 |
| Martin Luther College parents and the faculty are drinking at the New Ulm Country Club, while |
 |
| the kids are speed-dating on the campus. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151659493446723&set=a.379496591722.170643.10141541722&type=1&theater |
FRIDAY, AUGUST 23, 2013
Flat or Folded?
Thoughts from Thunder Mountain
["Huachuca" - A Chiricahua Apache word meaning "thunder."]
When I was home last week, I was happy to be able to eat at my favorite Mexican restaurant one more time before they closed their doors for good, after 53 years. While I was sitting there waiting for my meal in the same room I had sat when I was 8 years old, I was contemplating an interesting change in the nomenclature of Mexican food, at least here in Yuma, AZ, over those years. What we used to call a "flat taco," was now being labeled a "folded taco." I wondered why the change. Was folded more accurate than flat? Did it sell more tacos? Was the change mandated by some politically correct food critic? Or was it just change for change sake? Turns out it was because of the tourists. You see in Phoenix and California and other places, this item was always referred to as folded, so our little corner of the world had to change so we'd be on the same page so to speak. But really, it all depends on one's viewpoint. If you're talking about what is done with the tortilla, yes, it is folded in order to hold the filling. But if you're comparing it to the round, rolled variety, then it is indeed flatter. You say tom-A-to, and I say tom-AH-to, eh?!
["Huachuca" - A Chiricahua Apache word meaning "thunder."]
Flat or Folded?
When I was home last week, I was happy to be able to eat at my favorite Mexican restaurant one more time before they closed their doors for good, after 53 years. While I was sitting there waiting for my meal in the same room I had sat when I was 8 years old, I was contemplating an interesting change in the nomenclature of Mexican food, at least here in Yuma, AZ, over those years. What we used to call a "flat taco," was now being labeled a "folded taco." I wondered why the change. Was folded more accurate than flat? Did it sell more tacos? Was the change mandated by some politically correct food critic? Or was it just change for change sake? Turns out it was because of the tourists. You see in Phoenix and California and other places, this item was always referred to as folded, so our little corner of the world had to change so we'd be on the same page so to speak. But really, it all depends on one's viewpoint. If you're talking about what is done with the tortilla, yes, it is folded in order to hold the filling. But if you're comparing it to the round, rolled variety, then it is indeed flatter. You say tom-A-to, and I say tom-AH-to, eh?!
So, as I enjoyed my tacos and green enchiladas, it occurred to me that this is much like the argument over liturgy in the confessional Lutheran church. Is liturgy "adiaphora" or not?
Well, yes and no. If you mean is the liturgy necessary for salvation; that is, you can't get to heaven unless you sing or chant the Gloria Patri, Gloria in Excelsis, Sanctus, etc.... then yes, liturgy is a matter neither forbidden nor commanded by God. It must be adiaphora since salvation is not dependent upon it. So, believers who want to worship in what might be termed a "freestyle" manner, can most certainly do so. And while doing so may involve some bad theology or even false teaching, as it very often does, their faith in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior can and will still save them. However they may abuse their Christian freedom, they are, in the end, still Christians. We should never proclaim them anything else.
But, if you want to claim to be a truly confessional Lutheran church, in the sense of a proper historic, orthodox, and evangelical church in a direct line of succession with Dr. Martin Luther, and the Reformers around him and Confessors and Formulators who followed, then the liturgy, again, as in what we know as the Western Rite, is most certainly not adiaphora. Therefore, believers in Christ, who claim to adhere to the Bible as their only rule and norm for faith and life, AND also claim to follow the Lutheran Confessions contained in the 1580 Book of Concord, as their guide in things ecclesiastical, will make regular, good, and proper use of the Lutheran Liturgy whenever they gather for worship. This puts into visible practice the faith we have by God's grace, and the understanding of God's will for worship that we glean from our Confessions. This is not a matter of law, or something we have to do, but a matter of our true confession, and something that by faith we want to do, and will do, whether it is a rule in our churches or not. In fact, it is something we will allow no one to take from us - not now, not ever!
This is also a matter of simple honesty. If you call yourself a "confessional" Lutheran church, then you should have and use the liturgy in your worship, and it should be easily comparable to the basics of the Western Rite. If you don't want to use the liturgy, or you want to make up your own, and change it so much that it barely even resembles anything the Reformers would even recognize, then you should not call yourself a confessional church. Let the shoe fit where it may. Of course, whether you should even call yourself Lutheran is another matter for another time.
But the point is one of truth in advertising. The Apology says it best, "At the outset we must again make the preliminary statement that we do not abolish the Mass, but religiously maintain and defend it. For among us masses are celebrated every Lord's Day and on the other festivals, in which the Sacrament is offered to those who wish to use it, after they have been examined and absolved. And the usual public ceremonies are observed, the series of lessons, of prayers, vestments, and other like things." (Article XXIV: Of the Mass) Certainly the Mass includes the liturgy, as does the term "other like things." This is what WE do. Others may do as they will. And if they will, let them do so somewhere else! We will still call them Christian believers, but, let's be honest, they are simply not confessional Lutherans. And that's the name of that tune!
Deo Vindice!
10 COMMENTS:
Ironically, the WELS still claims to be a confessional Lutheran church body. Go figure.
Now, if certain Lutherans want to re-define Lutheranism and remove Augustana XXIV from the Lutheran Confessions, or remove the Confessions from the unalterable sections of our synod and church constitutions, or change our confessional subscription from a "quia" to "quatenus" one, then fine, let's have that discussion and debate - may the better argument win. All I'm saying is that if a pastor or church doesn't want to be confessional Lutheran, that's ok, but then they should form their own group, and frankly shouldn't really even call themselves Lutheran at all.
To me, being Lutheran is more than just a word or a label. It is a way of life, and yes, a way of worship; a way of devotion, a way of doctrine, a way of religious practice; it defines who I am theologically and ecclesiastically, and it guides me in how I receive God's gifts, and in my life of service to God. Those who don't want to worship as I do - go in peace, no hard feelings; but go. Either that or we need to change what it means to be Lutheran. Then it will be confessional Lutherans who will have to go.
Time to call a spade a spade, boys and girls - and a Lutheran a Lutheran . . . or not, as the case may be.
My opinion.
Scott E. Jungen
Good point, Scott.
However, it seems that in our circles, someone who champions for a certain worship activity is often labeled a legalist. Well, OK, using this much more broad but inaccurate definition; Perhaps our readers can tell us which is the real legalist in the example below?
a.) The Pastor who has taught his congregation to offer the Lord's Supper on every Lord's Day, so that those who wish to commune with their Savior can do so, while others present are not forced to do so if they choose not to, or
b.) The Pastor who refuses to instruct his congregation or even bring up the subject, so that they only offer the Lord's Supper once or twice a month, so that those who wish to partake of Holy Communion are forced to refrain on those Sundays when it is not offered?
Hmmmmmm . . . . I think it would be 'b.' wouldn't it? Seems so to this observer. In 'a.' everyone has a choice - to commune or not, as they see fit. In 'b.' those who would like to commune during the worship service are given no choice, but are basically told they can't partake of the Lord's Supper during that day's service.
So, who's forcing whom to do what, eh?
But y'all feel free to chime in and vote.
30] 5. We reject and condemn also [the madness] when these adiaphora are abrogated in such a manner as though it were not free to the congregation [church] of God at any time and place to employ one or more in Christian liberty, according to its circumstances, as may be most useful to the Church.
31] Thus [According to this doctrine] the churches will not condemn one another because of dissimilarity of ceremonies when, in Christian liberty, one has less or more of them, provided they are otherwise agreed with one another in the doctrine and all its articles, also in the right use of the holy Sacraments, according to the well-known saying: Dissonantia ieiunii non dissolvit consonantiam fidei; "Disagreement in fasting does not destroy agreement in the faith."
--Joel Lillo
The Epitome of the Formula of Concord says this:
5] 3. Nevertheless, that herein all frivolity and offense should be avoided, and special care should be taken to exercise forbearance towards the weak in faith. 1 Cor. 8:9; Rom. 14:13.
6] 4. We believe, teach, and confess that in time of persecution, when a plain [and steadfast] confession is required of us, we should not yield to the enemies in regard to such adiaphora, as the apostle has written Gal. 5:1: Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage. Also 2 Cor. 6:14: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers, etc. For what concord hath light with darkness? Also Gal. 2:5: To whom we gave place, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the Gospel might remain with you. For in such a case it is no longer a question concerning adiaphora, but concerning the truth of the Gospel, concerning [preserving] Christian liberty, and concerning sanctioning open idolatry, as also concerning the prevention of offense to the weak in the faith [how care should be taken lest idolatry be openly sanctioned and the weak in faith be offended]; in which we have nothing to concede, but should plainly confess and suffer on that account what God sends, and what He allows the enemies of His Word to inflict upon us.
Once again, just as the Holy Scriptures can be quoted to prove just about anything, so also the Confessions. Po-tA-to, Po-tAH-to. Take the entire Book of Concord in context and see what you find.
Some just refuse to get the point. Nowhere to I CONDEMN anyone for anything! I simply say that it is incorrect and misleading to say one is a "Lutheran" when one worships like a Baptist (and I ought to know, since I was a Baptist at one time - and most of my extended family still is, thus I know of what I speak.), or like a community church, or non-denominational church, or whatever.
Again, not condemning anyone here - just looking for truth in advertising, eh!
People need to quit changing the bloomin' subject and stick to the point.
Also, how about my question: who's more legalistic, the one who permits folks to commune or not as their conscience directs, or the one who removes this choice two or three Sundays a month? Come on, folks, take a chance and answer!
Now - answer the everlovin' question or stop talking!
Now, 17 years later, they do have the pastor chant in that congregation and it hasn't caused a mass exodus. They also are beginning to use contemporary music in their service as well and it isn't causing offense either. (By the way, I'm not talking about St. Peter's in Appleton. I think I have to mention that in case Greggy Jackson is listening in.) My point is that this congregation has accepted both kinds of worship in their services. Why? Because the doctrine hasn't changed.
I don't think that traditional liturgical worhip is Roman Catholic. I don't think that contemporary worship is "Methobapticostal." I think that both forms of worship can be Lutheran if the DOCTRINE is Lutheran.
Personally, I don't think that most people think of contemporary worship as belonging to any one particular denomination or theology. I think most people think of it as the way a lot of Americans worship.
Oh, and as far as my congregation is concerned... We use the liturgies from CW and CWS. I still chant. We haven't had a praise band and probably never will. And I use the NIV 2011 for the worship service. Make of that what you like.
Sectarian worship places emphasis on the works of man and the flashy personality of the preacher. The praise band is set up where the altar should be, placing the works of man literally in front of the means God works through.
So really, who is worshiping in a Roman way here, meaning a way the places emphasis in the works of man rather than the works of God? And yes, I know, we are merely "spoiling the Egyptians" when we borrow "cool" worship formats from the sects. Well, I seem to remember the Children of Israel, having spoiled the actual Egyptians and wanting to be more like them, worshiping a golden calf in the middle of the desert, thus invoking God's wrath.
You can keep your Egyptian spoils, your flashy preachers, and your cool praise bands. I'm reminded of something Oliver Cromwell said once: "I had rather have a plain, russet-coated Captain, that knows what he fights for, and loves what he knows, than that which you call a Gentle-man and is nothing else." Put another way, I'd rather have the plainest church, the most boring sermon, and the least-flashy pastor in the world just so long as in that church the Word and Sacrament are rightly taught and administered and not watered down or pushed literally to the side by the drum-kit and guitar amp.
A.P.
Now, 17 years later, they do have the pastor chant in that congregation and it hasn't caused a mass exodus. They also are beginning to use contemporary music in their service as well and it isn't causing offense either. (By the way, I'm not talking about St. Peter's in Appleton. I think I have to mention that.) My point is that this congregation has accepted both kinds of worship in their services. Why? Because the doctrine hasn't changed.
I don't think that traditional liturgical worhip is Roman Catholic. I don't think that contemporary worship is "Methobapticostal." I think that both forms of worship can be Lutheran if the DOCTRINE is Lutheran.
Personally, I don't think that most people think of contemporary worship as belonging to any one particular denomination or theology. I think most people think of it as the way a lot of Americans worship.
Oh, and as far as my congregation is concerned... We use the liturgies from CW and CWS. I still chant. We haven't had a praise band and probably never will. And I use the NIV 2011 for the worship service. Make of that what you like.
--Joel Lillo (a father, but not a Father)
Now, 17 years later, they do have the pastor chant in that congregation and it hasn't caused a mass exodus. They also are beginning to use contemporary music in their service as well and it isn't causing offense either. (By the way, I'm not talking about St. Peter's in Appleton. I think I have to mention that.) My point is that this congregation has accepted both kinds of worship in their services. Why? Because the doctrine hasn't changed.
I don't think that traditional liturgical worhip is Roman Catholic. I don't think that contemporary worship is "Methobapticostal." I think that both forms of worship can be Lutheran if the DOCTRINE is Lutheran.
Personally, I don't think that most people think of contemporary worship as belonging to any one particular denomination or theology. I think most people think of it as the way a lot of Americans worship.
Oh, and as far as my congregation is concerned... We use the liturgies from CW and CWS. I still chant. We haven't had a praise band and probably never will. And I use the NIV 2011 for the worship service. Make of that what you like.
--Joel Lillo