Territorial Bloggings

*tap* *tap* *tap*

Is this thing on?

Wow. It still works. Good to know…

Some random musings that have been floating through my mind after a nice Holy Trinity Sunday service (LSB, DS III, for those who care) this morning…

• The Athanasian Creed – we didn’t confess it today. That makes me sad. Why didn’t we? Well, the usual, I suppose – “it’s too long”, “it’s too different”, “it’s too confusing”, etc. I don’t buy that, but matters little-to-none in the grand scheme.
• On Eagle’s Wings – this (LSB 727) was sung during distribution. Can someone convince me that it’s not utter emotionalistic dreck? Anyone?
• The Nunc Dimittis – we didn’t sing it today. I think it got cut to move things along & keep the service shorter. That makes me sad, because I loves me some Song of Simeon.
• VBS Themes – this year’s VBS theme was announced/touted – “God Rocks!” *sigh* I guess I’ll cut VBS some slack, but overall, it rolls together with my confusion & annoyance over the contemporary obsession with making everything FUN!!! – as if that’s the panacea for fixing what ails the church. ‘Cause, goodness knows that Sunday School & Youth programs focused on FUN!!! for the past 35+ years has worked sooooooooo well.
• Perfect(?) Rewards – After service, awards were given out for Sunday School perfect attendance. Thing is, you can miss up to 3 times & still get “perfect” attendance. Not even the local public schools have devalued the word/concept that much (heck, in the Valpo Public Schools, if you want “perfect” attendance, you still have to be there every day – no mulligans!). I’m not agin the award, per se, just agin the misuse of the word “perfect”. Are we teaching our kids that “perfect” = messing up once or twice? And, if so, what might that subliminally be teaching them about (the need for) Jesus’ perfect life, death, and resurrection? I don’t mean to be overly pedantic here (well, maybe a little), but words have meaning, and precision in that meaning is a good thing that we ought not throw away. Especially in some misguided effort to make kids (or is it their parents? hmmmm?) feel better about themselves.

Ahh, that feels better. Back in the saddle. Gotta get ready for the upcoming district convention, and all the festivities that come along with that. I’m sure there’ll be plenty to write about…

-ghp

So, what shows up in my inbox today but message touting the latest issue of the LCMS Reporter, the always entertaining house organ of the Violet Vatican. Front and center on the table of contents was mention of SP Kieschnick’s recent reconciliation meeting with the NICL pastors who wrote TTMBO.

More interesting, though, was this headline: 100 Worship, Praise Songs Approved

Money quote from the full article:

“Rev. David A. Johnson, executive director of the LCMS Commission on Worship, … said that nearly 60 percent of all LCMS congregations and agencies currently subscribe to CCLI’s licensing services for praise and worship music.”

60%? Wow, that’s sadly surprising. I don’t quite know what to make of it, but I really can’t say that it does anything to hearten me about the current state of the Divine Service in today’s LCMS.

Why? Well, this excerpt helps clarify that…

“…the LCMS Commission on Worship, which was assigned by 2004 Synod Convention Resolution 2-04 to ‘initiate a process leading toward the development of diverse worship resources for use in the LCMS.’

Johnson said that in carrying out that assignment, the commission will work toward launching information on its Web site (http://worship.lcms.org) that “includes the integration of these songs into the various lectionaries and provides biblical and topical references.”

‘This remains an important endeavor for the Commission on Worship,” Johnson said, “as we continue to strive to provide resources and assistance in support of all of our congregations — those steeped in the riches of Lutheran Service Book and those readily engaged in utilizing the vast wealth of diverse worship resources.’”

It’s too bad that the LSB can’t be enough, and that the richness of our shared liturgical history is willingly cast aside for the thin gruel of “contemporary” pop music.

Rock on.

-ghp

Recently, I’ve read two very good postings by Pr. Beisel (post 1 & post 2) over at One Lutheran…Ablogâ„¢. Both of these postings engage a larger battle currently raging in the LCMS under the general umbrella of the official synodical Ablaze! program/initiative, particularly as it pertains to missions. I recommend that you read both posts & the resulting comment threads, as they are interesting, informative, & nicely illustrative of the false dichotomy that some (not Pr. Beisel!) have created between doctrine & mission.

After reading these posts, a though occurred to me regarding what seems to be a foundational tenet of the missional movement: Relevance.

More specifically, my thought was about the juxtaposition of relevance with reverence.

Reverence, as an operational underpinning of the Divine Service, has been primary modus operandi of the Apostolic/post-Apostolic Church for the first 2000 years of its existence. I.e., reverence in worship is key. Reverence for God and the gifts He bestows upon us in the Divine Service.

Relevance, on the other hand, is a more recent innovation, at least as the main/primary focus of worship. The thinking seems to go along the lines of “If we make things familiar, approachable, and “relevant” to the unchurched, then we can/will have greater success in reaching them…”

Thus, reverence is pitted against relevance.

A recent article in Newsday illustrates this ginned-up conflict through the prism of the whole LCMS Ablaze! project/movement. Even keeping in mind the fact that press write-ups are simplistic & lean towards attention-grabbing quotes, it’s still disheartening to read references made about being “…more in tune with what people are hearing today…” & churches being “populated by people who are not just old white guys.” Please note that preaching Christ crucified to all people is meet, right, & proper — I’m more concerned about the dismissive attitude towards the souls you’ve already “got”. “Get ‘em & forget ‘em” (at the risk of hyperbole) is not a Lutheran approach to shepherding the faithful.

Music & the (lack of) liturgy are on the very front-lines of the battle raging between relevance & reverence, as is the question of whether or not the Divine/Worship Service is an outreach/mission tool. One side hurls the epithets of “boring” & “dead orthodoxy”, while the other responds with “tradition” & “confessional/doctrinal integrity”. They very often talk past each other, even as they use the same words, albeit with different definitions.

I decry the sacrifice of reverence on the altar of relevance. What could be more “relevant” than a joyous reverence as shown in the ancient liturgies of the Church handed down from the saints who preceded us in the Faith? “Relevant” needs to be properly understood as that which God reveals to us for our own good, rather than that which seems/feels good or right to us.

Why are “entertaining,” “moving,” and “new & different” automatically viewed as “better” and/or more “effective”? Why are numbers & measurables held in such high esteem? Why is aping the prevalent culture viewed as the best course of action? How is all of that somehow more “relevant” than hewing to what the Church has held near & dear?

The Church is, and always has been, different than the culture that surrounded it (Romans 12:1-2). That’s a good thing. To try and preach the Gospel by making that Gospel conform to what is worldly appealing is not Scriptural. The Gospel does its work by transforming us – we merely preach it & get out of the way. We don’t do the work by transforming & repackaging the Gospel to make it more “acceptable” and thus “effective”.

Our goal in worship ought to be a joyous reverence or to be reverently joyful, in response to the gifts bestowed on us by our loving & gracious God – He is the focus. If we seek to be relevant, even if it be joyous, entertaining, & “successful” (by worldly measures), we seek the wrong thing.

May our gracious Lord & Savior protect us, keep us, and watch over us, so that we may be ever vigilant and faithful as we live out our God-given vocations!

-ghp

Would that God bless us all with faithful undershepherds, like Chaplain to the World, who get this.

We need Pastors, not glib, glad-handing, “friends”, and I think Rev. Kavouras deserves (let those who know him understand) a big hug for saying so! ;^)

-ghp

The focal point of this past weekend was not, like most of country, Thanksgiving – that was just the appetizer, as it were. Rather, the main focus for the Territorial Brood was the third wedding we’ve attended in the past 6 months.

All three have been “family”-related: the first, my wife’s blood relations, the second, my blood relations, and the third was my wife’s life-long best friend – the type of friend that might just as well be family, for the friendship bond is as tight (or tighter) than one shared by siblings.

The three weddings offered a contrasting look at three different points along the contemporary wedding “event” continuum. Not only that, but they also presented some interesting data points with regard to theology. Note: Much has been written elsewhere about the whole “white wedding” industry, so I won’t get in to all that much detail here; suffice it to say that the trend over the past 50-75 years has been to change the focus from celebrating the start of a life together (i.e., the marriage) to that of the spectacle & shindig (i.e., the wedding).

In the middle, both “event” wise as well as theologically, was the first wedding. My wife comes from a Roman Catholic background, thus it was no surprise that there was a full-on Roman Mass. As I wrote more in-depth on it earlier, I’ll not go into detail here; suffice it to say that while I certainly didn’t like or approve of much of the theology underpinning the Roman Mass, I found it refreshing that they took it seriously as a worship service and not just as a ceremony/event. As for the reception, the focus was on the party as a celebration in & of itself, rather than as a celebration of the marriage. Things weren’t way out of whack, mind you, but enough for it to be reasonably obvious to me. Way too loud and a little too big to keep the emphasis on the marriage over & above the wedding. For reference, the bride & groom were 25-26 years old.

At one extreme, then, was the second wedding, this time on my side. The wedding ceremony was held in a Lutheran church, but the service was more of a “performance” in that it didn’t follow a set liturgy, nor did it have a traditional feel to it. There was much contemporary music involved, and the order of service seemed like it had been left to be molded by the aesthetic requirements of the bridal party more than by any theological requirements. The reception was very much one of a party “event” rather than a celebration of the marriage. It was, I must admit, very much in line with the vibe of two recently graduated, early-twentysomethings getting married. Way, WAY loud music. Lots of drinking. A definite frat/sorority party vibe.

Let me say at this point that I’m not (really!) meaning to blithely pass judgment on the choices made by the folks involved; rather, I’m trying to make some observations about some of the larger theological & societal issues at play in & around the context of weddings…

Finally, at the other extreme was the wedding we just went to. Theologically, it was a very traditional Lutheran service. The Rev. Tim Halboth (of Grace Lutheran, Redford, MI, where they have carved busts of Martin Luther and C.F.W. Walther in the sanctuary!) conducted a very nice service. While it wasn’t liturgical in the sense of being an order of service right out of a hymnal, it very much was a Divine Service that was centered on Christ and Him crucified. It was conducted reverently yet joyously. The reception was the most sedate of the three, possibly because it was the smallest, but also reflecting the fact that the bride & groom were in their mid-thirties. It wasn’t horrifically loud, but the music encouraged much dancing, and the celebration was nicely lubricated thanks to the open bar, but there didn’t seem to be the vibe of drinking as an end in & of itself. The tone seemed to be forward looking, celebrating the marriage & future life together of the happy couple.

Heck, I even did something that I haven’t done since my own wedding reception nearly 18 years ago – dance with my wife. I might be biased, but I got to dance with the most beautiful woman in the room! Not only that, but she stole the show with her matron-of-honor toast, totally blowing away the efforts of the best man!! ;^)

About the only bad thing about it was the fact that the groom’s family has this unfortunate attachment to tOSU, which resulted in the playing of the Ohio State fight song. Luckily, it was immediately followed up by The Victors. Normally I’m a Michigan fan, though not of the die-hard type (not since I was a kid, anyway). Being around all those misguided Buckeye fans though, turned my blood maize & blue, and I was compelled to lead the charge in our lusty rendition of the greatest college fight song known to mankind.

It was a nice weekend, one for which I give much thanks, as many good times were had, and much God-given happiness was witnessed and experienced.

-ghp

So, I had occasion to attend a Roman Mass this past weekend, having traveled to a downriver Detroit suburb for a wedding on my wife’s side of the family. I took it as a chance to engage in a little theological anthropology, if you will. Fortunately, my wonderful wife is nicely reformed (pun partially intended) from her lapsed Roman upbringing, and is solidly in line with my misgivings about taking our kids to such a Mass, and supported me fully in my attempts to educated our kids on the fact that we were attending a service that was not to be equated with attending a service at our home church — IOW, we were observing not participating. I tried to make the best of it by making it a “teachable moment”…

Interestingly, the Priest was really pretty good. He actually takes being a Roman Catholic seriously. And while I undoubtedly have some severe disagreements with him in terms of Justification, Christology, Sacramentology, & Mariology, I’ve got to give him his props for hewing to the Papal party line. He clearly stated that Communion was not open to non-Roman Catholics or Roman Catholics who were “not in a state of grace”. (Closed Communion — what a concept!), and very clearly called for a return to chastity and an end to abortion. So I’ve got to give him props for that, too!

Oh yeah, and he wasn’t American (at least by birth). He’s only been a priest for 6 years, and he has only been here in the States for part of that time. If I had to guess, I’d say that he was of either Caribbean or African birth. It’s too bad for Rome that they aren’t producing more solid American priests like Fr. Aloysious. Why, I bet he’d make a heck of a Lutheran!

The usual, obvious, stuff that Rome has wrong showed itself during the Mass, e.g., marriage as a sacrament & making offerings of intercession & whatnot to Mary. The pernicious head of Vatican II also reared its ugly head, with laywomen reading the first two lessons, and (way odd to me) the mother of the groom assisting in the distribution of Communion. He took the sacrament seriously enough to close it, but not so seriously that he didn’t willingly let his priestly office be usurped. Odd…

The worst, though, came during the homily. It started strongly enough, likening the love in marriage to that of Christ. “Sacrificial” was ok, because husband & wife should lovingly sacrifice for each other, as Christ did for His bride. I’m now blanking on the second example (didn’t have my HipsterPDA with me!), but it was ok as well. The third example/analogy, however, was where the good father lost me — “Salvific”. The husband & wife were now responsible for ensuring the salvation of the other, as Christ did with the Church. Yikes! If’n I had known that I’d be on the hook for that, I might not have taken those vows 17.5 years ago! Seriously, though, that really showed to me in pretty clear relief the flawed theology that Rome has wrt Justification, Grace, & (to a lesser extent) the Sacraments.

At least it was a Christian service. There were some significant errors in theology, doctrine, & practice, to be sure, but at least it was still observably Christian.

But I’m glad that I’m Lutheran!

-ghp

I really need to start posting more about theology, if for no other reason than to focus on something that can help me keep an even keel amongst all the mental/emotional funks that I get into from time to time (and which I’m deep into right now).

FatherDMJ passes along some very good stuff from Rev. Fr. Peter Berg, in his recent entry Everything is About Jesus — a sample:

“Some (many?) of our people think that church is all about them. Therefore they need to be recatechized in the truth that nothing will be about them until everything is about Jesus. And it’s not only about Jesus but about all the things that are about Jesus. You see, if it’s all about Jesus, then it will be about his sacraments, and if it’s about the sacraments, then it’s about the liturgy (for you can’t have sacraments without liturgy), and if it’s about liturgy, then it’s about music (for you can’t have a decent liturgy without music), and if it’s about music, then you need to learn Gregorian chant, and if ti’s about your chanting, then it’s about the Office of the Holy Ministry, which, of course, is all about Jesus (that’s why you’ve got to get a chasuble).”

Yup, that’s the good stuff…

-ghp

As per the norm, Rev. McCain has unleashed another stellar posting over at Cyberbrethren – Courting Reverence.

This fine posting investigates why courtrooms have been allowed to keep their formality and purposeful sense of reverence, while churches have not. More important, though, is the discussion of why this has been, and continues to be, a bad thing for churches and the sinners who enter them.

Personally, I much prefer the traditional architecture of a cross-shaped church — preferably one where the historic liturgy is being celebrated in a joyously reverent fashion (and, no, that is not a contradiction!).

I fear that what has happened in the past 25-50 years is that the medium has overwhelmed and subverted the message. We’ve become too focused on the environment in which the message is delivered and/or the “mindset” of those receiving the message, and lost sight of the blessed message that we all so desperately need. The purpose of the Divine Service is for God to deliver His gifts to us. It is not for us to feel good & comfortable about what we are offering up to God. Music, words, architecture, and actions all have a role in properly ensuring that both praxis and doctrine are orthodox & complementary.

-ghp

Much has been written about the 8-years-in-the-making, newly arrived Lutheran Service Book (LSB). At the risk of putting it too briefly and/or glibly, LSB is the Synod’s attempt to put right that which was done so very poorly in 1982′s Lutheran Worship (which was a quick & hasty hack job in an attempt to salvage 1978′s Lutheran Book of Worship), integrating the good from LW, Hymnal Supplements ’91 & ’98, and the venerable 1941 The Lutheran Hymnal. I will set aside the whole argument of whether or not LSB was needed, as it’s a reality that’s already here. (FWIW, I think it was/is…)

This morning I attended a workshop in which the LSB was introduced & explained to folks from this little chunk of NW Indiana, and I must say that I’m quite favorably impressed. I hope to give a more in-depth commentary on the LSB at some point, but I wanted to get some quick observations written down while I had the chance. I think that LSB is very definitely an improvement on LW/LBW, and it is also a needed improvement upon TLH. It is by no means perfect, as there were definitely some compromises made during the course of its 8 year gestation. That said, I think it’s about as good a hymnal as could be reasonably expected from a Synod as fractured in doctrine and practice as today’s LCMS.

LSB holds great promise as an instrument of personal & family devotions & study. The inclusion of Luther’s Small Catechism and a wonderful Daily Lectionary, along with a very nice order of Daily Prayer for Individuals and Families. LSB is, IMO, good for proper catechesis.

In terms of Liturgical Orders of Service, I think that LSB gets the job done reasonably well. This is perhaps the area in which the Council on Worship faced the greatest challenge, given the stated goal of creating a service book that would/could be used by everyone in Synod. Frankly, I think that liturgical unity is a pipe dream in today’s LCMS. That said, I appreciate the sense of conservatism that guided the compilation of liturgical settings in LSB. While there are five settings of the Divine Service in LSB, they seem to be a fairly reasonable assembling of orders from TLH, LW, HS98, with Luther’s Deutsche Messe added for good measure (along with the Daily Offices).

They corpus of hymnody in LSB is the area in which more/most innovation was done, in that about 200 of the hymns are of a more recent vintage and/or were not in TLH or LW. I’ll leave comments on the musical merit of LSB to those more knowledgeable than I; however, it seems like it’s ok to me. I think that the repristination of many hymns that were mangled during the creation of LBW/LW, along with the addition of many other solid new hymns overall more than balances out the inclusion of some rather dubious “hymns” (e.g., one by Twila Paris, and Earth and All Stars). I find the intention of including more hymns from around the world to be admirable.

I’ll hold off on any further comment until after I’ve had the chance to more completely digest the materials I got today, as well as giving my copy of the LSB a closer examination. But, I think we’ve got a winner…

-ghp

My favorite seminarian has a nice update on the imminent Lutheran Service Book (LSB) from CPH.

In particular, I’m heartened to read that CPH is including encouragement for using the LSB as a standalone replacement for printed “worship folders.” These late 20th Century innovations bother me on two levels:

1. Stewardship-wise, as they are a waste of paper and money. Bulletins are, I think, a necessary, albeit reasonably useful, evil — that they have been expanded beyond simple announcements & policy statements is sad & misguided.
2. Theologically, where they have contributed to the dissolution of our walking together in orthopraxis — IOW, the gates were thrown open for pastors & congregations to “roll their own” “liturgy” on a weekly basis, thus degrading the commonality previously shared amongst member congregations. Where we once gave thanks for the blessing of unity in conformity, we now seemingly revel in a relativistic “unity in diversity”. It’s no wonder we’re having problems!

In any event, even a cynical guy like me is hopeful for the success of the LSB. From what I’ve seen & read, it looks like it really is an improvement over both 1941′s TLH & 1982′s LW (especially the latter, as it was a half-baked attempt to salvage 1978′s heterodox LBW). I would love to see it replace TLH at my congregation, especially if it could be done at the same time as phasing out the superfluous “worship folders”… However, knowing the resistance to change that so many folks have, particularly wrt the way things have “always” been done (even when that’s only been in the most recent 25-75 years, and contra prior established orthodox Reformation/Lutheran praxis), I’m not going to hold my breath.

The more cynical “best hope” might be that LSB would serve as a solid hymnal for wherever solid, confessional Lutheran congregations land as they are sloughed off of/by Missouri…

-ghp