The pastors at St. Mark's in Green Bay have the diffinitive word on worship. Contemporary worship is the truly historical form of worship. But yet they once again don't cite their sources. Yet the recent worship conference claims our root are liturgical. Which way is it?
http://stmarkpartners.org/downloads/Worship.pdf
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:VC59bnr7QcQJ:www.churchfromscratch.net/downloads/KelmWorship.doc+church+from+scratch+kelm&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
Why is it that the contemporary church's are so cross :(
http://www.crosswalkphoenix.com/
http://crossroadschicago.org/index.html
and this site now leads to a new missional church:
http://www.churchfromscratch.net/
17 comments:
I personally believe Pastor Kelm's worship paper offers good insight and balance to this continuing discussion. If you want to know the sources St. Mark uses to form their services, why not ask them? Wouldn't that be the logical thing to do? Their email addresses are on their website.
"I personally believe Pastor Kelm's worship paper offers good insight and balance to this continuing discussion."
Umm, no. Pastor Kelm's paper sets up a gigantic strawman and then proceeds to tear it down. Pastor Kelm equates liturgical worship with dead formalism. He compares those who worship liturgically with the Pharisees. That claim is offensive and judgmental, not to mention completely inaccurate. The Pharisees hated Christ and loved works-righteousness. Does Pastor Kelm really think that's true of those who worship liturgically?
He then makes the point that since the liturgy inevitably creates formalistic Pharisees, we should use contemporary worship--even though he himself admits its not as doctrinally strong as liturgical worship. That's not a valid or logical argument.
Note how snide and judgmental the tone of his paper is. You can hear his disgust and hatred for liturgical worship. You can tell he feels himself enlightened and superior for using contemporary worship.
This paper demonstrates how CG supporters are "of a different spirit"--one that abuses Christian freedom as an excuse to judge the faith of others and adopt heresy for the sake of growth.
"sets up a gigantic strawman and then proceeds to tear it down."
"That claim is offensive and judgmental, not to mention completely inaccurate."
"Note how snide and judgmental the tone"
I was just about to again call for us to beware of inflammatory language when trying to instruct those who are ignorant...but then I went and read the paper. I can't disagree with your content or tone at all.
That doesn't mean that I want to throw open the floodgates of wrath every time John cries "wolf" but in this case the disdain it is spot on. Kelm's paper was written for those who want to legitimize their desire to go there own way, and it is ONE GIANT PIECE OF CRAP.
Even with that I remain classy
"Even with that I remain classy"
Only in your mind.
"ONE GIANT PIECE OF CRAP"
Is this kind of language really appropriate? It seems to me regardless of your opinion on the subject people can take the high road and express themselves in a more professional manner.
I note a greater number of references in Kelm's paper and no direct evidence to support your contentions. That truly is the "strawman" appearing.
"in this case the disdain it is spot on. Kelm's paper was written for those who want to legitimize their desire to go there own way."
Pastor Kelm's paper doesn't legitimize such a desire, Scripture does (as pointed out in his paper)!
Just shout'in
Well written. An academically intelligent writer this Mr. Kelm. But there is a way that seems right unto man but the ends thereof lead to death. In this case, the death of the historic liturgy.
It'd be comical if it wasn't so sad how the Scripture and sections of the Confessions are misused to endorse contemporary worship. As if there is something within man that is good and pleasing to God. He knows the heart and thoughts of each of us. Thanks be to him for viewing the faithful clothed in the righteousness of Christ; a righteousness not our own and not by merit.
If this writer, and those who agree with him, are so disgusted with the traditional worship, I'm sure they can find a church with a more emotionally charged, "spirit filled" worship service. I've been to several that rock it out for Jesus. Why change at the expense of everyone already in the Lutheran church? To attract younger people and get people excited about giving an offering? Doesn't this seem as if it would drive many away? But we're just foolish if we don't agree.
Rob
"in this case the disdain it is spot on. Kelm's paper was written for those who want to legitimize their desire to go there own way."
"Pastor Kelm's paper doesn't legitimize such a desire, Scripture does (as pointed out in his paper)!"
Wait a second here. Are you claiming that Scripture legitimizes our desire to go our own way? Is that how you define Christian freedom? (I know that's how Kelm defines it).
Isaiah 53:6 "We like sheep have gone astray; each of us has turned to his own way."
Proverbs 14:12 "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death."
See, Christian freedom does not mean we are free to follow our own desires or reason or thinking. Christian freedom means that we are free to leave the burden of our own desires and reason and thinking to serve and follow Christ.
Kelm's argument demonstrates very clearly the terrible effect of CG. He defines Christian freedom by focusing on man. Scripture defines Christian freedom by focusing on Christ.
"St Mark's writes our worship history."
Oh that is funny, I think you meant to say "rewrites" history. Mission vision as a part of the early church's liturgy? That's a hoot.
Nice "rip out of the context" move! I know St. Mark says the "gatherings" they use in their "contemporary" service are modeled after those used in the church in the first three centuries. I emailed them and asked because that's what people do who want to know the truth. They never claimed the "mission statement" was part of the early church's liturgy -- just the different gatherings. But why should you care about accuracy?
mr. anonymous...
I will contact St. Mark's as I have done in the past. I am anxious to to see how they knew that the early church used a church praise band during the first 3 centuries.
John, didn't you hear that St. Mark recently made an amazing archaeological discovery? They've uncovered an ancient description of worship in Philippi. (Unfortunately they had to find someone else to translate the Greek since the pastors at St. Mark long ago gave up studying Greek and Hebrew in favor of reading A Purpose Driven Life.)
Below is the description of ancient worship in the early church:
Philippi's house band "The Philippi Praise Machine" played a couple of hip, rocking tunes. They, of course, borrowed the tunes from the local heathen temple so that they seemed cool to the pagan culture around them. Once the people got into the right emotional state of mind to make their decision for Christ, the Apostle Paul would get up, wearing a stylish suit and a snappy tie of course, and read the mission statement that the congregation at Philippi came up with. It talked all about what they would do for Christ, not really mentioning anything about what Christ did for them. Then Paul would preach them a sermon (oops, sorry, a "message") that he had heard the week before from the Judaizers who had passed through town. Then the congregation sang a couple more ditties about how warm and fuzzy they felt because of how awesomely they were praising Jesus.
See John? Worship at St. Mark is EXACTLY like worship in the early church!
This seems appropriate for anon 9:53
Prov. 26:4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.
Prov. 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.
This seems appropriate for anon 10:31 (and others):
Mark 4:26-28 "This is what the kingdom of God is like. A man scatters seed on the ground. Night and day, whether he sleeps or gets up, the seed sprouts and grows, though he does not know how. All by itself the soil produces grain."
Anon at 10:31,
I agree. "Anon 9:53" shouldn't have answer the foolish of St. Mark's according to its folly.
"I agree. "Anon 9:53" shouldn't have answer the foolish of St. Mark's according to its folly."
Haha. Good point. There are few things more foolish than St. Mark claiming that contemporary worship has its roots in the ancient church.
To be fair I think they are referring to the "gatherings" they use in the service.
"To be fair I think they are referring to the "gatherings" they use in the service."
That's an awfully big stretch, don't you think? Don't people of all religions "gather" together for worship? Couldn't St. Mark just as easily say that their worship is based on ancient Aztec worship, since the Aztecs "gathered" for their worship?
By the way, I also get a kick out of the "Gathering for Dismissal" one. Isn't that a bit of an oxy-moron?
Oh, and "pastor wears a rob".
Post a Comment