The FIC editor ran a puff piece on the Latte Church run by Randy Hunter. Church and Change (see F. Bivens) used to write most of FIC, but the number of Shrinkers writing for the magazine has shrunken in June. Still, it's neat to have the denominational editor in your pocket. The Church and Changers always write about how much everything has to change, so I highlighted the word in red.
Should the church change? Part 3
Author: John A. Braun, FIC Editor
No. Yes. Maybe. The third answer gets more complicated. We must understand two principles. First, we are not free to alter the Scriptures, the Ten Commandments, or anything else God has clearly revealed to us. Second, we are free to do anything that God has neither forbidden nor commanded. So then can we change anything that God has left open to us?
The apostle Paul advises, “ ‘Everything is permissible’—but not everything is beneficial. ‘Everything is permissible’—but not everything is constructive” (1 Corinthians 10:23). Just because we can change things does not mean that we should.
If the change does not build faith but instead troubles the faith of our brothers and sisters in Christ, we might choose not to change. If a change is necessary, we will go about making the change in such a way that it does not destroy the faith of believers.
As God’s people we must understand that we are all intertwined as part of his church here on earth. We know that without faith in Jesus there is no hope of forgiveness, life, or salvation. None of us wants to do something that will destroy the faith of another. So we are careful about what we do. Love for others in God’s household guides us in our discussions of proposed changes so that what is adopted—if it is a change or not—is beneficial and constructive to the others in Christ’s church.
As believers we are also concerned about what those outside the visible church think of our changes. Two examples: We might be free to serve beer or wine after our congregational meetings, but we don’t. That would give the wrong impression of our beliefs to those who do not know us. And we don’t immerse people at Baptism either. Certainly we can, but that might give the impression that we hold a view of Baptism that requires immersion, and that is not biblical. So we don’t.
We have to ask difficult questions when thinking about change. Does our action imply that we have changed our beliefs? Do our changes make us just like everyone else and minimize the teachings God has led us to hold dear? Do changes amount to little more than a “bait and switch” strategy? In other words, do we change to attract others who expect us to be like the church down the street but then we require them to switch to a host of Bible teachings not believed by the church down the street?
Sometimes change in our practice has a way of influencing change in our beliefs too. For example, as Lutherans we believe that the gospel is the center of all we do. Our liturgy helps us maintain that focus with the readings and sermon. We create worship that gives the gospel a central place. What happens to that emphasis when the focus shifts to provide entertaining experiences in worship? If we don’t change do we become elitists who treasure only 16th-century music? Yet adopting other forms might remove the gospel from center stage. Certainly we are free to change, but maybe the change will not be beneficial to God’s people. These are tough questions.
Once we think the church needs change, we come to the beginning of the discussion, not the end of it. We may not all agree, but we all need to treat one another with love and respect in the debates and discussion.
We must be careful about making changes in those things which God has given us freedom to change. Yes, we are free to change, but not all changes are beneficial.
***
GJ - The Straw Man is there for everyone to savor. Those favor only 16th century hymns are elitists. Of course the statement is turned into a question so the editor can waffle on that point too. Still, the object is to throw poop in the face of those who favor classical hymns that glorify God. Braun does not want to be burdened with elitists, so I imagine from his meretricious editorial that he favors staring at a screen full of Randy Hunter while a lady plays at being a pastor.
---
From Part I, by Braun:
The question is loaded. I found the question in a brochure that challenged the church’s response to some moral questions. Our contemporary world asks us to change and keep up rather than sink back to traditional ideas that no longer apply and appear to be outdated.
But it’s a fair question and needs an answer. The idea of change is raised about issues that are just as volatile as contemporary moral dilemmas. Should the church change its worship forms? Should we change our approach to attract more people? Do we change to meet the challenge of our postmodern or post-Christian audience?
More of the same, Part II.
***
GJ - Just asking questions? So coy.
---
Anonymous wrote: FIC is all about change and slamming us elitists for being Lutheran. You can quote me on that. I think if Schroeder goes down then WELS is gone for sure.
8 comments:
Pr. Jackson,
I fail to see how this article is a challenge. I see it as a clearly written answer addressing the question of change within the church. Thank you, Pr. Braun, for the thoughts.
Let me get this clear. We shift the focus from the gospel to the atmosphere and the feelings that it engenders, and claim that we have not altered the Word. What is changing is the motivation to attend. Now if the atmosphere is not exactly to our liking we have the perfect excuse for staying away.
It works for me. I will stay home or doing something else until religion gets it to my liking.
Oh, Save Our Synod (SOS) and our spendthrift ways, please. You owe it to God.
C&C, Inc. hope to find or establish a more profitable swamp of bigotry. They wish to make more, faster, easier than with the old WELS.
C&C = Snake Oil Salesmen
Too many WELS leaders and pastors have stopped serving the Lord, or put themselves and their pet ideas ahead of what God says.
Visit your C&C headquarters today for the latest man-made superstition.
One would assume that the "need" for "change" in WELS is because its leaders are suggesting that the "unchanged" synod was a failure.
We are led to believe that missions are a failure because they are not meeting their self-funding deadlines. We are led to believe that missions are a failure if they do not use church growth ideals. We know our mission program is a failure, otherwise it would not need "church growth immersed" mission counselors.
We are led to believe that worker training is a failure. Why else would so many seminary and administrative leaders go to Fuller, Willow Creek, and the like?
The impression is given that if MLC and WLS were doing their job, we, especially our "best" leaders, would not need to go to school to experience worker training elsewhere.
Since our seminary and administrators are demonstrating by their practice that WELS' efforts to do mission work and train workers are by and large failures, and that they cannot "change" away from that failure from within, we can understand the collapse of the system as we hae known it.
Of course, this collapse will force "change." Obama said America needed change and we are getting it in politics. We are told WELS needs change, and we are, of necessity, going to get it. I don't think Lutheran conservatives will be any happier with coming changes in WELS than political conservatives are with changes in American politics.
Post a Comment