This year, our entertainment was not a baseball game (last done in 2007) or a rodeo (last done in 2000). In Utah, one evening, we took over the Cache Valley Fun Park where everyone enjoyed bowling, billiards, roller skating, laser tag, a “grown up” jungle gym, etc. In Nashville, we went to the Wildhorse Saloon downtown where there was a live band, refreshments, foosball, billards, air hockey, and line dancing lessons. At both conferences, we had a talent show, karaoke, board games, scavenger hunts, t-shirt swaps, and giant pickup games of dodgeball, basketball, volleyball, etc.

An assortment of live concerts would be a great option. Unfortunately, they don’t usually travel and perform for free. It’s important for our conferences to be affordable and the increased costs of having live bands (and the level of interest that would make such an expense cost-effective) would not be feasible.

Thanks for the suggestion though!

PPPadre :
Perhaps a better contrast in our two Synods would be to compare the “Adult” service opening the Houston Convention and the “Children’s Church” of the HT Divine Service.

Could you please elaborate on this. Specifically, I don’t understand what you mean by characterizing the HT Divine Service as a sort of “Children’s Church”.

Thank you.

Rev. Roger Sterle :@Rick #17 Have yet to find the ‘study guide.” Can you give a more direct link?

@Rev. Roger Sterle #76

Try:
http://www.itistime.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6&Itemid=9

Thanks for asking!

Rev. David Mueller :
But PPPadre, the CW proponents would disagree with your assessment of their CW as “entertainment” and “information”. They would argue that the whole point of CW is precisely to “transform” the “participants” through “inspiration” and “connecting with the youth by ‘speaking their language’”.

So this argument would precisely make my point. As you mention, the means of transformation is “inspiration” and “connecting with the youth by ‘speaking their language.’” “Inspiration” is the transfer of information. “Connecting with the youth” is the transfer of information. The means of transformation is our effort, not God’s Word and His Sacraments.

The other main difference is “transformation from what to what?” Is worship there to transform us from condemned to redeemed or from self-centered to service-oriented?

The problem is not information. In many cases, CW in LCMS churches *does* wind up with fairly clear remarks concerning Christ-crucified as the ground of forgiveness. (Not *all* cases, by *any* means, mind you!) The crucial “information” is there. The problem is that we don’t trust that Word of Christ to be the power of God to actually accomplish what it says.
We need to manipulate the “experience” of the “powerful presence of God” by the light shows and rock concert sociology and social psychology.

But again, worship is not about information. One can talk *about* the person and work of Christ, the vicarious satisfaction, etc. – or, in your words – “the crucial ‘information’ is there,” but the Word is not *proclaimed* – or, in your words – “the power of God to actually accomplish what it says.” I talk *about* marriage and vows all the time while counseling engaged couples, all the crucial information is there. But the couple is not married until it is *proclaimed* to be so. The CW mindset would say that one NEEDS the unity candle or the mixing of the sand while an emotional song is sung so that the couple would FEEL married. Couples living together have the “information” and the “feeling” of being married, but they are not, because it has not been *declared* to be so. And that is the difference between the orthodox view and the CW view of worship – declarative speech vs. expository speech.

Looking forward to 2013 and some real “contemporary” sounds that support the text, and stir faith and heart (emotions!) as a by-product, not primary goal. Your work and those in your class deserve tremendous appreciation and thanks!

Andrew, I can’t tell you why the leadership of the LCMS would invite a heretic to speak to them about church growth theories. Why would they listen to Baptist church growth consultants who devised their programs based upon decision theology?

I would have to look at the quote you provide in context, but the panentheist can claim that the world is not God, in a certain sense, because for them God is greater than the universe, but yet permeates all things in the universe. Indeed, the quote you provide from Sweet attests to that, “…the Spirit indwells all that exists.” That right there is consistent with panentheism. The Holy Spirit does not indwell all that exists (see Romans 8:9). Sweet can say that the Holy Spirit indwells all that exists, because the panentheist believes that the world and all things in it are part of the divine being.

I would appeal to you, Andrew, to consider Romans 16:17 quite seriously. Indeed, we should mark false teachers like Sweet and avoid them. I don’t think there is anything wrong in reading Sweet if we are doing so to correct theological errors, but if we think he can teach us something theologically speaking, then we are on dangerous ground.

> Given the size of our church body, we have no excuses.

So true.

In fact, we have something absolute to offer those struggling in the gray areas of life, the clear teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ.
We have the Holy Word, the Lord’s Supper, and our Baptisms. We have much that is “black and white” and there we should stand.

I totally agree with you we do have something that we can offer that is black and white, but how far has the gray shading gone inside the LCMS?

Helen, what you say is true, but there is an insidious nature to this as well. It goes far deeper than many would like to admit. Example: Is close communion just a way of saying I really do open communion, but don’t want to say it. If I refer to a statement of beliefs than I can leave it up t the people if they should go up or not. Is this not open communion in disguise? If so, many congregations are in trouble.