Any lessons we can learn from this for our churches today? John Hoh Old guard at church moving on Lutheran members will worship for last time on West Side John Anderson, left, and Robert Abson have been members of the North Austin Lutheran Church for over 50 years, are pictured in the sanctuary. They and other members of the congregation, that has dwindled over the years, will hand over the building to a largely African American Lutheran congregation. (Milbert O. Brown, Chicago Tribune / September 6, 2007) By Manya A. Brachear Tribune religion reporter September 7, 2007 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-austin07sep07,1,5884471.story
I skimmed the article and may have missed a couple things but cannot help but speak to the fact that I worked in the inner city and lived just blocks from this church. We lived just north of Lake St. on Austin Blvd. on the Oak Park side of the street. There is this fallacy that many people live with, that Confessional Lutheranism is incompatible with everyone but Germans. Before having to divide my time between two congregations when called to switch from a single parish to two, Emmaus was doing fairly well. We had more visitors and prospects attending than there were regular members. Funny thing was, I was doing something that is a surprise to many, namely, preaching the Word in its truth and purity and rightly administering the sacraments. Confessional Lutheranism offers something that is actually reverent and is completely different from what the rest of the ding-a-lings do in the black neighborhood. I was told over and over (not from members but from church growth minded “Lutherans”) that we’d never go anywhere unless we made the Service more “black.” When I spoke to the members (all of whom were black) they scoffed, said they were Lutherans and wanted nothing to do with such nonsense. Since my time there, a new hymnal was essentially forced upon them and they can’t stand it. They were told by an outsider, again, that they were never going to go anywhere using that outdate (sic) hymnal. They used and loved TLH. Frankly, I would attribute more to the lack of Scriptural teaching in such a congregation as mentioned in the article than anything else. If someone from the black community ventures into a Lutheran church they are doing so looking for something substantive. The best way for Lutherans to kill themselves is to stop being Lutheran. Regarding checking their culture at the day, I say AMEN! That supposed “black” culture they speak of is actually MethoBaptiCostal culture and it is worthy of the dumpster. Most seem to forget that much of our glorious liturgy had origins in Africa. Give the people some credit, they have intelligence, they are sinners, they need a Savior. It’s not surprising for me to see that the place was ELCA. Since I assume John sent this to Lutherans, I will also assume I’m preaching to the choir. When I have a chance I always enjoy blathering on about this since so many today are caving in to the pressures to forsake the gospel and “make” the service effective instead of doing like Paul and allowing the Holy Spirit to do His stuff. I’m especially on this bent lately since the “chump and chimpanzee” conference promoting church growth methods and crooked liturgy. I think they actually called it church and change, but it was probably done by a bunch of chumps and chimpanzees easily duped into thinking God’s Word is ineffective. God bless, Steve Schmidt
Interesting insights from a friend who pastored a church near the Lutheran church featured in the Tibune (sic)article. Do we pursue "modern" liturgies, practices at the expense of the Gospel? Ah, the tightrope we walk! It would be interesting to know more about the congregation, maybe from neighbors who may have visited. It is interesting that the congregation, I gather, is in a predominantly black neighborhood--but only "white folk" were in the accompanying photos. A dynamic at work here? An interesting book to read is "Comeback Churches" where the authors studied some 300 churches who were on the brink of closing, yet "came back" to thrive. Some interesting points: 1. Prayer was a huge focus of these churches. I guess when all seems hopeless, turn to the One who gives hope. Didn't Luther value prayer? 2. A stress on a consistent and steadfast message. I guess this is the Gospel in truth and purity. 3. A necessity of what the authors called "ordinances." We would call them "sacraments." You know, "ordinance" sounds kinda legalistic, whereas "sacrament" is evangelical Gospel. Point of difference I have with the authors but, hey, seems like so far confessional Lutheranism has the foundation for ministry. The authors then go on to say that churches need to find a social need in their community and address it. Is this social gospel--or "letting our lights shine" and "bearing the fruits of our faith"? It seems if a missionary in a world mission does something and an American pastor does the same thing, the missionary is praised as using a tool to gain acceptance to share the Gospel, but the American pastor is accused of "social gospel." Perhaps we may need to take on the "Missional Mindset" the authors speak of? Maybe Steve has more insights about that church near where he served. Seems not all the needed facts were presented in the article. They did make a big deal about the worship style, though. Perhaps the worship style was used as an excuse for a lack of evangelical zeal? John Hoh
Steve’s comments forwarded by John hit a resonant note in my own reflection upon the process of change and the “intuitive” notion that more contemporary, non-European, styles of worship ought to be at the heart of evangelism and mission work, as neighborhoods and their ethno-centricities shift. Could it be that the most expedient, and seemingly counter-intuitive, direction that churches ought to be shifting toward is “change” back toward the authentically traditional in its rich “tradition”? This might be one of the most important kinds of inclusions that would help “balance” the American cultural notions evident in the Church and Change Conference, October 15-17. In the face of many, most(?) Lutheran churches considering a shift to the “contemporary” worship model the new “contemporary” could very well be retro “traditional” as in pop culture the new contemporary revives “retro.” Below is one link to a leader in the evangelism model of worship who has backtracked entirely from her previous “contemporary” model. The second link is to a conservative “Confessional Lutheran” LC-MS church in the Washington, D. C. area that is thriving. In times of “Church and Change” there are also many Christians longing for the unchanging, the staid, Confessional doctrine of the ages. Gene Veith, whose books are popular in our circles—and who keynoted a conference at WLC a few years back--attends the church I’m told. Over against the style of worship of other LC-MS churches and ELCA churches, and perhaps, some of our churches in the area (?), for whom the contemporary worship paradigm has been recently adopted and which—from a worship viewpoint--look much like each other on the respective websites [or in the telephone book], this church has hit a chord they believe to be perpetually contemporary—being old and new simultaneously. These days, a church that “brands” itself as “Confessional Doctrine; Traditional Liturgy” rather than seeming “dated” may bring to a community a truly unique and authentic Confessional Lutheran worship “experience.” http://nancybeach.typepad.com/nancy_beach/files/morgenthaler_article.pdf http://www.immanuelalexandria.org/Steve Reagles
Thanks for that "Steve"
I do suspect the church in Chicago did not die because of the selection of worship style. I'm guessing there's a deeper issue (or issues) involved. The congregation is ELCA, and if anyone has any knowledge of internal issues in ELCA then it's usually not liturgy that's the culprit.
A former co-worker who was ELCA once remarked that she felt her congregation was pressured into hiring their pastor--a black female. It was this lady's impression that her pastor only preached about civil rights. Granted it may be a relevant topic, and one Christians may want to promote, but not necessarily a topic for in the pulpit.
I did notice that the photos that accompanied the article seemed to feature all "white folk"--but the congregation is among African-Americans. Maybe there was little to no attempt to reach out to those who lived in the neighborhood? And the Lutheran group of African-Americans taking over the building--how did that group get started? The reporter could have done some more digging.
BTW, Luther's right hand man, Johan Bugenhagen, not only organized the Reformation congregations in the Nordic nations but adapted the liturgy to the Scandinavian culture. Our brothers and sisters in the ELS still use this service.
I believe Steve's point, since he pastored a congregation in that neighborhood and has an idea of what the area is like, was to call into question the remaining members who voiced the opinion that, hey, maybe the liturgy they used wasn't what the people were looking for. But, then again, that's what they liked and they didn't want to change. (Although it IS telling that they even voiced the opinion that they wouldn't change for anyone.)
John Hoh
Joe,There's a whole lot in your email, but one paragraph caught my attention andpiqued my thoughts - and for better or for worse, I'm in the mood to writesomething this evening. You noted:"So how did the first church worship? I mean the one before Luther, who wasCatholic BTW. Did they go back to tradition 500 years earlier? Wait theycouldn't do that, they were the first church. They probably worshipped withwhat they had and was current and relevant. Preaching and teaching in truthand purity, right? Otherwise how would Christianity ever have grown?..."The first Church was composed of Adam and Eve. I'm guessing that was notwhat you meant, but bear with me. No, we don't really know much at allabout how they worshipped, either pre or post-Fall - though we do know thatpre-Fall they worshipped perfectly. Moving forward in time, we know a lotabout how the Church worshipped before Christ. God prescribed that to agreat degree. And we actually know a fair amount about how the earlyChristians worshipped. Would it surprise you to know that the concept ofliturgical worship - the idea of structure - with ebb and flow - God comingto us in Word and Sacrament, the worshipers responding with praise andthanksgiving goes back to and has its roots in Jewish worship? So, in areal, true sense that first church did go back to a tradition of worshipthat predated it by centuries.And how did the early Church grow... certainly not by adopting the paganpractices around it - the early church in one sense did not need to be"current" and "relevant" - to the extent that current and relevant meansthat the message was any different from that proclaimed at the time of Adamand Eve or Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Isaiah, etc. Simply, theChurch grew - not because it changed itself to be current and relevant, butbecause of Word and Sacrament. So, as you noted... the early Church didindeed worship with what it had... a foundation of worship centuries old...and its worship was in fact current and relevant... as God's message isalways current and relevant!Take a look at the liturgies in our present hymnal. Note how much of thetext in each is directly taken from God's Word and how much more isindirectly taken from God's Word. What part of God's Word, as contained inthose liturgies, could possibly be problematic? [Aside: When I feel"bored" with the liturgy, what part of me - the new man or the old man - isbored? I've concluded that it's the old man :-) ] Sure, worship byChristians has evolved - in one sense especially - musically - incorporatinginto the hymnody of today hymns from across centuries and cultures -African, Jewish, Roman, Greek, and yes, even German and English. But theconcept of worship has remained basically the same since that first church-- with the exact same focus... God's Word and Sacrament - God coming to usand our response of thanksgiving and praise.Settings... instruments... incense... architecture... processionals... andthe like... those are the trappings of worship. Those can be adapted to theculture and need - with the caveat that some forms of each may not becompatible with Word and Sacrament. But, the use of and focus in Worship onWord and Sacrament - that in my opinion, we dare not change... And note, ithas been effective and will be effective in every culture, land and time -that God promises us.My musings on a Monday evening...With best regards,Harvey Dunn
Harvey,I can't agree with you more. All through time and cultures there havebeen aspects of new and old in the corporate worship. But there arethe constants of the unpolluted word and sacraments.It was unfair, however for Steve to paint with a broad stroke that theC&C group is some kind of rogue neo-Seminex band hell bent on bringingpagan practices into the WELS. This is NOT the case. I have been apart of the C&C group for some time and was apalled that a discussionwould be reduced to name calling.To God be the glory.Joe Krohn
Just for clarity, what definition of "liturgical" are people using? It seems to me when discussing worship formats it would be helpful to be working with the same definitions. In my ministry the definition of liturgical has change at least two times in our circles.
"Dream big ... the Word works!
John Parlow
John,
First, I hope things are well with you and your family way up there in Green Bay!
And, as is always true, it’s good to make sure that we are all speaking the same language. J
Definitionally speaking, I’m very comfortable with the following definition of the term liturgy”, as authored by Prof. Tiefel:___________________________________
"The words liturgy and liturgical have a variety of meanings and uses among Christians. These words are rooted in Greek words meaning "people" and "work." As many people understand the word, liturgy is a regular and formal order of worship, and a liturgical church uses such an order of service. . . In a narrower sense, however, liturgical denotes a worship style unique among the many orders of service used by Christian denominations. Liturgical worship is a style of worship built on the worship rite of the historic Christian liturgy. An order of service that has the liturgical style includes the historic liturgy's two basic elements: the Ordinary (parts that stay the same every week) and the Proper (parts that change each Sunday according to the theme). Thus, liturgical worship service emphasizes the Christian church year and its regular celebration of Holy Communion."
[From The Liturgical Style of Lutheran Worship by James Tiefel]
___________________________________
Most of the time, I’d say that I use the term in the “narrow” sense, as Prof. Tiefel defines it in the excerpt above.
I’d add to the above definition, though, the comment that a “Lutheran” liturgy (i.e., a liturgy that is meet, right and salutary - J ) always is centered on Word and Sacrament. That is, it is centered on how God comes to us, what God does for us – not on what we do for God. It is based on the Theology of the Cross, not some Theology of Glory.
Speaking of Prof. Tiefel, another excellent essay by the Professor may be found here:http://www.wlsessays.net/authors/T/TiefelEvangelism/TiefelEvangelism.PDF
In the essay, Prof. Tiefel discusses the proper focus of corporate worship:___________________________________
"Lutheran pastors need to come to grips with the reality that not culture but God sets the liturgy. Obviously, I do not mean that in an absolute sense. Martin Luther reestablished the New Testament principle that form in worship is the free choice of the church. When he presented his German order to the people of his day he wrote, "We heartily beg, in the name of Christ, that if in time something better should be revealed to them [i.e., to otherChristians] they should tell us to be silent, so that by common effort we may aid the common cause." But to gain from Luther that, in worship, any style will do, is to misread Luther. Werner Elert says this about the Reformer:"No matter how strongly he emphasizes the Christian freedom in connection with the forms of this rite, no matter how much he deviates from the form handed down at the end of the Middle Ages, no matter how earnestly he warns against the belief that external customs could commend us to God, still there are certain ceremonial elements that he, too, regards as indispensable."What Luther was not willing to abandon, as both his Latin and German services show, was the basic structure of the historic Christian rite, which included the church year and the Sacrament. In short, Luther was committed to liturgical worship. "For among Christians," he wrote, "the whole service should center on Word and Sacrament." . . . The Lutheran fathers understood what their sons need to understand: The Lutheran Church is not liturgical only or even primarily because this has been its tradition, but because liturgical worship confesses its theology. In every way the liturgy points the worshiper away from himself and his culture and toward his Savior on the cross. The liturgy always presents sin as damning guilt, Christ as atoning mediator, God as justifying Father, conversion as free gift and means of grace as Spirit's tool. Therefore, the liturgy continually presents Christ in action for the world: "Lord, have mercy," "Glory be to God on high," "I believe in God, the Father..." "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God..." "O Christ, Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world." The liturgy carries the worshiper through Christ's birth, appearing, victory over Satan, passion and death, resurrection, ascension and the commissioning of his church. The liturgy offers to the believer what Christ told the church to offer, his body and blood, given and shed for the forgiveness of sins. The liturgy does not care so much how people feel about Christ, how they choose Christ and what they do for Christ. It cares instead that Christ felt enough love for the people to choose to give up his place in heaven and come down to suffer and die. When it comes to the Christian response, the liturgy expects what God has promised: "My Word will not return empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it" (Isaiah 55:11). The liturgy allows for response and even expects response, but it correctly puts justification before sanctification and allows the means of grace to promote sanctification according to the Spirit's desire and will.As liturgical worship confesses what the Lutheran church believes about Christ, so it confesses what we believe about the Word. Because Lutherans believe that the Holy Spirit works through the Word to create, maintain and strengthen faith, they value the "pattern of sound teaching." And nowhere is the pattern of sound teaching more important than in the forms of corporate worship. For this reason the orthodox Lutheran church of the past and present views its liturgy as a precise (though not exhaustive) confession of biblical theology...."___________________________________
I particularly like the statement: “In every way the liturgy points the worshiper away from himself and his culture and toward his Savior on the cross”, because it puts both me and culture in our proper place. As Christians, we are indeed strangers in a strange land. (And for you sci-fi fans, that’s a reference to 1 Pet. 2:11-12, not to Robert Heinlein’s book - J )
With best regards,
Harvey Dunn
Harvey,
I confess that I am certainly no liturgical expert but I do believe it needs to be pointed out that Prof. Tiefel's definition of "liturgical", though while widely used in our church body, is after all only one man's definition. My worship professor at Seminary back in the 80's had a different one. In a paper delivered at the WELS 2005 National Conference of Worship, Music, and the Arts this was given as the definition of liturgical: "Liturgical worship uses the great texts of the Church (Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Te Deum, Sanctus, Angus Dei, etc.) as the basis for its praise, and uses the Life of Christ and the Teachings of Christ as expressed in the liturgical calendar as the basis for its proclamation." If one were to use the latter definition to determine whether a service is "liturgical" he would have to conclude that most of the WELS congregations using Christian Worship's Service of the Word and Service of the Word and Sacrament are not offering liturgical services! Those ancient songs are not included in those liturgies. There are some newly written, beautiful response songs offered in Service of the Word and Service of the Word and Sacrament but they are not ancient. I happen not to have a problem with either definition; I just believe it is unhealthy and legalistic for some to imply that one format of worship makes one more "Lutheran" than another.
Previously on threads like this one people have erroneously accused the C & C organization of pushing the contemporary worship format to the exclusion of the traditional format. I have not seen that and I have conducted several of the workshops on contemporary worship. C & C has become a resource for those congregations seeking a second option when it comes to worship formats precisely because, to the best of my knowledge, our seminary continues to "offer" seminarians training and exposure to really only one format -- traditional.
The Kingdom would be better served if we all would spend a little more time on understanding our local mission fields and then determining what worship format best helps us place people in connection with the means of grace.
Blessings on our family and ministry!
"Dream big ... the Word works!
John Parlow
John,
With all due respect, to me, based on the quote provided, you appear to be misreading what your professor said.
My reading of the quote is that it is entirely consistent with the definition of liturgical worship provided by Prof. Tiefel. Indeed, liturgical worship does use the great texts of the Church (Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Te Deum, Sanctus, Angus Dei, etc.) as the basis for its praise. That statement does not state, however, that each and every liturgical service has to contain each and every one of those great texts (as well as whatever else is covered by the “etc.”).
So, yes, WELS has liturgical worship services that omit some of the “great texts” and the Church historically has had the same. Nevertheless, it remains a true and accurate statement to say that liturgical worship (as opposed to any particular liturgical service) uses those “great texts” – why, because those texts are based on God’s Word! What else should we be using in worship? Take the Kyrie… can anyone give a good reason as to why in a worship service we should not cry out to God “Lord have mercy”. Why should we not use God’s own Word to sing His praise as in the Gloria? But I digress… suffice to say, based on the quote you provided, I see only one definition… one which is entirely consistent with that of Tiefel.
(Now to be fair, perhaps you have more contextual material with which you can provide us that would support your view that your professor was maintaining by that quote that to be liturgical a service must have each and every one of the “great texts.” If that was truly his view, then we of course also need to know what was covered by the “etc.” With a list showing all of the “great texts” including whatever is covered by the “etc.”, we can judge whether there is or has ever been a specific liturgical service that has contained each and every one of such texts. If so and there was or is, then we can revisit this definitional discussion.)
Now, don’t get me wrong, I do believe that time needs to be spent on understanding the local mission fields. Indeed, no one that I have heard has suggested otherwise. (Can you help us by showing us who has been suggesting that one should not spend time understanding a local mission field?) And if by the term “worship format” you mean things like the settings, instruments, incense, architecture, processionals, vestments, and the like – which to me are the trappings of worship; then I wholeheartedly agree. As I noted before, those can and (let me suggest) should be adapted to the culture and need. But, the use of and focus in worship on Word and Sacrament is to me something that we dare not change – and note, I am not suggesting that you would ever want to change such – I know you too well to think that. Rather, let’s use what by God’s grace has been passed down to us from many cultures, times and peoples and to reiterate, let’s remember that Christian worship should “point the worshiper away from himself and his culture and toward his Savior on the cross”.
With best regards,
Harvey Dunn
Harvey,
The "ancient texts" quote is from an essay:
"Rite Worship for North American Outreach," by Rev. Jonathan E. Schroeder (.pdf document).
"Dream big ... the Word works!
John Parlow
First time emailer, long time observer. I do feel it necessary to point out that a wide variety of music and worship styles are used at the seminary, so that students are indeed familiar with what is available. The beauty of it is that worship can be both Liturgical and Contemporary. I would suggest that of those two terms, "contemporary" is more broad and difficult to pin down exactly what its users mean. God's blessings as you wrestle with all the important issues in your various congregations. Nate KassulkeGrace, Tucson
Nate,
Thanks for the update.
"Dream big ... the Word works!
John Parlow
John,
Thanks much for supplying the link the article from which you were quoting: "Rite Worship for North American Outreach," by Rev. Jonathan E. Schroeder (http://www.issuesinwels.org/ForumPapers07/Documents/PDFDocs/WorshipSchroeder.pdf ).
It appears to me that Prof. Schroeder was saying exactly what I thought he was saying, i.e., simply that liturgical worship does indeed use the great texts of the Church (Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Te Deum, Sanctus, Angus Dei, etc.) as the basis for its praise. He was not saying that each and every liturgical service must contain each and every one of those great texts (as well as whatever else is covered by the “etc.”). So, from my perspective, his definition is entirely consistent with that of Prof. Tiefel. (Which is a good thing, is it not? J )
With best regards,
Harvey Dunn
Nate,
I'm not aware that any Contemporary music (Evangelical roots) is being used at the Seminary. GIA (Catholic) and Taize (Reformed) would not fit what most in worship circles would call "Contemporary" music. Is the Seminary really using some Contemporary songs or is this a broad label issue?
God bless your ministry!
"Dream big ... the Word works!
John Parlow
Harvey,
Not to kick a dead horse but what raised flags for me was his term "ancient songs". He lists the great ancient songs so it seems to me that the ancient songs explains the latter listing and the "etc."
"Dream big ... the Word works!
John Parlow
John,
Kicking dead horses can be a good thing… And you make a good point. By “ancient songs” (to the extent those are different from “great texts”), perhaps he is referring to, for example, the Gloria Patri as distinguished from the Gloria in Excelsis. And, I think his point is that liturgical worship respects the gifts that those Christians of multi-cultures, languages and times have handed down to us and incorporates such in the worship service – so the God who stands outside of time hears Christians of every age, language and culture simultaneously singing his praise through, as an example, the same words proclaimed by the angels on the night Christ was born. Sort of neat when you think about it. J
With best regards,
Harvey Dunn
John,
It’s my turn to ask definitions….what do you mean when you use the term “contemporary song” or “contemporary music.” Since we are both about the same age when I think of contemporary songs (from the time when I was in high school), I think of by way of example the Cat Stephens song “Morning Has Broken”, which became quite a pop-hit. Is that (conceding the fact that the song is from another generation) an example of what you mean by contemporary or at least what would have been contemporary in the early 70’s? What would be a current song that you would consider contemporary – and appropriate for worship (How to Save a Life by the Fray is a good “contemporary” song, but hardly in my opinion something to be used in worship – it is, however, on my iPod in two different versions)?
With bet regards,
Harvey Dunn
Harvey,
It is the praise and worship music used which comes out primarily of the Evangelical world. Go to any Christian bookstore or Northwestern Publishing and request a CD of current praise and worship music. GIA and Tazie are not Contemporary.
"Dream big ... the Word works!
John Parlow
Seems several issues are on the burners and need to be addressed.
A definition of the "ancient songs." Can we have updated language and still call them "ancient songs?" I realize they may not be in all their splendor in "Christian Worship" as they were in TLH. Yet the body of CW does have liturgical hymns that can be used in the worship services themselves.
What is the purpose of worship? Is it to edify and build up the body of Christ? Or is it to attract and train new converts? I can see an established congregation lean to the former; a mission congregation lean to the latter. (Then again, there is that passage in one of the Lutheran creeds that indicates the Sacrament should be a vital part of worship, which taken to it's logical conclusion means about half of WELS services, being "non-communion," are "non-Lutheran.")
I have noticed at Salem, when we tried an 8AM "contemporary" service, is that we did have a fair number that came. Eventually, though, they started attending the 10AM "traditional" service more and the 8AM "contemporary" less. Did they seek more in their worship experience? If so, did we set up the "contemporary" service wrong?
A classmate once noted that the liturgies that stand the test of time are written in the minor keys. The faddish, "modern" ones in the major keys. Hmmmm.
Is the Chicago Service still used? Was rather popular 10-15 years ago.
I wonder if these debates were raging 1-2 generations ago on whether Matins could be used in summer months or if only page 5/15 was proper?
I do know that when surveys are taken and growth/decline numbers of churches are studied, the Eastern Orthodox churches seem to have the greatest growth. One *could* say that the Orthodox retains the ancient traditions (or is it Traditions?) and liturgies, so embracing the old is what people want. Then again, could Orthodoxism be a "novelty" in the American scene? Face it, the Orthodox haven't been known as overt evangelizers and have been a rather small group on the American religious scene.
This link is to a piece Roger Huffman allowed me to share on my Lutheranism site: http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/lutheranism/16954/1 (Somehow the site put my name as the author.) I liked how Roger balanced the need for the ancient with the inclusion of the new. At heart we are all sinners with stuggles with sin, a dilemma faced by all people of all ages--the same people saved by an unchanging God who is timeless. Yet our hymns and worship reflect also each one of us in our struggle. We put to words and music those struggles we each face and wrestle with. Some of us wrap those words and music in repetitious refrains that giv us comfort. Some of us wrap them in dogmatic themes that give us comfort. Still others give voice anew to the ancient psalms (although I doubt many of us actually sing them in the original Hebrew ;) Roani Adonai!).
Actually, the psalm seem to indicate a variety in worship. Psalm 150 is an example. James Sonnemann likes to play the Doc Severinson version of the psalm when it comes up in the pericope. (It does date itself when someone sings the refrain, "He loves you! Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!")
Unfortunately I have to work and struggle to pay my bills, so I'm unable to take days off during the week and scrap up $200 to attend the C&C conference. Many of this year's topics are intriguing. Salem is sending a member to the conference, so hopefully I can get it second hand.
Back to the article from the "Chicago Tribune" that this thread started from. I found it interesting that the use of liturgy was what the members said was the downfall. Is it the liturgy itself--or an attitude behind that choice of liturgy? Or maybe an attitude itself that the congregation did not want to address. I shared Steve's response because of the close proximity he had served to the situation--and his perceptions and experiences. I'm guessing even if that congregation had switched liturgies there was still an attitude that kept people away. That's the impression I get from the article and the photos that accompanied the article.
In the book "Comeback Churches" the authors note that today's culture is not acclimated to church. The authors speak of a "missional" mindset. They stated that churches need to adopt a "Go, tell" strategy to reach out to people in their circumstances and situations. It takes trust and the building of relationships before they respond to "Come, see." I believe Harvey (did I get that right?) shared a link about worship and contrasted the two views in a "table."
I received a book to review recently that might be of help. It's called "The Bible From Scratch: The New Testament for Beginners" by Donald L. Griggs. (There is a companion volume for the Old Testament as well.) My review is at http://www.bookideas.com/reviews/index.cfm?fuseaction=displayReview&id=3920 . This gets down to the very basics of the New Testament.
God's blessings to all as they fulfill their God-given vocations.
John Hoh
To JP"Taize"Taize is no more reformed. It was only the first study years of thefounder and the founders father was reformed - but in general it isheavily fighting for ecumenicism. It is very appriciated by the vaticanand catholic youth work and therefor I would suggest when WELS iscopiing this succes modell it should not talk about "Taize"-music (asthe Commission on Worship and others do) but I think one should talkabout gregorian music or something differnt because Pope Gregor is for along time already dead while Taize remains to be a huge problem foryouth pastors etc. because it lures every church youth in Europe intoecumenism or into mysticism - not the music itself but every one thattravels to Taize in France to relax therre and participate for a week ortwo - and there are many from every church - not only liberals sadly! Ithink lets better referr to it as the music style of a lon ago dead pope(gregorian) than giving honor to a dangerous and spreading cult inFrance! But the music is really great if you combine it with right lyrics.greetings to everyone from Clemens Erbacher (Germany)
Clemens,
Thank you for the insights.
"Dream big ... the Word works!
John Parlow
C&C Brothers & Sisters,
I have been watching this on and off discussion on contemporary/traditional worship for some time and I have to be honest I am wrestling with some thoughts that have been bouncing around. It is clear that Satan has been using this issue to feed fears and cause tension among God’s people for some time. It is a perfect storm for Satan because worship is in part art and art is always subjective, everyone will have their own opinion of what is beautiful and what is not. Try talking to your favorite teen musician some time about what he likes and compare it to your tastes. Yikes! J When you mix this with theological imperatives to preach the gospel to all nations (reaching them in their culture) and to be on guard for false teaching you have a fertile ground for fear and pride.
Someone once asked me why people are so polarized on this issue that either they are staunchly traditional and want nothing to do with anything new or fanatically contemporary and push everyone else to be like them. I thought he was wrong. Most people I think may lean one way or another but most of us are in the middle somewhere, savoring our traditions, and yet longing to relate to God and His people in a new and refreshing way, a way that God can use to leap the hurdle of sinful nature that makes people (me) so fickle in their focus and changing in where they are at in their lives and what is going to get through to the fog our minds. Did I say that right? Sorry for the scattered thoughts, I am a musician, left handed, male, and sinful. It is a miracle of God I can track anything. Hah! So, it is with the assumption that we are all somewhere in the middle and with the assumption that we all treasure our freedom in Christ, the truth of God’s Word, and God’s mission for His people that I write these observations…
Of the 623 hymns in our hymnal 586 of them had either their text or tune written in the 1800s or earlier. Of the 37 where both tune and text were written in the 1900s it appears as if 35 of them had text or tune written before 1951. (This is difficult to pinpoint as at times the hymnal lists life span of author rather than date of publication.) I am no expert on our hymnal and hymns by any means. However, it appears to me that even the music written in the 1900s tends to imitate style and lyrics of previous generations. Now, don't get me wrong, like you, I love some of those old tunes. And to the credit of those who put the hymnal together (whose musical shoes I could not begin to carry) there is "some" really neat variety musically in our hymnal. They also had to put out a hymnal that reflected the tastes of the people in our churches that would buy the hymnal. My point is this: you could certainly see why some inside and outside our church might consider us stuck in the past in the context of worship.
Consider how dramatically music has changed since 1951 and is still changing, and this not just in American, but world wide. Interesting that as I informally tracked the dates of our hymns I noticed a kind of boom in the 1400s, the 1600s, and the 1800s. In my opinion we are right now living in a boom of Christian hymn and music writing. There is so much good stuff lyrically and musically being created out there inside and outside our WELS that it is astonishing, impossible to keep up with. I believe that God’s people will be singing songs written in the early 2000s for a very long time. Some of it is repetitious and shallow but a good portion of it has excellent theological content and exuberance musically that rivals “A Mighty Fortress” of generations ago. Some of it has been written by people with whom we will not be sharing the Lord’s Supper but nevertheless their songs are more than worthy of our use in worship. (How many Wesley hymns are in our hymnal?)
So, my questions are these…
Are we living in denial as to how well we are relating to God’s people in worship? Are we appealing to their heads and not their hearts?
If far too many people visit and not come back because we are “Too Catholic!” is that not as much of a concern as being associated with “Reformed Showmanship”?
If it is important for us to have a modern translation of the Bible to allow God to relate through us to His people, why are we still singing so many hymns with “thou” and “didst”?
Can a liturgy (worship structure/dialogue) use God’s timeless word and music that was written in the last 20 years? In other words why do liturgy and contemporary (written in the last 20 years) Christian songs have to exclude each other?
Are we using the talents God has given his people to worship or are we sometimes taking the easy way out in leading worship?
It is not my wish to demean anyone for their taste in the “art” part of worship. Nor is it my desire to paste a target on my back for others to do this. As I said I am wrestling with these things in my mind and trying to be honest with myself and my loving Lord who is so patient with me. Sorry this is so long, I probably had far more important things I could have been doing and yet writing this out has helped me organize some thoughts. God willing it may be a blessing to you as well.
Your brother in Christ,
Steve Soukup
Steve,
Well written. I look forward to the discussion.
"Dream big ... the Word works!
John Parlow
Steve,
That was one of the most thoughtful, care-full, and helpful set of comments on this whole subject I have seen in a very long time. Thanks for the background and statistical evidence and the insightful thinking.
It may be that we are moving past the days of printed hymnals (and the massive costs and time involved in such projects) and more toward the use of liturgies,hymns, songs, and spiritual songs selected out of all the wonderful things being produced more recently. I had suggested before our "new" hymnal was produced that it be in loose leaf form. Now, however, I think it will be more likely that hymnals will be on CD's...or perhaps DVD's with (moving) images available, if desired.
What's needed most, I think, is a WELS forum in which our pastors and people can hear the best biblical and memorable and lyrical music that has been/is being produced so they don't have to duplicate the labors of others in trying to find all that. There is so much coming out that a few people could not do justice to the selective process. Even among our own WELS artists...who knows all the good stuff they are producing?
Of course, being left-handed contributed to your brilliance rather than detracted from .
John Huebner
Steve,
I appreciated your insights. Keep up the good work and meditation. God is looking for those who worship Him in spirit and in truth! You reflect that kind of worship in your words.
Don Patterson
Greetings!Thank you, Steve. I, too, being a talent-challenged musician in a pastlifetime, and a left-handed, male, sinner in both past and present lifetimes,found total agreement in your well-written message.Not directly to your points but somewhat related, a friend recently definedworship this way: "I believe that worship is saying that God is worthy. It isour service to Him. We give Him our time, our attention, our adoration, whateverwe can do to lift up His name. It is what He gets from us, not what we get fromHim. In fact, I believe that when we gather to worship Him but concentrate onwhat we are getting from Him, it is like giving a gift for the sake of makingself feel good, nor for the sake of the receiver. In fact, gathering to getsomething out of it for self, yet calling it worship of God, becomes a lie, isself worship, a form of gross idolatry."I wondering if we set aside everything that Luther said, or Tiefel said, orHenry VIII said, or Rosie O'Donnell said... and pay attention to only - ONLY -what the Bible says, might we not be inclined to change some of ourviews/habits/rituals of "worship"?Just some Friday morning thoughts!Blessings on your Sunday "worship" preparations!Carl Henkel
Thank you, Carl, for saying this. I couldn't agree with you more!Kenn Kremer
I, too, believe that listening to what the Bible says will be the strongest power to heal the divisions and confusions among us regarding worship. So here's some Scripture to meditate upon this morning to fill in some gaps amongst your Friday morning thoughts, Carl.
Psalm 50
A psalm of Asaph.
1 The Mighty One, God, the Lord,
speaks and summons the earth
from the rising of the sun to the place where it sets.
2 From Zion, perfect in beauty,
God shines forth.
3 Our God comes and will not be silent;
a fire devours before him,
and around him a tempest rages.
4 He summons the heavens above,
and the earth, that he may judge his people:
5 “Gather to me my consecrated ones,
who made a covenant with me by sacrifice.”
6 And the heavens proclaim his righteousness,
for God himself is judge. Selah
7 “Hear, O my people, and I will speak,
O Israel, and I will testify against you:
I am God, your God.
8 I do not rebuke you for your sacrifices
or your burnt offerings, which are ever before me.
9 I have no need of a bull from your stall
or of goats from your pens,
10 for every animal of the forest is mine,
and the cattle on a thousand hills.
11 I know every bird in the mountains,
and the creatures of the field are mine.
12 If I were hungry I would not tell you,
for the world is mine, and all that is in it.
13 Do I eat the flesh of bulls
or drink the blood of goats?
14 Sacrifice thank offerings to God,
fulfill your vows to the Most High,
15 and call upon me in the day of trouble;
I will deliver you, and you will honor me.”
16 But to the wicked, God says:
“What right have you to recite my laws
or take my covenant on your lips?
17 You hate my instruction
and cast my words behind you.
18 When you see a thief, you join with him;
you throw in your lot with adulterers.
19 You use your mouth for evil
and harness your tongue to deceit.
20 You speak continually against your brother
and slander your own mother’s son.
21 These things you have done and I kept silent;
you thought I was altogether like you.
But I will rebuke you
and accuse you to your face.
22 “Consider this, you who forget God,
or I will tear you to pieces, with none to rescue:
23 He who sacrifices thank offerings honors me,
and he prepares the way
so that I may show him the salvation of God.”
When it comes to God, there are a great many things that do not work out the way we expect them. Throughout the world, religions of every kind worship by giving to God. Christians, however, worship God rightly when they acknowledge that they have nothing to give. Think of the Pharisee and the tax collector, the Pharisee rejoicing in his gift and the tax collector calling upon God for mercy because he is a sinner. Your friend's definition of worship makes perfect sense to our logical way of thinking (the opinio legis, for you theologians out there). We think we possess the means to make God happy through what we offer him. But with God, just the opposite is true. He has the means to make him happy with us. Our worship acknowledges our need. It runs to him for help. It receives salvation.
"Guard your steps when you go to the house of God. Go near to listen rather than to offer the sacrifice of fools who do not know that they do wrong" (Ecclesiastes 5:1). This is a good discussion. Bring more Scripture. Let's fill in the gaps and learn from him who alone is the Truth.
In Christ,
Rev. Aaron C. Frey
So true, Aaron...by nature we cannot give God anything...
That's one side of the story...this needs to be reflected (and I have seen this reflected in our circles) both in the liturgies of our hymnal as well as those others develop for a service not following the hymnal.
Either way, it's important that we hear the good news...and when it comes to those who have heard it and believe, how many are the passages in the Bible that do speak of the great delight God does take in what he receives from us.
Bill
Wow, I hate to interrupt this outpouring of suggestions for modern musicwhich seems to support my theory that we are in a song writing boom. AndI really hate arguing about words. As I said, I am no theologian. Nor doI want to appear to defend Carl's friend. Although you have to like thatCarl can lump Tiefel and Rosie and Luther all together. That takes somereal fur on your back. :)Aaron of course makes a good point that the primary focus of worship iswhat God gives me. On the other hand I think the scriptures are clearthat a secondary focus is what I have to give God. And I do havesomething to give God because he gave it to me. I have the ability tochoose and confess Him as God. He gave it to me, the ability to love andthe faith to trust. He asks me to acknowledge Him, in fact to be healthyI need to acknowledge Him. I was "Made To Love" as Toby Mac so eloquentlyput it. Or I could say I was bought to love. Think about these verses fora minute...Psalm 96:8,9 "Ascribe to the LORD, O families of nations, ascribe to theLORD glory and strength. [8] Ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name;bring an offering and come into his courts. [9] Worship the LORD in thesplendor of his holiness; tremble before him, all the earth."Psalm 100: 1,2 "Shout for joy to the LORD, all the earth. [2] Worship theLORD with gladness; come before him with joyful songs. [3] Know that theLORD is God. It is he who made us, and we are his."Romans 12:1 "Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, tooffer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God--this isyour spiritual act of worship."I don't know, sounds like I have something to give and thank God I do. Iam not sure what this has to do about modern music and how we relate inworship. But if we are afraid of expressing thanks in worship becausesomehow we feel that we will slip into thinking that we are earning ourway into God's favor by our gift then I would say that is a danger ineverything we do. The question is this: Is it a reason to stop doingsomething we need to and are created to do because there is a dangerinvolved?Now, back to some of these songs... A group called Jars of Clay has anawesome worship album called "Redemption". To me they display someAfrican American influence in their music...Steve Soukup
Pastor Henkel,At the outset let me confess that I tend to be a bit blunt. And, it is myhope that I am misreading a bit what you are saying... However, as I readwhat you have written below -- and with all due respect to you and yourfriend -- it seems to me that the statement below has turned the entireBiblical concept of worship on its head. And it is exactly this upside downview of worship that is endemic both in many of the contemporary songs thatare available and in the desires of many to move from liturgical worship toworship that appeals "to the heart."Corporate Worship is first and foremost NOT about our service to God. Godneeds nothing from us. (See, e.g., Psalm 50)Worship on the contrary is first and foremost God's service to us! (There'sa reason that the corporate worship service is referred to in German asGottesdienst (literally, "God's service").) In terms of purpose, corporateworship is first and foremost that which God instituted for the purpose offeeding us. It is the primary forum that God has Himself selected where Hecomes to His people in both Word and Sacrament - for the purpose of buildingup and strengthening the faith of His people. Corporate Worship isdistantly and secondarily and subordinately, where we - in response to whatGod is giving to us - give back to God our thanks and praise in the offeringof hymns, prayers, etc.So, what should our focus be in worship? First and foremost it should be onwhat God has done for us and what God in His service is doing for us -feeding us by Word and Sacrament. (And in this context, I don't think thatit's incorrect to say the old man would rather me focus on what I am doing"for God" rather than what God is doing for me.)It is only when I understand what God has done for me and what He isproviding to me in His service, that I can appropriately respond with thethanks and praise that He deserves -- not just for what He did for me 2000years ago or for what He did for me in my baptism, but for what He is doingfor me in that very service. And note that such a response will naturallytake place in the Christian -- but that response should not be the focus ofworship, it at best should be only secondary to what God has done and isdoing for me. My eyes should remain fixed on the cross.(Aside: please note that, lest we ever start patting ourselves on ourcollective backs, our worshipful actions (corporately and individually)during the worship service (and any other works that we do) are nothing butfilth -- in and of themselves, they do nothing to increase our faith and donothing with respect to earning our justification/salvation. Bluntly, asalready discussed, God does not need them. It is only through the filter ofChrist that they have any "goodness" at all. And wonder upon wonders, filththough they are, through that Christ-filter, God sees our worshipful actionsas perfect, pure and holy.)Let me close by offering a quote that seems to be pertinent to thediscussion this Friday morning. Please consider the following comment:"Our whole Christian religion consists of the inner man or the new man,whose soul is faith and whose expressions are the fruits of life, and allsermons should be aimed at this... One should therefore emphasize that thedivine means of Word and sacrament are concerned with the inner man. Henceit is not enough that we hear the Word with our outward ear, but we must letit penetrate to our heart, so that we may hear the Holy Spirit speak there,that is, with vibrant emotion and comfort feel the sealing of the Spirit andthe power of the Word. Nor is it enough to be baptized, but the inner man,where we have put on Christ in Baptism, must also keep Christ on and bearwitness to him in our outward life. Nor is it enough to have received theLord's Supper externally, but the inner man must truly be fed with thatblessed food. Nor is it enough to pray outwardly with our mouth, but trueprayer, and the best prayer, occurs in the inner man, and it either breaksforth in words or remains in the soul, yet God will find and hit upon it.Nor, again, is it enough to worship God in an external temple, but the innerman worships God best in his own temple, whether or not he is in an externaltemple at the time."What do you think? Words of wisdom? Any issues or concerns?Initially, it sounds pretty good. It simply makes sense to focus themessage such that it penetrates the heart, doesn't it? We should seek tomake sure that when the Word is proclaimed it engenders "vibrant emotion".We should be concerned not just with making sure the Word proclaimed (theexternals), but on the inner man - that the inner man really and truly isbeing fed. And the author obviously advocates proclaiming the Word andadministering the Sacraments.But here's the problem... there has indeed been a very subtle shift infocus. Do you see it? (If some don't, then let me suggest that is theproblem with evaluating the texts of contemporary hymns to see if theycomport with God's Word... it's sometimes not that easy :-) )The shift in focus in focus is subtle, but nevertheless significant. (Thisis how easily leaven can sneak in.) Here the focus is no longer primarilyon the objective proclamation of the Word and administration of theSacraments - for to the author such are externals. The primary concern (andthe new focus) is now on ensuring that one is appealing to the hearer'shearts - penetrating those hearts, engendering vibrant emotion. What's theproblem with that? Simply, the objectivity of the means of grace (and God'svery objective promises regarding such) has now been superseded by, andprimacy is now being given to, the subjectivity of the believer's experience- again, it's not enough to proclaim the Word - one must penetrate theheart; it's not enough to administer the Sacraments, more is needed.Objective proclamation and objective administration have been replaced withsubjective feeling.Bluntly, it is this subjectivity that pervades much of the "theology" ofnon-litugical worship - a theology that is foreign to God's Word.With best regards early on a Friday afternoon,Harvey DunnOh... by the way... the author of the comment above -- Philip Jacob Spener.
Steve,
You ask: If it is important for us to have a modern translation of the Bible to allow God to relate through us to His people, why are we still singing so many hymns with “thou” and “didst”?
The simple answer is that there is absolutely no reason - other than sometimes its more poetic or perhaps in some few cases the song is protected by copyright and so it can’t be changed.
From the poetic side of things, “Be you my vision” just doesn’t have the same ring to me as “Be Thou my vision” J
In any event, no one that I am aware of has advocated keeping the “Thou’s,” etc., for doctrinal reasons or because a change would make the hymns too contemporary. (Note that in CW, many of the songs have had that sort of language “cleaned up.”)
And note further that even in some very contemporary music, Thee’s and Thou’s and the like are used – presumably for poetic reasons -- consider the following by Lincoln Brewster (caveat – I am not advocating the use in worship of the following song):
All I Really Want
From the album Amazed
Label: Vertical Music
Lord I love the way You love me
And how You move me deep within
Lord I love the way You hold me
And draw me into You
Lord I love the way You bless me
And how You look into my heart
Lord I love the way You lead me
Right into Your arms
Chorus
God I praise Thee
You amaze me
Take my life
And let Your light shine through
Jesus Savior friend of sinners
Fill me up
'Cuz all I really want is more of You
So, to me, this does not appear to be much of an issue…
With best regards,
Harvey Dunn
Steve-
Believe me, I sure wasn't trying to advocate ignoring this secondary aspect of worship. Not in the least. I was just responding to the one-sided (or, at the very least, turned around) view of worship that was presented in the quote from Pastor Henkel's friend.
Your passages are, in fact, very informative and edifying. Psalm 96 teaches us to ascribe to the Lord all the credit for our creation, salvation and preservation. We are "doing something" when we ascribe, and it is not only something we ought to be doing, but it is something that for Jesus' sake God loves to see us do. But the focus is what God has done and still does.
Likewise Psalm 100 focuses on why we worship him. The focus is not on us, though we are doing something. The primary focus of worship is God's work for us.
And, again, the focus of Romans 12 is God's mercy. It is our motivation. It is quite literally our life. Many, as Psalm 50 tells us, take God's name upon their lips. In the same way, the Pharisee "worshipped" in the temple along with the tax collector, but only one of them was focused on God's mercy. The tax collector was still "doing something," of course. In fact, he was doing what Psalm 96 tells believers to do: ascribing to God the glory due his name and trembling before him. But, again, the focus is on God's mercy. Our act of worship, all of its own, is simply an acknowledgment of truth. It is not impressive. The fact that God brought it forth from a man such as me is impressive. But what I do for him by his power is certainly not my focus in worship. It is definitely not the essence of worship. God loves it for his Son's sake, and there is certainly both joy for us in that truth and even more reason to praise him--to praise him for his mercy, his help, his faithfulness, his grace, his deliverance, his providence, his power for us and his promises to us.
So, as I said, I just desired to put the right things in the right place in accord with the Bible's own definitions and commands regarding worship. The quote from Pastor Henkel's friend was dangerously one-sided, but Pastor Henkel's suggestion to let the Word speak in order to guide us in our understanding of worship and to keep our worship pure and upright was absolutely appropriate, so I just offered some insight from the Word to build up my brothers in sisters in the truth.
In his name,
Aaron Frey
Carl and Kenn,
Even if we were to set aside the blessings that God has given to us in godly men before us such as Luther and to pay attention only to the Bible, we would still come away with the unmistakable conclusion that the "best and most necessary" worship is to sit at the feet of Jesus and listen as Mary has done before us. That is the one thing needful. That we hear in Luke 10:38-42.
I am sorry to hear such a love for hearing God's Word as Mary displays in God's Word is called something to make the "self feel good", a "lie", "self worship" and a "form of gross idolatry."
I pray such concurring comments from an email address that shows service at our synod's publishing house do not reflect the type of materials we can expect from that publishing house. I fear it would harm souls and godly consciences.
En Cristo,
Brian Doebler
While I've enjoyed this discussion, I've read a fewthings from both "sides" that have disturbed me a bit.I really appreciated Brian's Mary/Martha reminder thatto try to turn worship into something we are doing toplease God is self-righteous folly. This is a trap theEvangelicals are increasingly leading people in to -e.g. Rick Warren telling us that faith isn't enough toplease God, and that people who are concerned withdoctrine (i.e. listening to Jesus) are only being"self-serving".On the other hand, it also bugs me when I hear someothers (and I've heard it many times over the years -here and elsewhere) allude to the fact that we cansing the same hymns as saints-of-old, as if that insome way is also God-Pleasing. Does God really takeany particular delight in hearing the same words sungto him over the Centuries? When I reflect on Psalm 51I come to the conclusion that it doesn't mean a hillof beans to Him:"You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. Thesacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken andcontrite heart, O God, you will not despise."So - to me there *is* value in making the music"relevant" to the hearts and minds of the people inthe pews - NOT for their enjoyment, but so thatawkward musical stylings and phrasings don't get inthe way of engaging both the hearts and the minds ofthe people in worship. Otherwise, no matter howbeautiful the truths are that we sing, they willbecome nothing but "empty words" to many. (NOT becausethey are less sanctified, but because we have thrownup cultural & linguistic barriers to them.)That being said, most of what passes for "ContemporaryWorship" these days that I've heard is unfortunatelytrash - but that's not to say there aren't gems fromBOTH the new and old that can be substantive,faithful, and meaningful to a wide cross-section of usin the early 21st Century. (Just don't ask me to pick'em!!)- Mark Salzwedel
Mark,I appreciate your comments. There was a time inthe early stages of Christian contemporary musichistory in which there was not much to choose from,however, that cannot be said anymore. Christian musicexists in just about every style known to man, andwhile some of it is not good, there is music out therethat is absolutely great! The biggest challenge manyhave is sifting through all that is out there andfinding what works for them. That is a big part of mycall as minister of music - finding music that worksin our setting of worship. I have come across someincredible songs in the process.Phil Boileau
Brothers and Sisters,"Go and make disciples of all nations..." How? Baptizing them andteaching them to obey all our Lord has commanded us. We do that when weevangelize. We do that when we worship. Lutherans who love toevangelize and love to worship confess that the means of grace are thebeating heart of both. The Gospel. Baptism. Communion. These are God'sgifts, not man's. They are God's actions, not man's. Because worshippulses with the means of grace, worship is primarily the reception ofGod's Gospel gifts.I disagree with Pastor Henkel's definition. It smacks of Rick Warren'sevangelical approach.I am also saddened that Editor Kremer would so quickly and glowinglyendorse it.I am NOT saying that there is no place for selections that express myfeelings of love, awe, and devotion to God. It is eminently biblicaland Lutheran, however, to say that we praise God best by proclaimingwhat God has done. The women did this at the grandest moment inIsrael's history in Exodus 15. The Levites did just that in Nehemiah 9.The Lord's apostle exhorts this in Colossians 3. The Word of Christ isto dwell in us richly. How? By telling God how we feel about him? No.By singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs to each other. The Wordthat we receive from God is the same Word that we sing to God andothers.Church and Change has a golden opportunity here. If C and C is reallyto be an exchange of important issues that face us all, I can't imaginewhy Professor Tiefel would not be invited to a future conference for alecture on biblical, Lutheran worship principles. There is obviouslysome confusion or division on the topic even among those on this listserve. "How-to" Contemporary, blended, and drama workshops are finewith me! Practices without clear definitions of the broader theologicalcontexts aren't.Next: I might have missed it, but what are Rosie and Henry VIII's namesdoing in the same sentence with Luther and Tiefel? A militant lesbianand a notorious adulterer who ignore Scripture together with twoprofessors of Lutheran theology who have spent their lives teaching it?I must have missed the connection... No one asked, but I would counsela public retraction/apology.Finally, I would encourage everyone to at least read the ChristianWorship Manual, Luther's Works vol. 53 and Joseph Herl's "Worship Warsin Early Lutheranism" (Oxford) before even hinting that Luther mighthave been less than eminently Scriptural and pastoral in his approachto worship.I wish all of you our dear Lord's blessing.Cordially,Aaron Christie
> "I really appreciated Brian's Mary/Martha reminder that> to try to turn worship into something we are doing to> please God is self-righteous folly. This is a trap the> Evangelicals are increasingly leading people in to -> e.g. Rick Warren telling us that faith isn't enough to> please God, and that people who are concerned with> doctrine (i.e. listening to Jesus) are only being> "self-serving".">>> - MarkI'm not picking on you, Mark. Your quote is just setting up thediscussion. :)Sometimes I wonder if we argue semantics. Correct me if I'm wrong,but don't faith and works go together? You can't have one withoutthe other. At least that's how I always understood it. Workswithout faith is pointless; Faith without works is dead.Blessings,Joe Krohn
I was reading the Peoples Bible study on Nehemiah this morning, and was into chapter 12, where Ezra and Nehemiah led the dedication of the walls of Jerusalem. There were a couple of references that touched on liturgy and worship styles. Hundreds of years after David, Solomon and Asaph, the Israelites were still following the liturgy and worship structures that these three men established. Verse 24: "...[there were Levites] who stood opposite [other Levites] to give praise and thanksgiving, one section responding to the other, as prescribed by David the man of God." And later on, in verses 45-46: "They performed the service of their God and the service of purification, as did also the singers and gatekeepers, according to the commands of David and his son Solomon. For long ago, in the days of David and Asaph, there had been directors for the singers and for the songs of praise and thanksgiving to God."
Now I took a couple of points from these passages. The first is that the oldies can still be the goodies. We still use David's and Asaph's and Solomon's words (really, God's words through inspiration), as well as other Scripture that had yet to be written, in our services. Unfortunately, we have lost the music that goes along with the Psalms. (I wonder - what would Koine do with the 10-stringed lyre?) We have changed the style to match our German Lutheran heritage and tastes, but still use the substance of the ancient Hebrew liturgy.
The second is this. The way I read it, we don't know if they followed the exact wording (e.g.: David's TLH vs. Solomon's CW). But they definitely followed the structure. There was Scripture (God talking to them - the Psalms), there was praise (them responding to God) and there was order (worship leaders). And, yes, they did give something to God - "...to give praise and thanksgiving..." (v.24). Of course, this was only acceptable to God because of their faith. As Harvey Dunn quoted from Pastor Tiefel's essay - "it correctly puts justification before sanctification."
The third concerns how this related to our discussion. Through Nehemiah, God was trying to keep the remnant separate from the world in preparation for the Savior's coming. The old-fashioned Hebrew liturgies (the style) would help to accomplish that. Would our "old-fashioned" German-Lutheran liturgies (our style) have the same effect for us, separating us from the world? How do they mesh with the Great Commandment (love God and love your neighbor) and the Great Commission?
Matt Plocher
Joe,But... to be clear, it is faith that is the key.Saving faith by definition will always have good works. The actions thatwithout faith are filth are through the lens of faith seen by God as goodworks.Let me put it this way... as a human being with a sinful nature, withoutfaith, on my very best day, the very best act that I do from God'sperspective is filth. But, with faith, that very same action will be a goodwork. The physical act itself has not changed at all - it remains imperfectand flawed. Nevertheless, God is pleased with that action - because itproceeds from faith.Finally, it's important to remember that the definition of a "good work is avery broad one. A Christian mother fixing breakfast for her children isdoing a good work. A Christian father working at his job is doing a goodwork. Each Christian, acting in his or her vocation, by definition is doinggood works.With best regards,Harvey Dunn
In the case of some Evangelicals like Warren (and manywho are worse) - no, we're not just arguing semantics.In their view works are not merely a natural outwardmanifestation of our faith, they are a means to makeGod "happy" and find self-fulfillment.Here's an example of what I'm referring to:http://www.extremetheology.com/2007/08/pitting-evangel.html- Mark Salzwedel
