From the comment thread to the post about Rev. May being sent home from Burkina Faso “due to programmatic and business decisions”:
Yeah, confessional missionaries like Pastor May get sent home. Meanwhile, a professor who says that we should consider not using the name of Jesus in worship–the better to “reach” Muslims–well, he’s the regional director for LCMS World Mission in Sri Lanka and India. No kidding. Herbert Hoefer, prof at Concordia Portland, wrote a paper called “Muslim Friendly Christian Worship.” Therein he said we should stop using Jesus’ name, stop reading the epistles, use grape juice, change the creeds, etc. to “reach muslims.” The paper used to be up on his personal website, but he took it down after someone brought it to light, so you can find it at www.oldparson.blogspot.com
Filed under: Updates
Stage 5. Empowering Broad-Based Action:
-Getting rid of obstacles
-Changing systems or structures that undermine the change vision
-Encouraging risk-taking and non-traditional ideas, activities, and actions.
http://www.extremetheology.com/2008/04/changing-the-lc.html
all the better to feather our purple nests with synodical salaries. Birds of a feather….
A pdf of Herb Hoefer’s “Muslim-Friendly Christian Worship” can found and copied at
http://www.freewebs.com/personaecclesiae/Muslim-friendly-worship.pdf. On Aprill 22nd I emailed a printed copy of this pdf to all District Presidents, Dr. Kieschnick, David Strand and seven additional “Synod Officials”, 30 Confessional Lutheran Laity friends and 15 additional Confessional LCMS pastors.I encourage you to forward this easy access pdf as well.
Hey, Ann,
What kind of response did you get from the DP’s and the SP? I’d like to hear what they think of Prof. Hoefer’s paper, and whether they think it is typical of the great unity in doctrine and practice we are supposed to enjoy in the Missouri Synod, according to Pres. Kieschnick’s WSJ article.
I wonder, also, if anyone in power feels this ought to be retracted by Prof. Hoefer. If not, we give witness to the world that we are not overly concerned whether a Professor and missions exec. muses about the possibility of not using Jesus’ name in worship.
All I can say is… ICHABOD!
Come quickly, Lord Jesus! Save us from ourselves!
Rev. Hess,
I had one response from one DP, and he sent to all that had received my email, plus several others SP not then on my list. His communication was accusatory in which he defended the $25K Ablaze grant to Jefferson “Lutheran” Church that was referenced in an Augsburg1530 post by Mollie. In my return response, speaking the truth in love, I addressed the apostasy theology of Jefferson “Lutheran” Church and that he, as DP over Jefferson might find it important to find out what the pastors there are preaching and teaching, in particuIar to “rebaptizing” the baptized so they can “make a statement” (theology of glory) and the Sacrament of Holy Communion. I never heard from this DP again and any response from any DP or SP I don’t expect or anticipate that I would hear from any of them. I take pleasure that they still receive my emails and I haven’t been put on a SPAM alert!
Pertaining to the Issues, Etc. issue and the “apostasy at large” which this issue has exposed in the male leadership, to some extent in DP, Pastors and congregations and in particular, the apostasy of the male leadership in “the purple palace”. I add that since Issues, Etc. issue, I have sent 15 emails to those I mentioned in my above comment and 20 additional emails to my Confessional Lutheran Laity friends and the 15 Confessional Lutheran Pastors as I read Blogs and encourage others to read as well.
Pertaining to “Muslim-Friendly Christian Worship” I encourage you to read a new post that speaks to your question. The post is “My Reasons and Intentions” at
http://www.oldparson.blogspot.com .
Concerning Portland – they’ve been fluffy for a long time.
Is Concordia Portland indoctrinating into the Christian faith, or rather inoculating against it?”
My husband and I have been gradually coming to the conclusion, sadly, that our daughter, when she comes to picking a college, may be better off at a secular, public university with a good campus ministry than at one of our Concordias.
elephantschild – We are thinking similarly. I think I would rather have my children go to a university that is blatant and obvious in its error. It seems the children would be more “on guard,” as opposed to going to a Concordia, expecting to be able to trust what they hear from their professors, particularly regarding the Lutheran Christian faith and Confessions, and then perhaps being subtly misled. I know we have some very faithful professors out there, but you know what I mean. Dan Jastram, one of the best, was actually cut from Concordia, St. Paul. (Kind of like Issues – they don’t acknowledge any theological reasoning.) I’m sure you are aware of some good campus ministries. Living in Minnesota, I am aware of University Lutheran Chapel (ULC) in Minneapolis.
Maybe there is already such a resource, but if not, perhaps the idea could be considered of having an online resource with trustworthy, Confessional professors and which university they’re serving, and also trustworthy, faithful, Confessional campus ministries. That could be a wonderful help to parents and students making college decisions!
It sounds like that DP may be the same one that wrote a letter to Mollie….
My husband was talking with a missionary who had been sent back the other day….Basically, all of our mission outreach in Latin America is GONE. There might be a couple of exceptions. It was enjoying strong success. Men and women who have devoted their entire lives to reaching out to the lost have been told “Thank you very much. Bye.”
This is what Ablaze is costing us. We should all be aware.
Rebellious Pastor’s Wife,
I understand that it was the same DP that wrote a letter to Mollie. He suggested that I do Matthew 18 with everyone on the list to which I had sent Mollie’s post and my response to her post via my email to the DP’s & SP’s. Speaking the truth in love, I informed him he was “out of order” in his request pertaining to Matthew 18. Seems that when he was exposed he felt the need to defend my questioning of the $25K Ablaze grant to Jefferson “Lutheran” Church by “turning on me”.
Portland does not represent the rest of our Synodical colleges. Most have very sound theologians.
I have sent the last 3 daughters to Concordia Wisconsin. I can still recommend this Concordia to those who don’t wish their college to contradict their faith. God bless them.
Oh?
The “Oh?” was in response to Mr. Lewer’s observation. Concordia Wisconsin is probably the one and only right now to which we would consider sending our children.
I personally graduated from Concordia Wisconsin a year ago. Most of the theology department is theologically sound, but I do question few professors… But the university in general is conservative, but not quite confessional.
With all that is going on in Synod, it is easy to be suspicious and condemn without knowing the facts. I don’t think anyone here knows that teachings of all the professors of theology in our colleges.
My grand daughter graduated from Mequon this year and the theology was good.
My son had a prof from River Forest for graduate MAR work at Ft. Wayne and he was sound also.
Also, for some the definition of confessional is quite narrow.
Here’s a bit of irony:
I just heard a spot on KFUO in which the radio announcer read comments from Rev. James May, a missionary in Togo, who wrote to express his thankfulness for the ministry of Issues, Etc.
The spot aired in the middle of the Afternoon Show.
Clarification: That was a promo clip that aired between segments of the Afternoon Show, not actually part of the show itself.
Still ironic.
mnn: There is such a directory of confessional university campus ministries. Higher Things has started one called “Christ on Campus.” You can find the list here: http://higherthings.org/campus/chapters.html
As for Concordia University Wisconsin…expect to find ‘contemporary’ worship pushed in many classes, unordained faculty members preaching at chapel, and The Haven (a large, highly publicised Sunday night ‘devotion’ led by students using all contemporary songs) vigorously endorsed and defended by the university. There are some profs at CUW that I respect very much, but don’t delude yourself into thinking you’re sending your kid into a confessional environment…overall, it’s the squishy middle at best and that goes for any Concordia. I know because I also graduated from CUW rather recently. This idea floating around synod that CUW is the “conservative” Concordia is a myth. I heard it before I got there too; it’s just not true. It’s really no more conservative than Ann Arbor or River For…um…Chicago.
In my experience, most of the Concordias have a prof or two that is really solid – but don’t expect any more than that. Also know that those aren’t the ones in control and they don’t reflect the majority of the faculty. Even among these, you will frequently find some of them choosing job security over criticizing the establishment. It’s sad but it’s reality.
Personally, I’d rather have my kids at a public university with a Christ on Campus chapter.
This is amazing. Is this prof who advocates eliminating the Eucharist and confessions (and just about everything) a decider in the Missionary Programs still?
Concordia River Forest (umm Chicago) has a wonderful theology department. The theology profs are solid. But the same can not be said for the rest of the Univ. The chapel is horribly overrun by contemporary worship (to put it lightly), open communion and you name it. The rest of the faculty is largely ELCA or just generally left leaning. Plus the price tag to attend is no laughing matter. If you (or your child) is solid in their faith and wanting good pre-seminary studies the River Forest is good. But, as stated before, this only goes as far as the theology department.
Someone close to me was interviewed to colloquize as a teacher in the LCMS at what was then CURF. She is by no means a “confessional” in the sense of being aware of the kinds of things we are talking about. In fact, if I start talking to her about the problems in the LCMS, she usually tunes me out.
Nevertheless, when she was interviewed at CURF, she came out totally upset because she was grilled essentially the whole time on the theological paper she had written to complete the requirements for colloquy. The people interviewing her had raked her over the coals for defending closed communion and a male-only pastorate. Then, after being attacked by these professors for essentially the whole interview, she was told, “Your answers are fine, but we want you to understand that this is not the only way to look at it in the LCMS.”
I spoke to my district president about this, and I am sure that he dealt with the matter in the way he thought best. I know him to be a man of integrity.
Nevertheless, the fact that things like this happen regularly in the LCMS–and are not openly acknowledged and dealt with–is the reason why there is a lack of trust in the synod, pure and simple. It isn’t because I’m a troubler of Israel; it’s because the word of the Lord is perverted within the synod and frequently nothing is done.
What is going on? This is really scaring me.
Can somebody…ANYbody…tell me what “a liturgical church in a Muslim context” is?
And is he really and truly advocating the cessation of alcoholic consumption so that others may boast about my flesh???
*chugs Guinness*
BUUURRRRRRRRRRPP!!!!!!!!!!!
Give me a BREAK.
Please distiguish whether you are talking about theology faculty or the faculty in general. A teacher colloquy committe would have a minority, if any, theology faculty present.
With respect to CURF the theology faculty is absolutly solid and would not advocate other views on male pastors or closed communion.
Stage 5. Empowering Broad-Based Action:
-Getting rid of obstacles
-Changing systems or structures that undermine the change vision
-Encouraging risk-taking and non-traditional ideas, activities, and actions.
So how does a missionary over in TOGO interfere with Synod’s plans? How is somebody in West Africa an obstacle?
bugenhagen,
I don’t know whether it was the theology faculty who did this or some other faculty. If the theology faculty is sound, wonderful. The theology faculty is not the point.
The point is that those who want to become rostered teachers in the LCMS can very easily be attacked for publicly confessing and defending the synod’s theological position.
That points to hypocrisy in certain corners of the synod, and at least in the case of the person I knew, an attempt to inoculate her against orthodoxy before she went out into Missouri Synod schools to teach.
This is a bad thing for those of us who still think that Lutheran education is important.
As a recent R.F. grad I can not imagine that the Theology faculty would have done that. It was most likely the Education profs. All of the Education Profs over in the Christopher Center are notoriously liberal and strive rather hard to shield their students from and keep them from having classes with the Theology profs. The same can be said for the D.C.E’s at R.F. as well. Probobly more so though. But, the Education and DCE profs are all of the mentality that they should be teaching their students theology and not the Theology profs. The Theology department is sound, but there is alot of hostility towards them on the rest of the campus.
Mr. Lewer – Why would you assume I’m suspicious and condemning without knowing all the facts? Must I know every single professor in every single Concordia University to see that we have reason for concern? I think not. That being said, your point is valid that we not speak lightly and without thinking. I assure you I am not, and I believe you can see for yourself by comments after mine that there is valid reason for concern. To be honest, I didn’t care if what I said opened a can of worms. It’s time to quit pretending that our Concordias are wonderful! They have problems!!! And I would love to keep hearing from people who can speak to that. If I am going to pay the tuition to send my children to a Concordia, it is NOT going to be to have them challenged in their confessional Lutheran identity. I am with the Old Parson – I’d rather have my kids at a public university with a Christ on Campus chapter. And by the way, Old Parson, thank you for directing us to the directory of Confessional Lutheran Campus Ministries.
Please note also that I DID acknowledge that there ARE some good professors out there, and for those I am most grateful. And then there are those like Dan Jastram, who was cut “but not for theological reasons.” But funny thing, he’s a solid, confessional Lutheran. Yes, indeed we should be asking questions. Yes, indeed it is our responsibility to know what is going on and what is being taught at our Concordia Universities, inside and outside the theology departments.
One of the blessings of what happened with Issues is that it is bringing other issues, such as this, out in the open. It is time to quite pretending. Lord, have mercy and keep us steadfast in Your Word.
Hey! It’s time for me to speak up about Concordia, Seward! I am a 1970 grad but had sons there in the last few years. I would say the theology at that campus is solid and as close to confessional as you can get. This includes the music department. Be sure to check out this awesome campus and community for your son or daughter. (No “middle of the cornfield” comments necessary!) HA!
As a current Concordia (and maybe impertinent; thus, I ask your forgiveness in advance) student, why is it not good for a student to be challenged in his or her confessional Lutheran identity at a Concordia? Is college not the place where further solid belief is found after a parents’ and a pastor’s thorough instruction from home?
All colleges have problems, including the Concordias, but this does not mean that they are not good for a student’s growth. The profs can be as liberal or conservative as they want; college students being turned into church workers are not mindless. We are being trained to think for ourselves, and whether that is in a more conservative way or in a more contemporary way, God will show us congregations which need the way of thinking and doing that we have come to accept within the pure, Biblically-based Lutheran doctrine. Soli Deo Gloria!
What do you mean “think for ourselves”? While I am all for pastors and teachers thinking (we need a lot more of that, IMHO), but when you tack on the “for ourselves” addendum, it implies that we are not to strive to make sure that what is being thought is fully in accordance with truth. Scripture admonishes us to be of one heart and one mind. Our minds are to be shaped by God’s Word. So yes, we are to think. But I have a very strong suspicion that the “for ourselves” addendum is just an excuse to allow heresy in our classrooms and pulpits.
Just for clarification, I seem to remember a huge push at the St. Louis seminary to have future pastors learn to “think for themselves” back in the 1970’s. Does anyone else remember that?
Although I wasn’t around in the 70’s, I know what you’re speaking of, I acknowledge that concern. I should clarify my language…”for ourselves” was more describing the inevitable fact that most kids tend to challenge the beliefs they’ve been taught at home when they’re away from home for the first time.
Kids “thinking for themselves,” as to what I meant to express, has nothing to do with allowing heresy in classrooms in pulpits. It simply means that students truly acknowledge, know, and defend Biblical truth as per the Lutheran doctrine after they have examined them and accepted them as their “own.” Is that clearer?
Oh, dear Benjamin, I would indeed concur that college is a place to grow and be challenged; so I found it. But what kind of challenge we are talking about makes all the difference. You say that professors can be as liberal or conservative as they want. “Liberal” in theological circles typically means no believing in miracles, even going so far as to deny the virgin birth of Christ and the resurrection. “Liberal,” in other words, does not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. “Liberal” also can mean ignoring the scriptural prohibition of homosexuality and abortion, supporting the ordination of women, etc. I do not share your view that such teaching should be acceptable in any class at one of our Concordias. I make the distinction that it is one thing to teach what other churches believe, pointing out errors and teaching why we believe as we confess. It is quite another thing to have a professor teaching such errors as truth and causing one of these little ones to stumble.
But I’m not sure if our problem is so much “liberal” professors (I don’t know) as it is this: The pervasive culture on our campuses is one more of fundamentalism, where we hesitate to draw the distinctions between Lutheran theology and the errors of other denominations. What holds sway tends to be the pop Christian culture and sentimentalism. Have you noticed where that leads?
In the end, thinking for ourselves is great, but only if our thinking is fully formed by Scripture and the Confessions.
This pop-Christianity with its contemporary worship has already proven a failure. Willow Creek, the pioneers of it, have already admitted it (even though they’re still floundering around trying to latch on to the next big fad). MNN is correct: we really ought to just ditch all these new fangled paradigms and just stick with good old Grandfather’s Church.
Benjamin,
I agree that we must think for ourselves. I was in public schools until I went to CUW, and one thing they always taught us was to examine everything critically (for which I’m immensely grateful). Unfortunately, that wasn’t the case so much in my experience at Concordia (it may be different in yours). For me it was much more of ‘accept the program or plan on being a target.’
I think some of the concerns about what is being taught, however, is something to keep in mind if you plan on spending a small fortune for the sole reason of getting a distinctively Lutheran education. Ultimately, I didn’t spend every summer and school break in the factory to teach myself confessional Lutheran theology. In most cases (with the exception of nursing at CUW, or if you plan on being a Lutheran teacher), the Concordia name is not going to get you in the door of a company. For example, I could have gone to the University of Wisconsin (Madison) which has nationwide recognition and is one of the (if not the) premier university in Wisconsin for less than half of what it costs to go to CUW (UW tuition: $8,800, CUW tuition $19,000). Even with financial aid (which has been decreasing at CUW every year) Madison still comes out significantly cheaper.
Which makes me wonder, if the Concordias don’t exist to give a distinctively Lutheran education, for what reason do they exist at all?
Biology program at CUW is pretty good also even if it’s small. The professors encourage us to develop critical thinking skills, and sadly, I learned more about theology in biology courses than from Bible Literature. The theology professor for Bible Lit. embarrasses me. He was horrible. I was able to land a decent job, and companies in Milwaukee area recognize CUW biology degree as something good.
Administration at CUW is not so great. I had numerous of confrontations with them. They’re very bureaucratic…
Sharon:
That’s exactly what we Don’t need: theology professors who are not up to the task of teaching sound theology. If they’re teaching at a university that bears the same name as our book of Lutheran Confessions, then they darn well better be teaching the Scriptures in accordance with those Confessions. And if not – well, we had to do it to the St. Louis Seminary in the 1970’s, and I see no reason why not to do it again if need be.
While it’s a good thing that you learned well from your biology professors, it is a disgrace that the theology professor fails at his calling. He really needs to be replaced with someone who is going to fulfill that calling by teaching the Scriptures and Confessions.
MNN, thank you for your comments! Let me clarify. When I said that professors can be as liberal or as conservative as they want, I did not mean to indicate the kind of connotation you perceived. Rather, what I did mean to say was that professors can choose to be completely honest with their students on their own opinions (whether those are religious or secular), and thus, be liberal with their own thoughts, conservative, which would be to acknowledge and believe Lutheran doctrine, and yet be Socratic in the way that makes students think. Pastoral care (and of course every theology professor ought to be a pastor) is what it comes down to: can a student, after a class of being challenged, come to a prof/pastor and discuss their own struggles and thoughts and then be directed back to the truth of the Bible? This, as a college student, is very important (proven by my own experience AND proven by Fowler, between stages 3 and 4 of faith development; that is, adolescence/young adulthood and beyond): “I have someone who will listen to my questions and help me in truth.”
MNN, what we must also be careful to do is not to stereotype “Christian pop culture” as everything that is not “the way we have always done things.” A five year old child, a twenty-one year old man, and a sixty year old man are not in similar walks of life, and thus, so that effective communication may take place, perhaps a communion chalice ought to be called a communion cup on a college campus. Do you understand my meaning? Simply because something is different from how they’ve always been done does not mean that it is in error. The instant we make something that is NOT the Bible, but instead, is based on HUMAN interpretation, we are heretics. The church ought to never rest in a restless world; likewise, the church ought to never claim anything as inerrant, infallible truth other than the Word.
While I would agree that we should not fall into the same trap as the papists and the Pharisees by substituting our own traditions in the place of Scripture, I would submit that one of the errors of the modern world is this belief that tradition cannot be a binding force between multiple generations.
Now, our Lutheran traditions have been in place for hundreds of years. That in itself is not does not make them right, but keep in mind, during that time, our ancestors have allowed the wisdom of Scripture and the Confessions. We have had plenty of time to weed out that which is contrary to Scripture and to bring them more in line with the teachings of our church.
And Luther’s take on religious tradition was very simple: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. He actually says we OUGHT to retain historic practices of our church. And keep in mind, the standard for whether it works or not IS NOT how many seats we fill on a Sunday morning, but rather whether the Word of Christ and the administration of the Sacraments are kept at the heart of what is taking place, and forgiveness of sins that is granted through them.
Now, why is it that in this day and age, we feel this need to constantly reinvent the wheel? Wheels are round, and thinking too far outside the box will only lead you to square wheels, triangle wheels, and maybe trapezoid wheels. Stick with the round – it works just as good as anything else.
Ditto Floyd. I repent of what I taught my students when I was a new graduate from “my Concordia.” I thought surely the older and old people in the congregation just could not appreciate all these new methods and concepts. We were progressive, you know. Did I teach my students heresy? Of course not. But I gave them junk food for songs when I could have been giving them daily the hymns of the church, putting into their hearts the very words they could draw on for life. Benjamin, you said, “Simply because something is different from how they’ve always been done does not mean that it is in error.” True enough. Just as true is that just because something is the same today as it was yesterday or 2000 years ago doesn’t mean it’s not relevant. And “relevant” seems to be the word of the day. People are leaving our congregation, blessed with a solid, confessional pastor, because they want something “more relevant” (their words) across town. When pressed, they want more of the pop culture “instructions for living,” or God on their own terms, or fun. I ask, what can POSSIBLY be more relevant than hearing that you are a sinner in need of a Savior, the One, Jesus Christ, who shed His blood that you might be forgiven?
Feel free to enlighten me on the stages of faith development, by the way. I might find them to be quite relevant!
Relevant – (adj.) a code word for, “It’s new, but since we can’t come up with any substantial reason for it, we’ll just completely dismiss anything old to make way for it.”
Just for confirmation, does everyone understand the point I was attempting to make about professors/pastors and their own preference of how honest they are about their personal beliefs in classes? What do all of you think are the strengths and weaknesses of either approach?
Furthermore, I can only conclude that this second topic of conversation will only go in circles if we cannot abandon the stereotypes we already have in our heads. Bear with me for a few moments:
In no way am I saying that because something is traditional, it is wrong for anyone, including “modern” or “young” congregations. By no means! I know several of my classmates who are very conservative in their “preferred” way of worship, and they range from any age of 18 to 28 years old.
This “happy-clappy,” “sentimental,” “pop-culture-ish” (words I have seen used on this site, which are judgmental and in ignorance) worship isn’t something that is being brought on by the younger generations. This is something being brought on by the postmodern age, which most people view as a threat to Christianity. Which, in fact, it will be, if it is not met in a way that capitalizes on the strengths of the very nature of itself.
Postmodernism, a wave of new thinking that has inevitably swept over this country and others, is about “finding your own truth,” or in a Christian view, it can mean that there are many ways to salvation, which in fact, there is only one: Jesus Christ, and His sacrifice. This is the only truth, and the ultimate truth. We all know this, as confessional Lutherans. Now, how are we, as Christians, able to communicate the fact that only ONE truth and ONE way is true? By meeting people where they struggle, in this postmodern age. Does that mean that some people, once educated about the Scripture and the reasons behind traditions, will appreciate them and find them helpful for worship? Of course! But first, these people actually have to consider coming into church.
My emphasis is not on “filling seats.” It is on reaching hearts. And don’t even think that I am talking about any type of program that is designed to do “reach so many people by this point in time.” We are Christians. Should we not be sharing with people the love and salvation and forgiveness we have been given in Jesus? Isn’t that one of the points of why we are here at all?
Going back to worship, too – “Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer 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.”
I don’t know about the rest of you out there, but I don’t spend my entire life in church. My worship to God does not end when I leave the doors of the sanctuary.
MNN – You say that these people “want God on their own terms.” Isn’t that how you want God, too? You want him in the traditions that YOU think are right, that YOU think are accurate to the Bible? You want your instructions for living to be the ones that you’ve grown up with? Just because someone hears in a different way that Jesus Christ is their Savior, does that make it wrong?
Floyd – relevant, by definition, is “bearing upon or connected with the matter in hand; pertinent: a relevant remark.” Sorry.
I ask and say these things only to show that these questions can be turned to either side of this debate. We’re in this world together.
I wasn’t citing a dictionary definition, but pointing out how the term is often used in certain circles today. As anyone knows, a word gains at least half its meaning from the way it’s being used (which, if I’m not mistaken, is another postmodern concept, for example, in “I did not have sexual relations with that woman!” or in “programmatic and business reasons”). It seems to me that in this day and age, words are intended to carry less meaning and more emotion, so it does help to stop occasionally and ask the question, “What does this mean?” Alas for the days when we could rely on Noah Webster to answer that question for us.
But here’s the problem as I see it, Benjamin: it’s not a matter that the new are just as good. It’s a matter that some tell us we MUST adopt the new if we wish to communicate the Gospel in this age. And, as it stands, the only decent sounding reasons they give us tend to be those that essentially undermine that Gospel proclamation to start with. We are not called to change our message every 10 years to make it more palatable for every new generation. We are called to faithfully proclaim that message. Period. You yourself stated it earlier: we are not to be conformed to this world.
Of course, I know, the common counter to that is the passage where St. Paul says he is all things to all men in order that he might win some. But keep in mind, in the context of that passage, he is talking about diet. In matters of culture or social mores, we are free in so far as they do not contradict the Gospel. But in regards to the Gospel itself, we are not at liberty to tweak it or alter it.
You mentioned “happy-clappy” before: It’s funny, but all my non-Lutheran Christian friends my age (I’m in my 40’s) just love the stuff. And they’re convinced that people their age and younger love it too. I can’t stand it. Why? Because it’s not Gospel at all. It’s all about our feelings, and making ourselves feel good about God (Jesus is optional, BTW). It’s highly emotional, but also highly legalistic, if you can see past the disguise. It’s essentially a Theology of Glory, not the Theology of the Cross. Even the fact that they are convinced that God can ONLY work through this stuff (listen to them talk long enough, and it’s exactly what they’ll tell you – even if they don’t know that’s what they’re saying).
Now, here’s my point – I already know where this kind of worship leads: to a me-centered religion that’s all about my feelings and not about Christ. Heck, even Willow Creek knows that, although they’re still stuck on trying to make it work somehow. So my question is, if we already know the hazards in that road, why would we even want to travel it? Why not stay on the Christ-centered cross-focused Word-based teachings and practices that we already have?
“We are not called to change our message every 10 years to make it more palatable for every new generation. We are called to faithfully proclaim that message.”
Who said anything about adding or taking anything away from the Gospel message? I certainly never said that or anything of the sort. What makes you think that just because the type of worship that you have always held to and has always been around is most accurate?
All I am saying is that we can never be sure that we have anything truly right. To assume so is foolish.
“I can’t stand it. Why? Because it’s not Gospel at all. It’s all about our feelings, and making ourselves feel good about God (Jesus is optional, BTW). It’s highly emotional.”
You probably can’t stand it because you aren’t used to it. Because it’s different. Because it’s distracting to you. And you know what? For you and for others like you, traditional worship is what is needed. Because it’s what you understand. For someone who has never been to a Lutheran church, a traditional worship is the farthest thing from what they need. Jesus meets people where they are. Again, different walks of life require different types of worship, but ONE and the SAME Gospel.
Theology of the cross is apparent in any kind of worship when the focus is on Christ, not on ourselves. Contemporary worship can be in error just as traditional worship can be. I am not convinced that God is contained within any kind of worship. God will not be contained at all.
Now, here’s my point – I already know where this kind of stereotypical talk leads to: a me-centered, opinionated self-righteousness that is sinful. There are hazards in every type of worship.
>All I am saying is that we can never be sure that we have anything truly right. To assume so is foolish.
Are you familiar with the term “perspecuity of Scripture”? It might be true that we can’t know everything, the reality is, we know everything we need to know concerning the Gospel.
>You probably can’t stand it because you aren’t used to it. Because it’s different. Because it’s distracting to you.
You can’t possibly be more wrong. I already gave you my reasons for disliking contemporary worship. Your lame attempt at reading psychological reasons into it has absolutely no merit, and I would appreciate it if, instead of reading psychology into it, you actually stick with the facts, please.
Otherwise, all you are doing is perpetuating stereotypes.
Oh, and incidentally, this “contemporary” stuff isn’t so contemporary anymore anyway. It’s the same stuff I was into back in my college days, before I came to my senses and realized how shallow it is. So, contrary to your attempt at a psychological explanation for my aversion, contemporary worship isn’t new to me at all.
>For someone who has never been to a Lutheran church, a traditional worship is the farthest thing from what they need. Jesus meets people where they are. Again, different walks of life require different types of worship, but ONE and the SAME Gospel.
Who SAYS they need different types of worship? What are you basing that assumption on? Why is it that you feel that a person’s ears cannot absorb the Word of God unless it is taylored to suit them? Do you not believe that the message of the Gospel is clear? This is the basic assumption behind the contemporary movement, but there’s not a shred of truthful basis for it. You ASSUME they need different kinds of worship, and argue on that basis, but that’s nothing more than stereotyping on your part.
See, you’re like one of those guys who claim that worship preferences is like preference in ice cream. “For you, chocolate is better; for someone else, vanilla is better.”
But I do not concur. The real medicine that people need is not based on personal taste at all: that medicine is the Word and the Sacraments. Therefore, it is meet, right and salutary that in order for any form of worship to be adequate, it must be centered around Word and Sacrament, and in my observation, a historic liturgical form does that best. Just pick up a copy of TLH or LSB and note how the Divine Service is structured entirely on the Scriptures. As such, there are far fewer pitfalls and hazards in a form of worship that is firmly grounded in the Scriptures, and a cross-centered, Christ-focused hymnody.
I want to go back to this point again: why is it assumed that new Christians or “seekers” are incapable of understanding or benefiting from liturgical worship?
First of all, it is an assumption to think that seekers and new Christians actually need – or for that matter, even expect – a style of worship taylored to them. I could understand a life-long Baptist not being able to appreciate the liturgy, but for someone who has no preconceptions about what worship is or what it looks like, I find it hard to imagine that they would not be able to appreciate it or to benefit from it. I wonder sometimes if they are smarter than we give them credit for. Who knows?
But I do have a concern. And it is the very concern I began to develop back in my college days when I was beginning to turn away from the contemporary worship, and that is that the style itself sort of indoctrinates the new Christians, not so much into the Christian faith as historically confessed, but into a sort of overly simplified contemporary version of it, one in which Christ does not issue the call to absolute trust in Him, or into true discipleship. The fancy term is “Gospel reductionism”, but what it really means is that, unless there is a deliberate effort to move new Christians into a deeper faith than the one upheld by the service, they stagnate. This is the same observation that Willow Creek has recently observed, that while they introduce huge multitudes of people to Christ, very few of those seekers go on to become disciples.
Now, I’m not just speaking about the full-blown Willow Creek model here, but the underlying assumption that “seekers” are too dumb to “get” liturgical worship. The belief that you have to treat new Christians as if they are pre-K children.
But related to that is the underlying heresy that God’s Word is not clear enough to do its work on people, and that we have to somehow make it work by trying to overly simplify it.
Now, it is true that seekers are not equipped to fully understand God’s Word. But that’s a problem, not of the intellect, but of the fallen, sinful heart. As such, simplifying worship isn’t the solution, but rather making sure the Word is all the more clearly and boldly proclaimed in the service.
As I read the TLH liturgy in church this morning, I found nothing about it – except perhaps some of the musical setting – that an outsider would not comprehend. There might be parts that an non-Christian would not accept, but again, that is a matter of the fallen, sinful nature, which only the Word and the Holy Spirit can overcome. Changing either the structure of the service or the style of music employed will not help that.
The argument concerning seeker-frienly worship is probably not one we should even be having. Worship is not for the unbeliever, but for the believer. A better way to spread God’s kingdom is through going out and meeting unbelievers, be a friend to them, tell them about your faith, and maybe even invite them to a Bible study.
While hospitality toward the visitor (believer or unbeliever) is important, we should keep in mind that worship is not to be tailored to non-Christians.
I grew up in the ELCA and the funny thing is, for all their apostasy, they are very liturgically sound. They have rejected all of the church growth contemporary garbage.
In fact, the entire CGM theology has been confined to the scrap heap of church history. Why is Keischnick pulling it out of the garbage and forcing it down our throats?
Truly the LCMS is twenty years behind the times in all things. It is pathetic and would be amusing except that too many people are getting hurt by this. Again, why is God punishing us?
God occasionally allows people to have what they deserve, when they have too long ignored what HE wants to give them.
If every Lutheran understood his faith…even so far as the Small Catechism…we would be in a lot less trouble because a majority would be refusing to participate in this conversion to generic protestantism.
They would be giving liberal men the boot, instead of confessional Pastors, one after the other. And there would be a lot more than 7000+ signatures on petitions after ~every~ unScriptural dismissal.