Territorial Bloggings

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

So, what do you think – if we (i.e., LCMS Lutherans) were willing to follow the ill-advised liturgical changes that flowed out of Vatican II 30+ years ago, might we also be willing to hew back to the historic liturgy now that Rome is doing the same?

While I really do admire Rome for realizing & admitting their mistakes — after all, the whole “And also with you”/”And with thy Spirit” change was not just theologically suspect, but it also unleashed the horror that was the “sharing of the peace” hug & handshake social interruption of the divine service liturgy — I just don’t see the same thing happening in today’s LCMS.

As much as I would hope that the new LSB could & would be changed to reflect this latest burst of sanity, I just don’t see it happening in a “synod” that insists on tripe like Ablaze! & “unity in diversity”. We mustn’t ever dare impinge on the “freedom” that comes with being a “synod of one”…

Feh!

-ghp

Over at Gottesblog, Fr. Eckardt has proffered a very useful & insightful posting on the role of ceremony in church, entitled Why ceremony?.

There is no doubt that Fr. Eckardt is “high-church” — something to which anyone who has read his fine journal Gottesdienst could easily attest. High-church ceremony has been under assault ever since the Radical Reformation. (Way to go, Karlstadt! )

I’m more of a high-church kind of guy, in case you were wondering…

-ghp

Over at the Cranach Blog, Dr. Veith helps start the week off right, with a great post, and a lively discussion on the always-in-play topic of the theology of worship.

In particular, Dr. Veith does a nice job of concisely defining the three possibilities regarding who acts & who receives in/during the worship service.

MAN acts and MAN receives. This is the Arminian approach to worship.

MAN acts and GOD receives. This is the Calvinist approach.

GOD acts and MAN receives. This is the Lutheran approach.

You’ll need to go over to Cranach to see what Dr. Veith means by each of these statements, but suffice it to say that he’s correct.

In the end, this all just goes to prove that there really is no way to divorce doctrine from practice. What you believe will impact how you carry out that belief, and vice versa. We might not always like to hear it, but our reticence doesn’t negate the truth.

-ghp�

I’ve just finished reading The Fire and the Staff by Rev. Klemet Preus. It’s an outstanding examination of the relationship between doctrine and practice. Rev. Preus lays things out in a very cogent, witty, and easy to read way, both in assessing where Lutheranism has fallen away from orthodoxy, and in showing how that orthodoxy can be reclaimed by coming “back to the ways that have characterized Lutheranism and much of Christendom for centuries.”

It’s a great book — Get it. Read it. Now.

Of particular note, at least for the purposes of this posting, is the focus of Chapter 12 – The Fire Stoked: Change in the Church – i.e., change. The meat of this chapter is encapsulated in the five fundamental principles of change in the church, as outlined by Luther in his Invocavit Sermons of March 9-16, 1522. These sermons were given by Luther upon his return to Wittenberg from his post-Diet of Worms safekeeping at the Wartburg Castle. This return to Wittenberg was necessitated by the radical, and almost anarchical, change set off and encouraged by Carlstadt. The city council of Wittenberg beseechingly invited Luther back to speak to this wave of change, which Luther accepted despite the misgivings of Duke Frederick of Saxony, Luther’s elector and protector.

In these eight sermons, Luther gives us a bold blueprint for approaching churchly change from a Gospel, theology-of-the-cross, -based perspective. He did not fan the flames of radical, anti-Romanist change. Rather, he laid out these five fundamental principals:

1. Change must be required by the Gospel.
2. The Word, not force, should effect change.
3. If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.
4. Don’t let yourself get pushed around.
5. Always yield to the weak.

Now, I’m not going to go into an in-depth discussion of these fundamentals, at least in this posting. I hope to do so over the coming days, but I’ve got to be honest and admit that I might not get to it as quickly as I might like…

These five fundamentals, however, are quite deserving of great consideration. I must admit that, even after reading Rev. Preus’s wonderful explanations, I have have had trouble with these principles, especially #2 & #4. And I probably will continue to have trouble in the future. I’m impatient, and more than a little too confident in my own abilities.

Rev. Preus, however, has done me a great service in that his book has helped me understand where some of my weaknesses lie, and what I need to ask God to help me out with. It’s nothing the Bible doesn’t tell me, mind you, but I can be a bit thick sometimes. In any event, it certainly helps to have a framework upon which to base Scriptural studies.

There’s a lot more I’d like to say about all of this, but I think I’ll cut it short for now, and leave the rest for future posts…

-ghp

This has been, not to sound too dramatic, a tough last couple of days. I’ve been in a bit of a funk, even more than usual (as I can quite the moody so-and-so…). A friend & co-worker passed away last week after a 3 year battle with cancer, and another friend (mostly online, but I have met her & her husband twice in person) has just been diagnosed with cancer. Perhaps it’s not the wisest thing, to blog about this, but blogging is cheaper than therapy, right? Read more…

A very nice posting over at Beggars All, dealing with a perpetual pet peeve of mine — the desire on the part of so many folks to be inveterate tinkerers with the Divine Service.

Such innovation is not a good & beneficial thing, as it shifts the focus from what God does for us over to what we do for God. We don’t need temptations like that. We bring nothing to the party — God has already done it all, and some really smart & blessed folks have developed a pretty meet, right, & salutary way of conducting the Divine Service (e.g., the liturgy!) over the years. It would behoove us to honor it & not toss it aside like so much refuse.

-ghp