Tomorrow is Sunday, the Lord’s Day, the day for gathering into the name of Jesus to receive from Him the divine service of Word and Sacraments. As I begin preparations for the divine service each week, I grieve over the many schisms in those professing to be members of Christ’s body. These schisms are manifested even within the same church bodies, and more, even within the same congregations.
Below are snippets from the “worship schedules” of three LC-MS congregations:
These snippets, as they are displayed on the web page each congregation, demonstrate the schismatic nature of their views of the Church and of the purpose of the Church.
The first demonstrates the definition of Church and Worship that is commonly held among Christians of all of the church bodies. Tradition is the primary underlying foundation of belief and practice. The Church and the “faith” of the churches is counted as a “faith tradition.” Thus some who profess to be Christian are counted as Baptist Christians, others as Catholic Christians, others as Pentecostal Christians, others as OurLabel Christians, and some even as Lutheran Christians. Then, even within these faith traditions there are further divisions, such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.
Each of these have further divisions. Yet they all practice as one communion, in theory. In practice they are no more united than grains of sand on the seashore are united.
The three snippets above are all from congregations within the LC-MS. They call themselves congregations. Yet they have multiple services with multiple formats. The first distinguishes between “Traditional” and “Blended.” What does this mean? Particularly, with what is the third service blended? How has this blending been effected?
The second is from a congregation that began with similar terminology to the first, but now has stepped beyond this to label one of the services as a “Service of Testimony.” By this they are making it clear what they are blending into their congregation’s doctrine and practice.
The third is from a congregation that has long led the way toward blending with that from outside the doctrine that is counted as their “faith tradition.” Theirs is the most blatant of the three, openly declaring one of their services to be “Jazz/Praise Worship.” This congregation used the terms “traditional” and “contemporary” in the past. Now, however, those have become “Worship” with “Jazz/Praise Worship” highlighted and a new service added as “Healing Service.”
So then, within the LC-MS, what really constitutes Worship? One can find congregations that hold only to the traditional or historic liturgy and others that blend together whatever suits their fancy. So, using the LC-MS as an example, what really is worship defined to be? How does this reflect the Faith?
So-called styles of worship do have meaning. Each style of worship is the practice of what is embraced as important and defining. That is why people pick and choose between services. Within the same church bodies and even within the same congregations styles of worship permit people who embrace different things of importance to share facilities and even a name without actually coming together as one.
However, one must ask whether or not they may in fact really be of the same mind. When tolerance is the accepted practice rather than unity, is tolerance not the uniting doctrine from which the practice flows? When tolerance has become the accepted doctrine and practice, what is the reason for the members of a congregation or church body to continue?
When people refer to themselves as X-Christians and Y-Christians and Z-Christians, what are they defining the Christian faith really to be? Is this reflected in their styles of worship?
Showing posts with label contemporary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label contemporary. Show all posts
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
Rote Worship Loses Meaning?
This is a response to a wonderful post by Dan at Necessary Roughness,
Rote Worship Loses Meaning? My response is posted here as it seems to me to be too long to include in the comments section on his blog.
+ + + - - - + + + - - - + + +
Dan, you make some wonderful statements regarding the liturgy and your esteem of the liturgy is wonderful to behold.
I have some additional thoughts that I believe are worthy of pondering.
After listing aspects of the historic liturgy you then say: “These are the church’s tools, and we make them ours.”
Are these the Church’s tools? Is not this part of the false perception of those who decree that the liturgy is rote? While rote does not necessarily mean “lifeless,” this is what is implied. Tools are lifeless instruments. Are any of the portions of the liturgy lifeless? Are they not the very Scriptures put into practice? The Scriptures by themselves are without life, and merely point to the one who is the Life. But when the Scriptures are uttered, those utterances are the very Word of God, Jesus, actively present among those who rightly utter them.
These words are not tools. They are the very Life by which we receive life.
This is true even in the form of creeds and prayers that are drawn from and summarize and recite the doctrine revealed to us in the Scriptures. The pure and holy doctrine is not a tool. It is the very voice of God among us.
In your last paragraph you say: “That’s not bad stuff to recite every week. If it loses meaning to me, then the fault is mine, not the liturgy’s.”
No, it is not really a matter of fault. It is really a matter of where life is found. The liturgy is alive. The question is, “Is the worshiper alive?” Also, “Is the worshiper receiving the Life that comes to be present through the liturgy?”
That really is the issue for those who consider the liturgy to be rote or not lively. Those with such a view toward the liturgy have chosen to make worship based upon their own actions, their own thoughts, and their own words. They have turned their hearts away from God’s gracious activities and His gracious words of life and power and His thoughts of condescension toward us poor sinners, and have imagined themselves worthy of offering praise to God so that their hearts are filled with their own glorious acts and thoughts and words that they imagine to be elevated to heaven by their doing them. They reverse the Christ Mass, the gift of God, which is from heaven above come to earth below. They reverse the Epiphany of our Lord to us, to make it the epiphany of the worshipers to God.
They do not feel uplifted by the liturgy because they do not believe that they need to be lifted up. Only one who understands worship as proskuneo (forward toward-dog), prostrate kissing of foot or hand, only one who understands worship from this perspective can truly appreciate the holy absolution as that which lifts up the soul. This is why “This is the feast of victory for our God” was substituted for “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” The revelation of what is for those who are already in heaven was chosen in place of the blessed evangelism of the holy heralds from heaven concerning the great work and love of God come to earth to save those who have no hope in themselves and throughout their earthly lives look longingly to that which is above.
This is why the so-called contemporary worship promoters are not promoting anything that is truly contemporary with earthly worshipers. For true contemporaneity acknowledges the “now/not yet” reality of earthly life and worship. True contemporaneity does not look in the mirror without observing the poor, miserable sinner who has no righteousness of his own, who craves the continual declaration of the heavenly absolution. True contemporaneity declares that worship and praise have value only because these actions are faithful reiterations of the declarations of the one who is worshiped and praised, the author and finisher of the faith.
Rote Worship Loses Meaning? My response is posted here as it seems to me to be too long to include in the comments section on his blog.
+ + + - - - + + + - - - + + +
Dan, you make some wonderful statements regarding the liturgy and your esteem of the liturgy is wonderful to behold.
I have some additional thoughts that I believe are worthy of pondering.
After listing aspects of the historic liturgy you then say: “These are the church’s tools, and we make them ours.”
Are these the Church’s tools? Is not this part of the false perception of those who decree that the liturgy is rote? While rote does not necessarily mean “lifeless,” this is what is implied. Tools are lifeless instruments. Are any of the portions of the liturgy lifeless? Are they not the very Scriptures put into practice? The Scriptures by themselves are without life, and merely point to the one who is the Life. But when the Scriptures are uttered, those utterances are the very Word of God, Jesus, actively present among those who rightly utter them.
These words are not tools. They are the very Life by which we receive life.
This is true even in the form of creeds and prayers that are drawn from and summarize and recite the doctrine revealed to us in the Scriptures. The pure and holy doctrine is not a tool. It is the very voice of God among us.
In your last paragraph you say: “That’s not bad stuff to recite every week. If it loses meaning to me, then the fault is mine, not the liturgy’s.”
No, it is not really a matter of fault. It is really a matter of where life is found. The liturgy is alive. The question is, “Is the worshiper alive?” Also, “Is the worshiper receiving the Life that comes to be present through the liturgy?”
That really is the issue for those who consider the liturgy to be rote or not lively. Those with such a view toward the liturgy have chosen to make worship based upon their own actions, their own thoughts, and their own words. They have turned their hearts away from God’s gracious activities and His gracious words of life and power and His thoughts of condescension toward us poor sinners, and have imagined themselves worthy of offering praise to God so that their hearts are filled with their own glorious acts and thoughts and words that they imagine to be elevated to heaven by their doing them. They reverse the Christ Mass, the gift of God, which is from heaven above come to earth below. They reverse the Epiphany of our Lord to us, to make it the epiphany of the worshipers to God.
They do not feel uplifted by the liturgy because they do not believe that they need to be lifted up. Only one who understands worship as proskuneo (forward toward-dog), prostrate kissing of foot or hand, only one who understands worship from this perspective can truly appreciate the holy absolution as that which lifts up the soul. This is why “This is the feast of victory for our God” was substituted for “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” The revelation of what is for those who are already in heaven was chosen in place of the blessed evangelism of the holy heralds from heaven concerning the great work and love of God come to earth to save those who have no hope in themselves and throughout their earthly lives look longingly to that which is above.
This is why the so-called contemporary worship promoters are not promoting anything that is truly contemporary with earthly worshipers. For true contemporaneity acknowledges the “now/not yet” reality of earthly life and worship. True contemporaneity does not look in the mirror without observing the poor, miserable sinner who has no righteousness of his own, who craves the continual declaration of the heavenly absolution. True contemporaneity declares that worship and praise have value only because these actions are faithful reiterations of the declarations of the one who is worshiped and praised, the author and finisher of the faith.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Gospel Star
The headline of this article from today’s Wichita Eagle more or less puts things into perspective.
The on-line version changes the headline.

For those who don’t get it, try reading any of the four Gospel accounts to discover who the star of the Gospel is. To make it easy, three of the four accounts declare the matter in the first sentence:
Matthew 1:1
Mark 1:1
John 1:1
But then, I suppose the contemporaneity of these accounts may escape the awareness of "Gospel Stars" and their fans.
The on-line version changes the headline.

For those who don’t get it, try reading any of the four Gospel accounts to discover who the star of the Gospel is. To make it easy, three of the four accounts declare the matter in the first sentence:
Matthew 1:1
Mark 1:1
John 1:1
But then, I suppose the contemporaneity of these accounts may escape the awareness of "Gospel Stars" and their fans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)














