Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Frosty Bivens, Fuller Alumnus - Rebukes the Truth.
Repent of Telling the Truth, Foul Dungeon-Dweller



Tim Niedfeldt
Yesterday via mobile
A simple, concise depiction of where WELS is headed. http://adam4d.com/comics/2013-08-14-amazed1.png
1Like ·  · 
    • Jon Brown-Schmidt Bryan, I won't disagree with the sound quality from a strong hymn played on an organ. However, for today's unchurched/underchurched the organ sounds ancient.
      22 hours ago · Like
    • Jon Brown-Schmidt Joe, traditional liturgy to some one who has not grown up with it is a language barrier.
      22 hours ago · Like
    • Bryan Lidtke Don't praise songs from a decade ago sound ancient too?
      22 hours ago via mobile · Like
    • Jim Schulz Here's an insightful story: "...I would argue that church-as-performance is just one more thing driving us away from the church, and evangelicalism in particular.

      Many of us, myself included, are finding ourselves increasingly drawn to high church traditions – Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, the Episcopal Church, etc. – precisely because the ancient forms of liturgy seem so unpretentious, so unconcerned with being “cool,” and we find that refreshingly authentic."

      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/.../
      Why millennials are leaving the church
      religion.blogs.cnn.com
      Opinion by Rachel Held Evans, Special to CNN (CNN) -- At 32, I barely qualify as...See More
      22 hours ago · Like · 2
    • Jim Schulz Jon, define "traditional." The services at my congregation are "traditional" and "liturgical" and yet we recently received into membership by adult confirmation a young man in his late 20s who recently emigrated from Nigeria.
      21 hours ago · Like
    • Jon Brown-Schmidt So you are saying that prior to teaching the Word, we must help them understand the delivery mechanism for the Word. Once they understand that, then we can get into God's Word. Seems a little contrived. It may not be any more difficult then understanding God's Word (Law and Gospel); but you are introducing an artificial barrier to preaching God's Word. One could use your answer in response to only preaching God's Word in English in areas where the population speaks Spanish. ----- A question that I asked earlier and wasn't addressed. Is the mission work done in Africa a complete loss? Don't think there are to many pipe organs in the Savannah, but I bet they use plenty of other instruments and sing their songs (maybe some traditional and some new) using accepted rhythms and beats of that culture. Does that mean they run a greater risk of losing the meaning of God's Word than a traditional church stateside?
      20 hours ago · Like
    • Jon Brown-Schmidt Then what is the issue with Contemporary?
      19 hours ago · Like
    • Paul Lidtke The issue with Contemporary worship--as I was just told by a seasoned WELS pastor who attended a Contemporary worship service at a WELS church recently--is that if we try to mimic the Evangelicals and their way of worship, we tend to have little law and gospel in sermons, but tend to talk a lot about ourselves and not Christ. Also, the praise songs ripped from Christian radio also tend to be all about me and what I do for Christ rather than about Christ and what he does for me.
      19 hours ago · Like · 3
    • Jon Brown-Schmidt Paul, to quote from above, "God's Word is efficacious. It does not need any help nor does anything get in its way". Are you then claiming that the traditional service we mimicked from the Catholics which earlier Christians mimicked from the Jews is without error or the possibility for error? Of course every service design is open to sin, to claim that contemporary is more apt to sin is a ridiculous suggestion considering the traditional service was mimicked first from the group that rejected Christ and secondly from the group that was selling indulgences. ------ Why did we mimic those other services? Because it was the accepted cultural standard at the time? Maybe because if the early Lutheran church would have tried something different people would have found it foreign. ------ Can anyone tell me if the Holy Spirit is or is not currently using the Contemporary service to bring people to faith?
      18 hours ago · Like
    • Bryan Lidtke Jon, the Holy Spirit works faith wherever God's Word is preached truthfully and the sacraments are present. The Holy Spirit can work through anything. But why muddle it with confusion? Now, of course the liturgy isn't above God's Word. But the liturgy we use clearly shows God's Word and the Sacraments and is centered on Christ, unlike Contemporay Worship which tends to focus on me. I don't think it's that ridiculous to claim Contemporary Worship is more apt to error. It blurs the line between our worship and that of the Evangelicals, it doesn't always preach Law and Gospel (often times it's how to live a better life), and the songs have shallow lyrics.
      18 hours ago · Edited · Like
    • Dutch S. Gray With Contemporary Music, comes CoWo Governance. The dark part no one talks about. The let's not offend so & so, they do or give such & such. That is a part I'd like to see spoken about & admitted.
      18 hours ago · Edited · Like
    • Bryan Lidtke It's also important to note that many of the canticles are taken directly from Scripture!
      18 hours ago · Like · 1
    • Jon Brown-Schmidt Bryan, you are the second person now to include the word 'tend' in a post regarding contemporary worship. That give you must credibility to condemn an entire movement. Especially when I tended to treat traditional worship as a simple ritual I needed to perform on Sundays in order to feel better about myself for the next week. I also tended to view my form of worship as better when I was worshiping in a traditional manner because I was using a method closer to God. I tended to use lots of I's in the traditional worship.
      18 hours ago · Like
    • Bryan Lidtke Did you read what Tim wrote? We've shown multiple problems in Contemporary Worship. There's also this part of the Confessions (which, if you're WELS, you subscribe to): 5] Namely, when under the title and pretext of external adiaphora such things are proposed as are in principle contrary to God's Word (although painted another color), these are not to be regarded as adiaphora, in which one is free to act as he will, but must be avoided as things prohibited by God. In like manner, too, such ceremonies should not be reckoned among the genuine free adiaphora, or matters of indifference, as make a show or feign the appearance, as though our religion and that of the Papists were not far apart, thus to avoid persecution, or as though the latter were not at least highly offensive to us; or when such ceremonies are designed for the purpose, and required and received in this sense, as though by and through them both contrary religions were reconciled and became one body; or when a reentering into the Papacy and a departure from the pure doctrine of the Gospel and true religion should occur or gradually follow therefrom [when there is danger lest we seem to have reentered the Papacy, and to have departed, or to be on the point of departing gradually, from the pure doctrine of the Gospel]. 

      6] For in this case what Paul writes, 2 Cor. 6:14-17, shall and must obtain: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what communion hath light with darkness?Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord. 

      7] Likewise, when there are useless, foolish displays, that are profitable neither for good order nor Christian discipline, nor evangelical propriety in the Church, these also are not genuine adiaphora, or matters of indifference.

      This also applies to Reformed Evangelicals and their praise bands.
      17 hours ago · Edited · Like
    • Jon Brown-Schmidt Joe, and many stuck in the traditional system believe they must remain locked in the ritual in order to either gain favor with God or remain close to his word.
      17 hours ago · Like
    • Bryan Lidtke Doesn't Contemporary Worship "feign the appearance... that our religion and that of the Papists (Evangelicals also fits here) wer not far apart."?
      17 hours ago · Like
    • Tim Niedfeldt That statement exemplifies the issues in the WELS. If that is the idea around what "tradition" is then the WELS has forgotten what it is to be Lutheran. They have forgotten the Confession they stand on and swear to. That is fine. WELS will race to evangelicalism and maybe someday they will just change the name from Lutheran. It may take time. It took ELCA 25 years to get to total Apostasy and they still haven't lost the name. Where there is not trust in the efficacy of the Word and Sacraments and it only becomes about real, relevant, and relational because it communicates.
      17 hours ago · Like · 1
    • Jon Brown-Schmidt Bryan, didn't Luther 'feign the appearance' of the Catholic church when the early Lutherans decided to mimic the liturgy?
      16 hours ago · Like · 1
    • Jon Brown-Schmidt Tim, tradition or traditional. I can fully worship my savior, believe in the saving faith of the his death and resurrection, accept the traditions as passed down by that savior and give my life to the use of the Holy Spirit; while still singing in a non-traditional service. The only tradition of WELS that needs to be preserved is the spreading of the Gospel, for what other purpose do we serve? Which of the contemporary WELS churches preaches against the efficacy of the Word and Sacrament?
      16 hours ago · Like
    • Bryan Lidtke It's not our fault that the Roman Catholic Church uses the liturgy. The thing is, it clearly presents God's Word and the Sacraments, which cannot be said about Contemporary Worship. I'll help you out on your last question to Tim. There are some that used to not have communion at all until they were forced to. Now they only have it once a month. I know this because I attended a service there. That's just one example.
      16 hours ago · Like
    • Bryan Lidtke And how can you "accept the traditions as passed down by that Savior" but still worship in a non-traditional service? Doesn't that seem like an oxymoron?
      16 hours ago · Like
    • Jon Brown-Schmidt Why do you guys hide behind your liturgy? Or maybe the question should be, why do our require your liturgy as an act of preparing yourself before God? I know that my redeemer lives, I also know that I am vessel by which the Holy Spirit will spread its saving faith to others. I don't need a set ceremony to tell me that and my church presents the Word, the whole Word and nothing but the Word; I only need to listen to its message. That message could come either through my contemporary church or the traditional church I visit. Neither one has done more or less for my faith. They both expose my soul to what the Holy Spirit knows I need. If God's Word is unstoppable and faith remains in His Son, the presentation is irrelevant.
      16 hours ago · Like
    • Jon Brown-Schmidt Does communion need to happen to get to heaven? While I agree it appears odd, I refuse to judge without knowing the story. Which church was it?
      16 hours ago · Like
    • Jon Brown-Schmidt Traditions vs traditional. That is simple word usage. I am using traditional to reference the churches using the liturgy that has been in practice since Luther. Traditions would be the practices Christ set aside (baptism, Holy Communion, going to all nations, etc). I am non-traditional since I refuse to believe that a specific liturgy offers the God approved path to heaven.
      16 hours ago · Like
    • Bryan Lidtke What do you mean "hide behind your liturgy?" We don't say you won't go to heaven in you don't follow the liturgy. God works through wherever the Word is preached, as we've already gone through. But we should recognize the problems in Contemporary Worship and see the benefits of the liturgy. Also, if your church looks like an Evangelical church or a mega church, why would you call yourself Lutheran? Why not just take that out of the name so "Lutheran" isn't a stumbling block to the unchurched? It also concerns me that you seem to think that you need to do something in order for God to work, as shown in your saying that you only need to listen to it. It sounds very similar to decision theology to me, but pastors, you can tell me if I'm wrong on that. 

      Communion only once a month directly answers your question about which WELS churches preach against the efficacy of Word and Sacrament. It offers forgiveness of sins. Why would you deny a congregaton of that? So I think that shows you there are some that do this, intentionally or not. Does it really matter which church it is? I'm sure you've heard of it anyway. I don't want to somehow break the 8th Commandment by mentioning something that happened publically. It just shows you what Contemporary Worship can lead to.
      16 hours ago · Like
    • Jon Brown-Schmidt Bryan, if "God works through wherever the Word is preached" then what would you say about condemning one of those ways (contemporary) as inefficient? ----- Looks like? Is there a specific 'look' God wants? My church preaches God's Word, both Law and Gospel. What should we call that? --- I don't recall saying that I need to listen to become a Christian; however, it is my responsibility to hear what is being preached to ensure it matches God's Word. --- What is the God commanded number times communion is to be distributed? If they sinned I fail to see how naming this church would be slanderous. More importantly, if I need to understand the dangers, I must see the evidence and not just take the word of man who doesn't seem confident he can speak without breaking the 8th commandment.
      16 hours ago · Like
    • Christian Schulz "Because a true liturgy is a growth, a living product and not a mere mechanical construction, it is seen how important a historical liturgy becomes for the preservation of true doctrine. If a liturgy is broken away from its historical sources and forms, and made subservient to the tastes and whims of individuals or particular schools of thought and tendency, it endangers the very foundations of the Church which are her great central doctrines." -- D.H. Geissinger, Memoirs of the Lutheran Liturgical Society, Vol. IV, Liturgy and Doctrine
      15 hours ago · Like
    • Jim Schulz Here's a Christian comedian poking fun at contemporary worship:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu2mCiJJvQY

      Here's a WELS church serious about its contemporary worship:

      http://www.ctrtx.net/.../2012/03/ChristYouaremyRock.mp3

      This is the result of making the "point of contact" so that people can know they have received forgiveness without repentance, without faith, (objective justification) more important than the preaching of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, i.e. justification by faith alone, which the Bible teaches (cf. Luke 24:47) and which liturgical worship does.

      The Bible says, however, "Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will." - Romans 12:2
      Tim Hawkins on Worship Music - Comedy Videos
      www.youtube.com
      Worship pastors, you have a tough job. Tim dares you to go a little "cray-cray" ...See More
      7 hours ago · Like
    • Jon Brown-Schmidt Christian, can nothing in the present contain true doctrine? The only historical source required for a service is the Word of God. Where does the concept of what is 'taste and whims' start and stop? As I have pointed out the early Lutheran church service was based off the tastes of the people of that day, that is the Catholic service. The early Christian church was based on Jewish practices because that was the taste and the whims of the people of that time. It also is why Paul challenges the Jewish Christians in their attempt to make circumcision a requirement for gentiles as well. Paul was a man that addressed people in their own culture, he did not demand the culture become subservient to a specific method, aside from the Word of God.
      6 hours ago · Like
    • Jim Schulz Jon, you are wrong to say that the worship forms of the early Christian Church and the early Lutheran Church were based on the tastes and whims of the people of that time. Our official document of Lutheran identity - the Book of Concord - puts it this way: "in doctrine AND CEREMONIES nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches" (Augsburg Confession, Conclusion 5). I wish Lutherans today would be so careful.
      6 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
    • Jon Brown-Schmidt Jim, please define conform? The pattern of the world has taken great leaps and bounds since that passage was written. If you truly believed it, wouldn't your life look more like that of the Amish? That of course is not Paul's point. In the first verse he is asking us to make our bodies living sacrifices and then as such not conform to the unrepentant ways of the world. It is not an attempt to prevent Christians from becoming part of the society around us. If it were, it would make Paul a hypocrite as he used the culture around him to preach God's word. --- As for the song, can please provide form me the template God has commanded we use for song writing. ----- How hopeful is it to be a non-believer coming to your church knowing that God doesn't forgive me unless I have faith, which I can't get on my own. I put my faith in 1John 2:2 and Luke 24:47 knowing that Christ paid for the sins of all people as a gift to all who do not reject the Holy Spirit.
      6 hours ago · Like
    • Jon Brown-Schmidt Jim, you are talking about doctrine as if the manner in which a Lutheran must worship is Lutheran Doctrine based on the Word God. I would like you show me where God's Word prescribes a set standard for worship format. I am not in favor of contemporary worship that perverts the Word of God. Many of the Lutheran 'ceremonies' happen to fall directly in line with that of the Catholic ceremonies, coincidence? Most of the format of the traditional church service mimics the Catholic service, coincidence? No, rather, the early Lutherans took the familiar and re-tooled it to conform to God's Word. There is no difference between those early church leaders and those today re-tooling contemporary service to conform to God's Word.
      5 hours ago · Like
    • Christian Schulz The difference between the changes made during the Reformation and today is that during the Reformation the changes were made to come back to catholicity. Today, however, the changes made are departing from the catholic, universal liturgy and ceremonies and going head first into how heretical sects worship. And once again, liturgy and doctrine are so intertwined that there is no such thing as worshiping like heretics and thinking that the doctrine won't soon change. The liturgy is a reflection of a church's doctrine. Evangelicals worship like they do for a reason. I think it's foolish to think we can adopt that and not have it affect our doctrine.

      The Jews learned how to worship from God Himself. Vestments, incense, etc. The early Christians retained that because, well, God Himself prescribed them and in keeping with the spirit of that they retained it. I don't recall anywhere where Paul changed the liturgy around to attract the Gentiles. I don't recall Paul not breaking bread because it might offend the visitors. Plus I kinda like the worship described in Heaven as St. John's revelation shows us.
      4 hours ago · Like · 2
    • Jon Brown-Schmidt Christian, so Lutherans who worship in the traditional liturgy are the only ones capable of presenting sound Christian Doctrine?
      4 hours ago · Like
    • Jon Brown-Schmidt Joe, God's Word preaches the Gospel regardless of men!! Liturgy is MAN's choice to order the service. Please point out the Bible passage stating the traditional liturgy is how God wants us to preach the Gospel. ---- Also please provide the passage that states communion is required for salvation. If I claim to have faith and reject communion that is different concept all together; however, I was under the impression that faith in Christ was the singular path to heaven. Said faith would then drive me to communion for the blessings it offers. In a church where it is drawing higher numbers of non-believers and knowing the damning capabilities communion holds against the non-believer; is it worth putting those with new faith at risk? Or is it possible that a God pleasing approach to instruct and introduce communion slowly without simply forcing it down the throats of non-believers. In our area, the opportunities for Lutheran communion abound, hence a member of a church the has limited the distribution could easily find it less than 5 miles from home.
      3 hours ago · Like
    • Christian Schulz I'd argue that they're much more likely to not detract from the Gospel by anything they do because the historic liturgy doesn't put the focus on man. Almost the entire liturgy is just quotes from Scripture. Primarily the historic liturgy is a form, passed down through thousands of years, on how God comes in contact with us, to stoop down once again as He did in the Incarnation, to wash us clean through the Sacraments. It's not the pastor's flashy sermon or the bands twang of the guitars that are the focus. CoWo = us to God (yikes, what does he want from us? We're sinners! He doesn't need our praise). Historic liturgy = Divine Service ... God to us, stooping down to wash us personally. The music is subservient to that. It's reverent while we respond to His mercy is reverent awe (Hebrews 12:28) 

      "The general characteristics of conservative liturgical music are simplicity and subserviency. It is simple Like the coat of the Master it is of one piece and it always clothes the Master's form. It is a servant that always bears the word and interprets and impresses the Word. It brings the worshipper humbly and penitently to God, and it brings God joyously and blessedly to the worshipper. Its very tones tell of sin, and sacrifice, and salvation. Liturgical music is thus a mighty power that holds us close to the central doctrine of our precious religious inheritance." -- D.H. Geissinger, Memoirs of the Lutheran Liturgical Society, Vol. IV, Liturgy and Doctrine 

      I don't think having a praise band as the primary focus of our service (Ex. having them up in the chancel) is being "subservient" to the Gospel. Rather it's pushing the Gospel out of the chancel, literally. It is literally pushing the Sacrament away. Instead, *we* want to be up front in front of the altar. The Sacrament, Christ Himself, is then literally pushed away in lieu of *our* praise. Why restrict God from stooping down to wash us? It's almost like they might as well be sitting on the altar making themselves a Sacrifice to God. They're already giving their praise as a Sacrifice (Roman Catholic without the Pope?). Same with the style of music, with the twang of the guitars, the upbeat modus operandi, it reeks of Evangelicalism. Which then reeks of decision theology. We need to get pumped up to be able to accept Jesus into our hearts. That's exactly why they have praise bands like that. All this is coming back to how doctrine and practice are so intimate. Lutherans worship like they do because it reflects their doctrine. Evangelicals worship like they do because it represents their doctrine. Lutheran doctrine is preserved in the historic liturgy from age to age, culture to culture.
      3 hours ago · Like · 1
    • Jon Brown-Schmidt Christian, you and others who dislike the contemporary style of service attempt to draw a distinction between presentations, as if one is superior to the other. There is no difference between an organ and a guitar if they are used to praise God. There is no difference between a monotone pastor speaking the Word of God and a charismatic pastor speaking the word of God. Each one carries the possibility of it usage for sin. Each one can be used to put man on display. You are just saying that some talents are praise worth while others are not. You are attempting to claim to know the will of God as it pertains to a worship service.
      about an hour ago · Like
    • Tim Niedfeldt Just to interject a blast from the past. I dug out some of my favorite quotations from none other than myself circa July 2008. Do any of these sound familiar? These are some embarrassing old BW quotes.

      The point being in almost all of the discussion I have seen at all these sites they only address keeping Lutheran churches Lutheran as if that was our only goal. They criticize churches and/or individuals that actually get out and try to reach the unbelievers. I mean alleluia, praise the Lord you have a church with pure doctrine in Word and Sacrament and fine traditional methods of pointing churchgoers to Christ. But hardly even once in any site has anyone addressed personal evangelism. I also believe that the Holy spirit does all the work on an unbelieving heart when the Word is presented but it seems that in this venue that is often used as an excuse to not be personally responsible for getting out there and presenting the Word on a personal level. Perhaps the great commission does not apply to some. Perhaps some think that since the Holy Spirit does it all that the Holy Spirit will knock on the doors and present the Word himself. Imagine a church that had a "program" that taught people how to be better evangelists. Clearly since it is a program it is "church growth" and learning to evangelize with those around you should be avoided.

      ***********************

      I think it is ironic that in these blogs and such it would appear that the WELS is just replete with all this liberalism in CG and all you need to do is talk to someone who is involved in it whole heartedly and I can tell you. The WELS is 99% full of nothing but crusty old traditionalist boogers who sit on their hands, can't handle change, and won't evangelize...like the many here who only believe in the Holy Confessions that were verbally inspired by Martin Luther...the true Lutheran god. 
      *******************
      There seems to be this assumption that Lutherans can't do contemporary in a Lutheran way. That changing anything of yore will destroy that which we hold dear. I believe that a good solid conscientious group of Lutherans can make a good contemporary service that retains the values of Lutheranism.
      *****************
      I have no problem with what the confessions say or that they accurately portray scripture. On the other hand. Do we need them? Could we not just have the bible? You said a.k.a the Christian faith. Exactly!!! Lutheran is just a name and in lots of first hand experience it is a name that doesn't mean much to an unchurched/unbeliever. 
      ****************

      My personal feelings are that the confessions are great but they are not the Bible. I can honestly say I believe they are an accurate exposition of the Bible however that does not compel me to quote them. They are a handy reference i suppose but I'd rather have the bible passages in front of me. 

      ******************
      These articles are oft repeated yet I fail to find the "command" from Luther that the Divine Service is unalterable. In the these two articles you see a definition of how worship was achieved in 1530. Speaking to a bunch of Catholics of the day it was important to define that Lutherans were not tossing out the historic Liturgy (although they did throw out the bad and add some new stuff. undoubtedly the CG of the day..at least to the Catholics I could just imagine, "oh those darn Lutherans they just throw out whatever part of the mass they don't like, they throw out Latin, they let any old person take the wine at communion, they sing twice as many songs. they're just trying to get people into church with their crazy methods") 

      How do these articles turn into a command or ordinance to maintain the Divine service in this pristine 1530 state? Where is the command to stop the liturgy from developing in time? Can we revere the liturgy in a modern setting? People have used the phrase "who are we to throw out 2000 years of wisdom?" well it should be corrected to just say 1500 years of wisdom because changing the liturgy post 1500's is really the crux of the entire matter we "debate" here. If the liturgy should not change then really we should all be using the Jewish liturgy still I guess. Apparently there has been no wise people in 500 years so the Divine Service stands until we come up with one.
      about an hour ago · Like
    • Jon Brown-Schmidt As a parting note, for this discussion has grown tiring. Jesus Christ told his disciples to GO and make disciples of all nations. If you believe the best way to do that is via a traditional service, may the Holy Spirit guide your way and protect you from false doctrine. If you believe the way to do that is via the contemporary service, may the Holy Spirit guide your way and protect you from false doctrine. For either side to condemn the other is simply a waste of God's time. We should be supporting each other. Both sides most likely have something to learn from each other. ---- Yesterday the Pope made the announcement that non-believers can reach heaven by simply following their conscience. If the guitar and drum set are a larger threat to the Gospel then that, maybe you need to reevaluate where you stand with the Law and Gospel. God's Word is unchanging, everything else is dust in the wind. If we cling to His Word and drop the petty challenges to its deliver method (as the devil would not like to see), we stand a greater chance at rebuffing his advances. In the end, regardless of how you express yourself at church, none of our souls are truly safe from the devils temptation until we complete this life and reach the finish line of heaven through faith in Christ. I will pray for you as I hope you will pray for me. Your Brother in Christ.
      about an hour ago · Like
    • Tim Niedfeldt The following posts are just some reposts that deal specifically with this conversation. Thank You Doug!!

      You Question: Are electric guitars evil? How about drums…
      My Answer: In your statement you make the fundamental assumption that forms, including music and instrumentation, are amoral. This is a false assumption, and the liturgical principle of lex orandi, lex credendi informs us of this. You further (apparently) assume no distinction between Ecclesiastical and Secular forms, that they are (or ought to be) equally nothing but worldly reflections of popular culture. This is also wrong. Just as the Church is distinct from the World, so are its forms and its culture, reflecting our true citizenship in and of the Kingdom of Grace. Moreover, under these false assumptions, you draw the conclusion that popular forms taken from Secular pop-culture apply without negative consequence in an Ecclesiastical setting, that lyrical content alone constitutes the “substance” of worship. Again, this is wrong. Forms are of great substance, which is why we confess in AC XXIV that Rites are necessary to teach the people what they believe. The corollary is that we avoid practices that do not teach what we believe, especially those that overtly teach what we believe to be false. The fact is, “contemporary” worship forms, which Lutherans are increasingly guilty of borrowing from Evangelicals, Charismatics, and Pentecostals, including their music and instrumentation, have been carefully chosen and developed by these heterodox to teach their false doctrine – namely, Worship as a Means of Grace, and Religious Experience as Assurance of Salvation. Since, for them, overt zeal in worship is no small factor, the music they have developed for the worship setting is chosen in a calculated attempt to manufacture and manipulate powerful emotions. Worse, under a (now defunct) Church Growth paradigm, such forms have been further exploited to “draw the un-churched” by transforming the Divine Service into entertainment-grade performances, thus taking the focus off of Christ (christocentrism) and placing it on man (anthropocentrism). While many among us are becoming entranced and seduced by these powerful gimmicks, the rest of us are active sounding the alarm and feverishly working to reverse the damage, before we ourselves are compelled run in horror. Here are some previous entries from this blog that you may find interesting: Alternative Missions (or, Tim’s Debut) & Liturgical vs. non-Liturgical
      about an hour ago · Like
    • Tim Niedfeldt You Question: What about the pure joy that people feel after hearing the Gospel? Is it sinful to express that joy during a service? 
      My Answer: Of course it is not sinful to express “pure” Joy in the Gospel! By asking this in the context of a defense for contemporary forms, however, you erroneously equate the use of contemporary forms with the expression of “pure” Joy. “Pure” Gospel Joy bubbles uncontrollably out of a true Christian, with or without musical accompaniment. In the context of the Divine Service, such expression is present in his Worship sacrifice (as it would be in all expressions of his faith), as he joins those with whom he shares Unity, and in unison with them confesses his faith and expresses his Joy and Gratitude in word and song. In such a setting, the emphasis in worship expression is not on the individual; rather, it is on the unified and corporate expression in which the individual takes part. This corporate expression, which cannot function outside of the context of unity, is guided by a liturgy addressing two parties, the Minister and the Congregation, and carries them together through the Divine Service, keeping them together centered on Christ, rather than themselves or the antics of others. An orthodox hymnody is essential support to the objectives of the liturgy, likewise is accompaniment to serve the liturgy and hymnody without interfering with it. Accompaniment should not be used as a catalyst for emotions which ought to already be present “purely” as a result of the Gospel, nor should it be allowed to develop into such a crutch for Christians in any congregation. In such a case, accompaniment replaces the Gospel, and is employed to artificially manufacture what true Lutherans place their faith in the Holy Spirit to produce through the Gospel alone. Here is a previous entry from this blog that you may also find interesting: Difficulty in Rooting Out Church Growth
      about an hour ago · Like
    • Tim Niedfeldt You State: The world is diverse, therefore worship forms ought to be equally diverse (my summary from your first paragraph)
      My Answer: You seem to be unaware of what our Confessions mean when they define Lutherans as “catholic.” By this, we certainly do not confess that we are “Roman Catholic,” but that we are a church which “remembers” and “imitates” (Heb. 13:7-9) those who have faithfully served the Gospel throughout the church’s history. Dr. C.P. Krauth describes it best, I think, when he declares that the church catholic thus represents the outflowing of 2000 years of Christian faith and practice into the present, and projects it into the future (in his context, he is speaking of the utter necessity of well-educated Pastors, fully trained in Church History and Classical Studies like Western Civ., etc., and that those without such rigorous training are not fit to be Pastors, because they are incapable of effective catholicity). And so, in terms of our Rites, our Confessions inform us that we use nothing that has not been with us since the earliest of times (and this excludes, of course, what may have existed in earliest of times, but has been since rejected and is no longer “with us” – such as supposed “Apostolic Rites” dredged up by those who despise the Western Rite). In context, this applies directly to the Western Rite, but by extension, also to modified forms of the Eastern Rite (which is also a catholic Rite). In terms of our hymnody, catholicity is an aggregate of expression from across all cultures over the history of the Church. And so, worship cannot be said to be “catholic” if historic forms do not dominate, especially if there is disproportionate representation from strictly “contemporary” sources or modes of expression. Since the heart of Lutheranism has historically been Germany and Scandinavia, it makes sense that hymns and musical settings from these parts of Europe will have greatest representation in orthodox Lutheran hymnody. Over time, this will (and has been) change(ing), as Lutheranism spreads and as influences of orthodox Lutheran expression from a broader cultural spectrum find their way into our hymnody. In short, practices derived exclusively from, or dominated by, either “contemporary” influence or “local culture,” are not catholic and therefore, not Lutheran. Here is a useful article addressing this topic (along with others): Why is the Lutheran Church a Liturgical Church?
      about an hour ago · Like
    • Tim Niedfeldt Related to this point, you also seem to define “culture” as “what is contemporary” – which isn’t true at all. In fact, the reverse is true. Those who understand and benefit from culture are not so narrow as to insist that “culture” is what’s “contemporary,” but have and express an active knowledge and appreciation for what makes a culture what it is: its history. Thus, a cultured individual can appreciate a performance by local (contemporary) talent at the corner establishment on Friday night, can enjoy a Saturday evening Classical concert, and arrive at Church on Sunday morning eager to engage the Rites of the Divine Service in distinctly Ecclesiastical musical forms. A cultured person is one who understands and appreciates artistic expression for what it is in its native context, but doesn’t demand that all artistic contexts coexist in some sort of shared artistic hegemony, or worse, as a lowest common denominator of pluralistic equivalency. Those who make such demands are neither wise nor “cultured,” but ignorant and narrow. The point is, the Church is distinct and separate from the World, just as the local bar (and the musical entertainment it provides) is distinct and separate from a concert hall. There is every proper expectation for the Church to have its own “other worldly” culture and forms of expression. On the other hand, it is individual Christians, in the Domestic Estate, who are in both the Kingdom of Grace and the Kingdom of Power, not the church; but, while we are in both Kingdoms, we are only of the one Kingdom, not the other. Our expression, including our forms, ought to represent this fact unreservedly and most pointedly – especially when we are on our home turf (at church, that is). Here is another pertinent blog posting: CG vs WELS Contemporary
      about an hour ago · Like
    • Tim Niedfeldt In your final paragraph you make the assumption that the Divine Service is, or ought to be, focused principally on Evangelism and/or Outreach. This is a false assumption and an abusive redirection of the purpose of the Divine Service that is being promoted by C&C Church Growth advocates. Evangelism is specifically not the purpose of the Divine Service, nor should any self-respecting Lutheran allow it to become the purpose of the Divine Service. The Divine Service, as a worship setting, is a forum in which the believer is focused on Christ and His completed work on our behalf, is guided in responsive expression that only believers can offer to God, and which climax’s as Christ is joined with the believer in a most intimate way, as he receives His Body and Blood for the forgiveness of sins in Holy Communion. Reducing the Divine Service to (the now defunct theories of) Church Growth anthropocentrism, by refocusing the service on the pleasure drives of the unregenerate and concealing the Sacrament to spare them offense, is nothing short of tragedy. If you have followed any of the above links, you, no doubt, have already read the following, but I think it is worth repeating: “‘Any practice which elevates worship experience as an Evangelical tool, to a status anywhere near equal to the proclamation of Law and Gospel, is abusing both Worship and the preaching of Law and Gospel. Worship is a forum in which those with faith in the objective promises of God's Word offer their sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving to Him on the basis of His completed work on their behalf. Those without faith have nothing to offer in such a forum. In fact, their offerings are offensive to God -- the Bible states directly that He turns Himself from such offerings, and rejects them. To draw unbelievers into the church on the pretense of worship experience is to sinfully draw them in on the false pretense of the efficacy of their worship sacrifice. The fact is, God hates the worship offerings of the unregenerate...’ Worship is not evangelism. Worship is what those with faith in the objective promises of God do, it is not what the unregenerate do, nor is it a forum which God has provided for them. We should avoid giving such indications in our worship practice.”
      about an hour ago · Like
    • Tim Niedfeldt Well let's be gracious Joe. I just re-read a lot of our repartee on BW just now. *Sigh* Took us a span of time to get educated and re-aquainted with Lutheranism. I feel like Jon just walked into a storm just like that ill-fated day in July 2008 when I stumbled on a blog 
      about an hour ago · Like
    • Joe Jewell Tim, just have to say, having followed your posts way back then (I just read, back then, rather than posted or discussed much) and also now, I'm deeply impressed with the Spirit-led evolution of your thinking on worship. Praise be to God that He led you to Scripture and the Confessions for your answers!
      about an hour ago · Like · 1
Photographic Evidence - WELS





St. Peter WELS, Freedom, Wisconsin
St. Peter WELS, Freedom, Wisconsin

Sexpert Ski in his liturgical finest,
delivering another superb Groeschel sermon.

They sing like crows.

Child abuse in WELS.
Posted by Ichabod the Glory Has Departed at 10:11 AM
Labels: ,