The means of grace are any activities within the fellowship of the church that God uses to give more grace to Christians” (pg. 950, emphasis mine). He then lists the Means of Grace: God's Word, Baptism, Lord's Supper, Prayer, Worship, Church discipline, Giving, Spiritual gifts, Fellowship, Evangelism, and Personal ministry. As you may imagine, in his discussion of Baptism and the Lord's Supper as Means of Grace, he fixates on the benefit of Man's obedience to these ordinances. In his explanation of God's Word as a Means of Grace, he never once mentions the Holy Spirit, but treats the Bible as a magic book, as some sort of a talisman with a power all it's own (Immediate Grace is still alive among Reformed Evangelicals).
In Grudem's discussion of Worship as a Means of Grace, he predictably focuses on the command of James 4:8 “Draw near to God and he will draw near to you,” and uses this to support the notion of Worship as a Means of Grace by citing a raft of anecdotal references indicating that God did something while His people worshiped (Acts 13:2; 2 Chron. 5:13-14; 20:18-23; Ps. 73:17). He closes his discussion by stating, “If worship is genuinely an experience of drawing near to God, coming into his presence, and giving him the praise he deserves, then we certainly ought to count it one of the primary 'means of grace' available to the church” (pg. 956). In other words, Worship is an activity predicated on God's command to us to draw near to him, which He reciprocates by drawing near to us, thus providing us with an “experience.” Hence, Worship is a Means of Grace. The experience proves it. If this is not clear from his section on Worship in Chapter 48, consider his reasoning in Chapter 21, his first chapter covering anthropology, in Section 2, discussing the purpose of man: “When we realize that God created us to glorify him, and when we start to act in ways that fulfill that purpose, then we begin to experience and intensity of joy in the Lord that we have never before known” (pg. 441)
Grudem did not come up with Chapter 21, Section 2, on his own. Being close associates with Dr. John Piper, of the Baptist General Conference (Swedish Pietism), he borrowed this section from Piper's Desiring God: Meditations of Christian Hedonist -- a work of immense importance in Evangelical Church Growth circles (1986/1996/2003, Multnomah). This is the work I'll refer to next.
According to Piper, Christian Hedonism is a “philosophy of life” (pg. 28) defined by pursuit of pleasure in God that finds its satisfaction in the act of glorifying Him (pp. 18-23, 28). Piper argues that this should be a central figure in the Christian life because happiness is not only the deepest longing of human nature (pg. 19), it is a command that we should obey (pg. 9); therefore the pursuit of pleasure cannot be a sin if it is derived from the pleasure to be had in God (pg. 18). Moreover, the pursuit of pleasure to be had in God, according to Piper, is God’s appointed method for man to glorify Him (pg. 18), therefore, the pursuit of this pleasure is not only the fulfillment of the command to be happy, but fulfills the chief end of man, which is to “glorify God by enjoying Him forever” (pg. 18). Toward the end of Chapter One, Piper makes the following statement “If [God] is truly for us, He must be for Himself!” (pg. 49). This statement comes at the end of a long chapter focusing on the attribute of God’s sovereignty, stressing that God does what He pleases, and His pleasure is to glorify Himself. Capping this chapter, and directly leading to the quote above, Piper concludes that God’s self-glorification is not complete in His redemptive work, in “only [giving] Himself [to us]” (pg. 49), but is completed when the creatures to whom He gave Himself are themselves fulfilled in the joy they long for -- pleasure in God -- and express this joy by giving Him glory (pg. 49). God seeks His own glory and is glorified in His creative and redemptive work, which is a work of love. His love, which by definition glorifies Him, compels Him to also seek worship from His creatures, so that their joy may be made full in the act of offering their worship, thus completing God’s glory. God and man find their ultimate consummation when man finds pleasure in what gives God pleasure. In such a state, both God’s pleasure and man’s pleasure are complete in God.
In Chapter 2, Piper makes “pursuit of happiness in God” into a condition of salvation: “Unless a man be born again into a Christian Hedonist he cannot see the kingdom of God” (pg. 55); “The biblical command for conversion [should not be] ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus,’ but ‘Delight yourself in the Lord’” (pg. 55); Not everybody is saved from God’s wrath just because Christ died for sinners. There is a condition we must meet in order to be saved… [that condition is conversion,] summed up here as repentance and faith, ...and that conversion is nothing less than the creation of a Christian Hedonist” (pg. 63); “Repentance and faith are our work. But we will not repent and believe unless God does His work to overcome our hard and rebellious hearts. This divine work is called regeneration. Our work is called conversion” (pg. 65, emphasis mine); “Faith that pleases God is a confidence that God will reward us when we come to Him” (pg. 71, emphasis mine); “The pursuit of joy in God is not optional …Until your heart has hit upon this pursuit, your ‘faith’ cannot please God. It is not saving faith” (pg. 73).
These final two quotes from Chapter 2 have distinct application to Evangelical theology regarding Worship, and it shows in Piper's treatment of Worship in the following Chapter. Making much of James 4:18, like his buddy Wayne Grudem, Piper insists that by drawing near to God in worship, the Christian Hedonist derives the pleasure in God necessary for God to be glorified, as God rewards him by in turn drawing near to the Christian Hedonist. Accordingly, it is necessary for a Worship Service to cater to the pleasure drives of the worshipers if they are to experience God drawing near to them. If they don’t derive pleasure, then God most assuredly has not drawn near to them, and thus God is not glorified. For Piper, human emotion is the ends for which a worshiper strives; that is, the worshiper ought to achieve affective experience through his acts of worship: “Happiness in God is the end of all our seeking” (pg. 90); “All genuine emotion is an end in itself” (pg. 92); “Worship is authentic when affections for God arise in the heart as an end in themselves” (pg. 92); “God is more glorified when we delight in His magnificence” (pg. 97, emphasis mine). Reaching affective peaks in worship, according to Piper, is a mandate from God following from His command to glorify Him. Further, according to Chapter 2, such affective experience is necessary for salvation. Much of Evangelical worship follows from this premise – human experience is what matters, if man is to fulfill God's command to glorify Him.
So why did I go to the trouble of detailing this stuff? This is a Lutheran blog. Why am I citing Evangelical Church Growth theology? Because it is impossible to appreciate the dangerous error inherent to Contemporary/Charismatic/CG worship without knowing the theology that promotes and depends on these practices. Confessional Lutherans have no ownership over this theology or these practices -- “contemporary” pop-church Evangelicals do. As we adopt their practices, we are absorbing a strong dose of theology from them, as well. But most Lutherans simply don't see it. Being the good Lutherans they are, they look at Contemporary/Charismatic/CG worship forms with cow eyes, and put the best construction on what they see. They complain, “Gee, these lyrics are doctrinally shallow,” and naively assert “If we just change the lyrics, why, everything will be just fine.” Out of ignorance, they entirely miss the point. Entirely. The lyrics are so bad, not because the author was theologically weak, but because the lyrics don't matter! No, the fact is, nearly all of the creative and performance energy that goes into composing, planning, and performing Contemporary/Charismatic/CG worship goes into creating an experience for the worshipers. Why do you think they have professional Entertainers compose and perform the music they later adopt as “contemporary” worship, instead of Pastors and Theologians? Because the experience, not the lyrics, are what Contemporary/Charismatic/CG worship is all about. That is what “contemporary” worship was invented for, and it teaches the false theology that the resulting experiences are supposed to reinforce. Lutherans cannot safely retain these forms while merely changing the lyrics -- the forms themselves were invented to teach and reinforce horribly false theology, and such forms do this regardless of the lyrics that accompany them.
Anyway, as a former “Praise Band” guitarist myself, I suppose that I could go on-and-on about this -- especially the abuse of instrumentation and blatant manipulation of worshipers -- but I think I have said enough for now (yes, perhaps a bit much, in fact...). I'll sit back for awhile and deal with the flames this post will certainly generate...
Freddy Finkelstein
Freddy,
That was quite an impressive and informative post! I truly hope that all of the supporters of contemporary worship here spend time reading and studying and thinking about what you've written before they immediately begin to flame you.
A quick clarification The band is tucked away in a corner so as not to be front and center and a focus of attention as many seem to think that is what a band is all about in contemporary Lutheran. I would equate it with having the pipe organ or choir up front and to the side. They are not a distraction at all. The screen is not a distraction either. Its just placed on the opposite side of the church from the band. Aside from the main goal of keeping the altar in the middle of the church it also keeps people's eyes on the lyrics and the band out of site. This is a nice side benefit that reinforces keeping the message and the words the focus..not the band or as "entertainment".
for clarity to this statement, "What you are saying is that Christians should worship in the way that unbelievers want them to."
No, Christians should worship in the way Christians want to. Unbelievers are not the demographics to cater too. Worship is not designed for unbelievers. The people who walk into church, at least a WELS church, walk in because some significant time before that day, someone proclaimed the gospel and the Holy spirit created faith and their faith brings them to church to worship.
The demographics that at least our contemporary service seeks to meet are: people who prefer modern instrumentation and don't see it as less worshipful than a pipe organ. Obviously they are people who are very unfamiliar with traditional lutheran worship in the first place and for that matter classical music of any type. They appreciate the visual elements for help in following the service and for addressing the more predominant visual learning style.
I can't really state age groups or such. We don't target such things. The results of who comes are that we have a large influx of 30ish types, newly married and still poppin out babies. Of about 28 children 18 are under 5, 7 are 14-18 and only a few tweeners. There also is a large 50-80 crowd. Us 35-50 years old don't have as many.
Even someone so steeped in heresy as myself recognizes that evangelical methods and seeker type services seek to short cut from unbeliever to believer in one simple emotional manipulating, decision theology service. Despite Freddy's very thorough discourse on the subject, I just don't believe that #1 Lutheran contemporary mimics evangelical worship.
When I go to church it is not "praisey". If I sing 'O Sacred Head Now Wounded' played by a band (notice i never say praise band) I will be focusing on the words and the message not the musicians playing it or the feeling the music gives me. Although even in traditional services there are so many hymns that create an emotional response. Lent and Easter are an amazing time for this and when played by someone who actually knows how to use a pipe organ they will move at least some people in an emotional way more than a band. However thats just a personal opinion based on being a church organist.
#2 I just can't link worship practice to being bad theology simply by the form. You'll need to show me that the sermon I heard did not have law and gospel, that the sacraments are despised, that the music did not properly focus on Christ, that order was not kept.
I think we can all say evangelicals do these things in worship, evangelicals say these things about the Means of Grace, evangelicals are flawed and in error, etc. We know this. Its obvious. I still believe that certain concepts of contemporary worship are good and honorable if you remove the bad theology. The bad theology makes their implementation of the methods flawed. The methods (I of course recognize that there are some blatant methods they have that are a result of bad theology. I'm pretty sure we can examine them and figure out the good from the bad.) are not what makes their theology bad.
Freddy,
I, too, want to thank you for the detailed post and history lesson. It seems it might be appropriate to send this summary to the pastors at St. Mark's in Green Bay as they seem to think that history of contemporary worship has its roots dating back further then the liturgical form.
I have attended several WELS praise band services (as I have noted in this blog ..ie. The Rock and Roll church in Texas)
Tim - do you think it is bad theology to offer communion as a pre-service thought so as to not offend the visiting guests? To me this might be despising the sacrament. The current praise band trend in the WELS does in fact mimic evangelical worship.
Also, it is interesting to note that the new MLC chapel is being designed with contemporary worship practices in mind.
I don't think its a good idea at all. Communion belongs right where it is in the liturgy (we do follow the liturgy). None of that excusing the people who don't want communion at the end of the service early garbage either like my parents-in-laws traditional ELS church does. Its a great testament to what we believe and a great teaching opportunity for those who do not properly understand the Means of Grace. I think hiding communion away is not a wise decision
However..I will concede that the placement of communion in the service is a matter of adiaphora I would never shy away from presenting it exactly as it should be. I love Pastor's pre-communion educational speech that explains what communion is and why we practice it like we do. Again its an awesome teaching opportunity for visitors.
My two cents worth.
Tim
"Also, it is interesting to note that the new MLC chapel is being designed with contemporary worship practices in mind."
I hadn't heard this. What specifically are you referring to?
Freddy
Yes, I am much happier in my current congregation. There was, however, a brushfire (not to be confused with the LCMS'"ABLAZE") recently that has put me into a vigilence mode.
I went to one of the pastors at Bloomington repeatedly with many of the very facts that you noted above, to no avail.
It is exceeding difficult to get advocates of contempo/CG worship methods to understand that this stuff comes with a history and a theology. S.S. Schmucker was in awe of Finney's "New Measures". Contempo./CG worship is Finneyite revivalism with electric guitars. It is no coincidence that Schmucker's General Council is the great grandparent of the ELCA.
ELSer
Jeremiah 6:16
My apologies. Schmucker's General SYNOD is the great grandparent of the ELCA. Sadly, CP Krauth's beloved General CONFERENCE contributed to that poisoned bloodline as well.
ELSer
Jeremiah 6:16
I getting old.
Krauth's General COUNCIL not Conference.
ELSer
Jeremiah 6:16
"No, Christians should worship in the way Christians want to."
Well, there's your problem. You don't know what worship is.
Good stuff, Freddy. Thank you. I think when a church opens the door to this, more is sure to follow in the same direction. Your post gives some explanation of why this may be so.
Rob
Tim,
It's probably important that I respond to one of your points, above. I think that John responded to your first point succinctly enough, so I'll focus on your second point. You state: “I just can't link worship practice to being bad theology simply by the form. You'll need to show me that the sermon I heard did not have law and gospel, that the sacraments are despised, that the music did not properly focus on Christ, that order was not kept.”
I don't disagree that congregations can get the Marks of the Church correct, despite their use of detrimental forms, or that discernible order may exist. The focus of the discussion, however, remains the detriment of the contemporary/charismatic/CG forms themselves. Of course, the detriment of these forms is exacerbated when the Sacraments are despised (by sidelining them, for instance), or when preaching succumbs to “seeker sensitive” mush. But even when the Marks are central, and even through strong Law and Gospel preaching dominates, the detriment of contemporary/charismatics/CG forms remain, and continue their work of teaching the worshiper to fixate on himself, and to associate the emotions manufactured in him by the worship performance with God's endorsement of his faith, and of his church's teaching and ministry. It's subtle, but insidious -- working over time, and compounding its effect. Even though I learned the phrase lex orandi, lex credendi only a couple years ago, it deeply resonates with me. I know from experience that it is true.
Under your second point, you continue: “The bad theology makes their implementation of the methods flawed. The methods ...are not what makes their theology bad.”
Here I understand you to mean that contemporary/charismatic/CG worship methods, or forms, are essentially amoral, or neutral. But you also parenthetically admit that some forms are not. Yet, the liturgical principle of lex orandi, lex credendi would have us understand that there are no amoral forms -- and I agree with this. Yes, I know that lex orandi, lex credendi is not Scripture, and people like me may be criticized for appealing to it as a standard. After all, it is reason -- a principle derived from observation. But we are not only free to use reason in matters of adiaphora, but, I would submit, we are commanded to employ reason in matters of adiaphora, to be diligent stewards in our freedom. While all things may be permissible, not all things are beneficial -- point being, we should, in our freedom, use our faculties to avoid practices that are shown to be non-beneficial or detrimental. The fact is, contemporary/charismatic/CG worship forms were not developed in a vacuum or chosen at random. They are not neutral. They were derived from damnably false doctrines, and carefully developed to teach those false doctrines through their use, regardless of the lyrics that may accompany the music, or the strength of a church's teaching to the contrary. It is not possible to separate anthropocentric experiential worship forms from the impact those experiences have on the individual.
Related to this point, in a previous blog entry (above) you answer the question “Is all worship adiaphora?” by saying, “except for being done regularly and in good order....yes.”
While I agree that worship should be done regularly (Heb. 10:24-25), and in good order (1 Cor. 14:40), I don't think that this is complete. There are other references in Scripture which would place further bounds, specifically on worship practice, and generally applying to all that we do (which would include worship). For example, our hymnody ought to be written in a manner that not only proclaims, but also teaches (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). We are commanded to “worship in spirit and in truth” (Jn. 4:24), therefore our hymnody ought to be orthodox, and our attitudes as worshipers must be focused on Christ and His completed work on our behalf, not on ourselves and our desires. More generally, I think that it can be said that, as in all things, our zeal in worship ought to be kept in check, given Paul's admonition to the Galatians (Ga. 4:17-18), and that we should be diligent to examine our practices, to employ those practices that are beneficial, and reject those that are detrimental (1 Cor. 6:12). There are probably more bounds on our freedom in worship, with the result, I don't think that adiaphora is quite the wide open field that some would have us believe.
Finally, there are other dangers to be considered from the use of contemporary/charismatic/CG forms. One is the danger of unknowingly making overtures of Fellowship to the heterodox, and of blurring our testimony of Orthodoxy. It is so completely unnatural for Confessional Lutherans to even think this way, so most may not even consider it, but the fact is, for many Evangelicals, the prime Fellowship criteria is not doctrinal agreement a all (i.e., since most don't have the training to consider it anyway), but spiritual unity, which they discern through their own subjective feelings regarding the Holy Spirit's endorsement of a congregation and its ministry; and such endorsement is identified by their experience in worship. As evidence of this, just listen closely to pop-church Christian radio -- the announcers will often recount visits to local congregations and make comments like, “I worshiped at such-and-such congregation on Sunday, and the Spirit of God is truly at work among them,” or, “Prior to my message at so-and-so's youth gathering on Saturday, the Holy Spirit moved in a marvelous way as we worshiped, truly uniting us and preparing us for the challenges ahead” (recent examples from my local pop-church station...). These are common statements of endorsement among Evangelicals based on emotions manufactured by worship experiences. If we use the forms that Evangelicals commonly use, by which they clearly (yet falsely) understand something very specific about a church's teaching and which they use as a spiritual litmus test, we are diluting our testimony and misleading them.
Until a few years ago, I thought I may have been a little out of balance for being concerned about this. But then I bumped into an article compiled by Jay Webber on Mark DeGarmeaux's BLC home page. After reading it, I realized that I wasn't the only one concerned about the Fellowship connection. Specifically, Appendices II and III of this article include brief commentary by Walther on the issue of Lutheran worship forms with respect to adopting the forms of the American sects. In his commentary, it is clear that his reasoning centers squarely on the preservation of sound doctrine, and on the practice of Church Fellowship. Perhaps you have already read this article. If not, here is the link: http://www.blc.edu/comm/gargy/gargy1/liturgical_church.html
Anyway, having quite a bit of experience with these forms, I continue to hold the line against them. I hope, however, that it is clear that my intention in all of this is to build up, not just criticize.
Lord's Blessings,
Freddy Finkelstein
John, still waiting for you to explain your claim that the new MLC chapel is being designed for contemporary worship. Everything I've seen or heard about it sounds pretty liturgically minded.
mr. 3:30 anonymous..
I was talking about the inclusion of the powerpoint screen and technology in the holy of holies.
This screen will be included so that the audience can follow the bouncing ball as the praise band performs the songs we have been discussing.
"This screen will be included so that the audience can follow the bouncing ball as the praise band performs the songs we have been discussing."
Could you direct us to the source saying they will use the screen to project song lyrics? Also, could you direct us to the source saying that there will be a praise band? I haven't heard or seen any of this information. In an academic setting I can envision many circumstances besides praise band lyrics (lectures, seminars, etc.) in which having a screen might be useful.
Besides, here are some of the features of the chapel:
"Sacramental focus: baptismal font at entrance, free-standing altar, triptych (work of art divided into three sections, generally behind the altar), suspended crucifix, and ambo (pulpit/lectern) pulpit, and lectern"
"A pipe organ"
"Superior acoustics: a live space designed to favor the human voice and instrumentals" (NOTE: if they were planning on using a praise band, they would NOT want a live space.)
"An octagon shape (a symbol of “the eighth day”—Resurrection and eternity)"
All of these things are highly liturgical. I simply don't see how anyone could fairly conclude that this chapel is being "designed for contemporary worship". If anything, we should be praising MLC for planning such a liturgically sound chapel.
Don't get me wrong, I am the anonymous who has been so vocal about my contempt for CG and contempo music. But you can't go chasing the CG boogey-man when it just isn't there. It destroys the credibility of those of us who argue against CG, and makes us look paranoid and dishonest.
I didn't say that the chapel was being designed for cont. worship. I said it was being designed with cont. worship in mind.
My source is a local WELS pastor.
Your points are true and vaild. But just wait, I can envision the campus pastor allowing cont. worship practices in the chapel and the powerpoint screen being just one aspect. But I guess we will have to wait and see.
"I didn't say that the chapel was being designed for cont. worship. I said it was being designed with cont. worship in mind."
But that just isn't true. If they even had contempo worship faintly in mind, there's no way they would want a live acoustic space. This will make having a praise band virtually impossible. They also plan to have "as much natural light as possible". This would be a no-no if they planned to use screens on a regular basis.
"But just wait, I can envision the campus pastor allowing cont. worship practices in the chapel and the powerpoint screen being just one aspect. But I guess we will have to wait and see."
The campus pastor maybe. But the new president (Zarling) and the head of the music department (Moldenhauer) would never allow it. They are solidly liturgical, just like the new chapel is solidly liturgical. You need to direct your comments and concern where there is a need for comments and concern.
I found a nice blog post by an ELS pastor on what J.R.R. Tolkien has to say on contemporary worship. Take a look
By the way, using the word "contemporary" in describing worship is confusing and not helpful. Arvo Part's and John Rutter's music is just as contemporary as the music we are describing, but it's in the tradition of the Church. Maybe the term "non-traditional" would be more appropriate. Maybe not.
"But you can't go chasing the CG boogey-man when it just isn't there. It destroys the credibility of those of us who argue against CG, and makes us look paranoid and dishonest."
From the other anon. that is trying to teach- I have been trying to articulate this point for a while now- thank you!
John, you just aren't helping anyone by throwing out your ignorant and paranoid sounding accusations time after time.
You hurt the cause of those within the WELS who are seeking to lead us- through Scripture and the Confessions away from true CG heresy.
Learn from Freddy's tone and approach- please. And if my writing this angers you it was not my intent.
As Always- Stay Classy
Why the frequent Ron Burgundy: Legend of Anchorman sign off?
Thanks for the "calm, thoughtful" dialogue. I am puzzled by one statement:
"You hurt the cause of those within the WELS who are seeking to lead us- through Scripture and the Confessions away from true CG heresy."
If there really is such heresy being taught, why not carry out Matthew 18 with those pastors and congregations? If the WELS leadership won't do this, president and district president down, is that because they don't believe that such heresy is not present or is it that they are themselves in error? If the contention is true that there are pastors who are teaching decision theology and turning the sacraments into ordinances, this is a question that needs to be answered.
"If there really is such heresy being taught, why not carry out Matthew 18 with those pastors and congregations? If the WELS leadership won't do this, president and district president down, is that because they don't believe that such heresy is not present or is it that they are themselves in error? If the contention is true that there are pastors who are teaching decision theology and turning the sacraments into ordinances, this is a question that needs to be answered."
This is a very good question. The problem with the CG movement is how subtle and insidious it is. It can be easily "covered up" by pastors and churches who hide their false motivation and lack of faith in the Means by saying the right words.
Because of this, it can be very difficult for leaders to identify and discipline CG supporters. A CG pastor might indicate by his worship styles and practices that he doesn't trust the Means of Grace, but when a DP talks to him and he says, "Don't worry, I trust the Means, I'm just trying something new", what exactly can be done? There isn't really any hard evidence of false doctrine.
You asked specifically about teaching decision theology and sacraments as ordinances. Would CG pastors in the WELS ever admit (to themselves even) that they believed or taught these things? No way. But do they teach them by the way they worship? Absolutely. (But of course, CG teaches that worship style has nothing to do with doctrine, and thus they can't understand how their worship actually is teaching these things.)
With that said, though, I certainly wish our leaders had the courage of Luther to say of the CG pastors, "They have a different spirit," and to remove them from fellowship.
Post a Comment