Comments on: Why those who use “œBlended Worship” Might Want to Reconsider, by Pr. Preus http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=518 An international fraternity of confessional Lutheran laymen and pastors, supporting proclamation of Christian doctrine in the new media. Mon, 06 Sep 2010 17:06:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: martinguitar http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=518#comment-58765 martinguitar Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:37:59 +0000 http://steadfastlutherans.org/blog/?p=518#comment-58765 I played acoustic guitar for a WELS blended worship service for about 4 years. I found that some CCM songs are good, some seem shallow, some seem questionable. I spent the last 2 years searching for good CCM songs with a solid gospel or Bible message. I also spent the last 2 years looking for articles and books about Lutheran Worship and blended worship and good criteria to use in choosing songs for WELS blended worship. In June 2009 I started my own website (http://blendedworshipresource.wordpress.com) with blended worship articles, blended worship guidelines, CCM criteria, and about 300 CCM songs that I think have a good solid gospel or Biblical message appropriate for Lutheran worship. I especially appreciate Klemet Preus’ book “The Fire and the Staff”, which then lead me to this website. I appreciate your confessional Lutheran point of view and would appreciate your feedback on my website and on my most recent blog “a mission statement for blended worship.” If a Lutheran church used a mission statement for blended worship such as this, do you think that blended worship could be a good thing? If a church uses blended worship (using some CCM songs and guitars), what guidelines or criteria would you suggest to make it a good Lutheran church service? I played acoustic guitar for a WELS blended worship service for about 4 years. I found that some CCM songs are good, some seem shallow, some seem questionable. I spent the last 2 years searching for good CCM songs with a solid gospel or Bible message. I also spent the last 2 years looking for articles and books about Lutheran Worship and blended worship and good criteria to use in choosing songs for WELS blended worship. In June 2009 I started my own website (http://blendedworshipresource.wordpress.com) with blended worship articles, blended worship guidelines, CCM criteria, and about 300 CCM songs that I think have a good solid gospel or Biblical message appropriate for Lutheran worship. I especially appreciate Klemet Preus’ book “The Fire and the Staff”, which then lead me to this website. I appreciate your confessional Lutheran point of view and would appreciate your feedback on my website and on my most recent blog “a mission statement for blended worship.” If a Lutheran church used a mission statement for blended worship such as this, do you think that blended worship could be a good thing? If a church uses blended worship (using some CCM songs and guitars), what guidelines or criteria would you suggest to make it a good Lutheran church service?

]]> By: Gayle http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=518#comment-14038 Gayle Tue, 16 Sep 2008 03:05:33 +0000 http://steadfastlutherans.org/blog/?p=518#comment-14038 Having been the victim of blended worship, I can tell you that I believe the problem lies in not making a stand for one or the other. You will always offend about half of your congregation. One group craves liturgical sound and structure, the other group craves the latest fad or movement so as not to seem out of it. Neither side leaves the worship service "feeling" fulfilled. I am all for contemporary music that is scriptural although I do not believe contemporary has to mean loud drums and guitars. A Mighty Fortress was a contemporary song in its day and still plays well today. I think the church may be the last bastion of decorum. A place to raise the bar of excellence, not dumb its people down. Having been the victim of blended worship, I can tell you that I believe the problem lies in not making a stand for one or the other. You will always offend about half of your congregation. One group craves liturgical sound and structure, the other group craves the latest fad or movement so as not to seem out of it. Neither side leaves the worship service “feeling” fulfilled. I am all for contemporary music that is scriptural although I do not believe contemporary has to mean loud drums and guitars. A Mighty Fortress was a contemporary song in its day and still plays well today. I think the church may be the last bastion of decorum. A place to raise the bar of excellence, not dumb its people down.

]]> By: rev. eckert http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=518#comment-13145 rev. eckert Sun, 14 Sep 2008 00:39:19 +0000 http://steadfastlutherans.org/blog/?p=518#comment-13145 Rev. Jack Bauer, How do you always have the great quotes handy? Oh, that's right! There's a team of agents on computers feeding you intel. Seriously, good quote. Rev. Andrew Eckert Rev. Jack Bauer,

How do you always have the great quotes handy? Oh, that’s right! There’s a team of agents on computers feeding you intel.

Seriously, good quote.

Rev. Andrew Eckert

]]> By: Rt. Rev. Jack Bauer http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=518#comment-13029 Rt. Rev. Jack Bauer Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:26:14 +0000 http://steadfastlutherans.org/blog/?p=518#comment-13029 Do you see a parallel between churches that want to cater to the baby boomers "turn on, tune out" consumer-driven mentality in having blended services or both a contemporary and a traditional service and what Krauth says below? Truth and error cannot have equal standing. Reverence and casual informal Starbucks liturgy cannot have equal standing coram Deo. And there are still young seminarians still clinging to this schmaltz. Don't imagine that it will go away when the boomers get older. PLI, and these other groups will continue to push this in the name of "leadership" and "effectiveness" and "success." If we think popularity means that the Holy Spirit is "really at work," we're thinking in a theology of glory. Don't imagine that that first Pentecost is the result we always expect. Remember a few things about that - that was the beginning of the new testament church (extraordinary), all twelve apostles were preaching, a display of the Holy Spirit's work was manifest by Jesus' promise, and 3,000 converts was only a percentage of the thousands that would likely have been there at the festival of Pentecost. But the practical result of this principle [of the church tolerating within her bosom those who claim she is teaching error] is one on which there is no need of speculating; it works in one unvarying way. When error is admitted into the Church, it will be found that the stages of its progress are always three. It begins by asking toleration. Its friends say to the majority: You need not be afraid of us; we are few, and weak; only let us alone; we shall not disturb the faith of others. The church has her standards of doctrine; of course we shall never interfere with them; we ask only for ourselves to be spared interference with our private opinions. Indulged in this for a time, error goes on to assert equal rights. Truth and error are two balancing forces. The Church shall do nothing which looks like deciding between them; that would be partiality. It is bigotry to assert any superior right for the truth. We are to agree to differ, and any favoring of the truth, because it is truth, is partisanship. What the friends of truth and error hold in common is fundamental. Anything on which they differ is ipso facto non-essential. Anybody who makes account of such a thing is a disturber of the peace of the church. Truth and error are two co-ordinate powers and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them. From this point error soon goes on to its natural end, which is to assert supremacy. Truth started with tolerating, it comes to be merely tolerated, and that only for a time. Error claims a preference for its judgments on all disputed points. It puts men into positions, not as at first in spite of their departure from the Church’s faith, but in consequence of it. Their recommendation is that they repudiate that faith, and poistion is given them to teach others to repudiate it, and to make them skilful in combating it. (From The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1872, pp. 195-96.) Do you see a parallel between churches that want to cater to the baby boomers “turn on, tune out” consumer-driven mentality in having blended services or both a contemporary and a traditional service and what Krauth says below? Truth and error cannot have equal standing. Reverence and casual informal Starbucks liturgy cannot have equal standing coram Deo. And there are still young seminarians still clinging to this schmaltz. Don’t imagine that it will go away when the boomers get older. PLI, and these other groups will continue to push this in the name of “leadership” and “effectiveness” and “success.” If we think popularity means that the Holy Spirit is “really at work,” we’re thinking in a theology of glory.

Don’t imagine that that first Pentecost is the result we always expect. Remember a few things about that – that was the beginning of the new testament church (extraordinary), all twelve apostles were preaching, a display of the Holy Spirit’s work was manifest by Jesus’ promise, and 3,000 converts was only a percentage of the thousands that would likely have been there at the festival of Pentecost.

But the practical result of this principle [of the church tolerating within her bosom those who claim she is teaching error] is one on which there is no need of speculating; it works in one unvarying way. When error is admitted into the Church, it will be found that the stages of its progress are always three. It begins by asking toleration. Its friends say to the majority: You need not be afraid of us; we are few, and weak; only let us alone; we shall not disturb the faith of others. The church has her standards of doctrine; of course we shall never interfere with them; we ask only for ourselves to be spared interference with our private opinions. Indulged in this for a time, error goes on to assert equal rights. Truth and error are two balancing forces. The Church shall do nothing which looks like deciding between them; that would be partiality. It is bigotry to assert any superior right for the truth. We are to agree to differ, and any favoring of the truth, because it is truth, is partisanship. What the friends of truth and error hold in common is fundamental. Anything on which they differ is ipso facto non-essential. Anybody who makes account of such a thing is a disturber of the peace of the church. Truth and error are two co-ordinate powers and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them. From this point error soon goes on to its natural end, which is to assert supremacy. Truth started with tolerating, it comes to be merely tolerated, and that only for a time. Error claims a preference for its judgments on all disputed points. It puts men into positions, not as at first in spite of their departure from the Church’s faith, but in consequence of it. Their recommendation is that they repudiate that faith, and poistion is given them to teach others to repudiate it, and to make them skilful in combating it.
(From The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1872, pp. 195-96.)

]]> By: Martin Luther http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=518#comment-13013 Martin Luther Sat, 13 Sep 2008 14:17:26 +0000 http://steadfastlutherans.org/blog/?p=518#comment-13013 Remember that blend is only one letter away from bland! Remember that blend is only one letter away from bland!

]]> By: Ross http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=518#comment-12847 Ross Sat, 13 Sep 2008 06:13:02 +0000 http://steadfastlutherans.org/blog/?p=518#comment-12847 I have heard fellow Lutherans argue that we must blend the Divine Service with contemporary songs or just switch to a contemporary service all together in order to keep worship alive and interesting to people. The argument goes that if we keep repeating the same liturgy over and over again it loses its meaning (i.e. people just go through the motions) and the church dies. I agree that our sinful nature is wicked enough that we need to guard ourselves against daydreaming and just going through the motions when God is serving us through His word and sacraments, but I also find that the words of the Liturgy are so profound that the more I hear and say and sing and ponder them in the Divine Service, the more they overwhelm me. I can't ever imagine getting tired of hearing the words of eternal life. In fact I find that the more I hear the word of God repeated in the service, the more it speaks to me. My simple self has a hard time concentrating on unfamiliar words when I am bombarded with something new Sunday after Sunday like a newly written confession of sins. When you think about the words in much of contemporary music, it is totally fitting that we sinners, who want to change age old worship which is focussed on Christ and His forgiveness for us sinners, would want to worship in a way that changes the subject. We don't want to be reminded that we are poor, miserable sinners. We want to think positively most of the time and concentrate on the power of God in our lives. We want to be God's teammate, not His redeemed slaves. May God forgive us and have mercy on us to bring us back to true and faithful worship where we recognize that Christ is serving us through His worship where we have nothing to bring Him but our sins. Lord, Let us remember that it is all about You. I have heard fellow Lutherans argue that we must blend the Divine Service with contemporary songs or just switch to a contemporary service all together in order to keep worship alive and interesting to people. The argument goes that if we keep repeating the same liturgy over and over again it loses its meaning (i.e. people just go through the motions) and the church dies. I agree that our sinful nature is wicked enough that we need to guard ourselves against daydreaming and just going through the motions when God is serving us through His word and sacraments, but I also find that the words of the Liturgy are so profound that the more I hear and say and sing and ponder them in the Divine Service, the more they overwhelm me. I can’t ever imagine getting tired of hearing the words of eternal life. In fact I find that the more I hear the word of God repeated in the service, the more it speaks to me. My simple self has a hard time concentrating on unfamiliar words when I am bombarded with something new Sunday after Sunday like a newly written confession of sins.

When you think about the words in much of contemporary music, it is totally fitting that we sinners, who want to change age old worship which is focussed on Christ and His forgiveness for us sinners, would want to worship in a way that changes the subject. We don’t want to be reminded that we are poor, miserable sinners. We want to think positively most of the time and concentrate on the power of God in our lives. We want to be God’s teammate, not His redeemed slaves. May God forgive us and have mercy on us to bring us back to true and faithful worship where we recognize that Christ is serving us through His worship where we have nothing to bring Him but our sins. Lord, Let us remember that it is all about You.

]]> By: Rev. Alan Wollenburg http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=518#comment-12775 Rev. Alan Wollenburg Sat, 13 Sep 2008 03:35:49 +0000 http://steadfastlutherans.org/blog/?p=518#comment-12775 Hmm, whenever people start to tell me that "we do it better," I often answer that there is, I think, a reason why God's people of old came up with such wonderful ideas, how they wrote such beautiful hymns, etc. The reason, I tell them, is that in days of old all they had to read (basically) was the Word of God, and they certainly did not have the distractions of the internet, newspaper, radio, TV, magazines, etc., etc. :-) They pondered the Word. The Word tells us of Christ. Does older mean that it is better? Not necessarily, of course. However, there is one other measure, namely, that it has stood the test of time. "Contemporary," by definition, is always changing according to whatever is, well, contemporary. In addition, there is another consideration with regards especially to hymnody: camp songs might be great fun when life is mostly good and rosy, but when your world is falling apart and/or you or a loved one is lying on your death bed, what are you going to need? "Shine, Jesus, Shine"? It's a pretty song. OR, "Rock of Ages, cleft for me . . ."? There is solid, theological meat in the latter hymn. May the Lord grant us grace to preserve the historic texts for the consolation of His people. Even if they reject them for a while, perhaps they will be able to rediscover them if some will faithfully lift them up and teach them to succeeding generations. Hmm, whenever people start to tell me that “we do it better,” I often answer that there is, I think, a reason why God’s people of old came up with such wonderful ideas, how they wrote such beautiful hymns, etc. The reason, I tell them, is that in days of old all they had to read (basically) was the Word of God, and they certainly did not have the distractions of the internet, newspaper, radio, TV, magazines, etc., etc. :-) They pondered the Word. The Word tells us of Christ. Does older mean that it is better? Not necessarily, of course. However, there is one other measure, namely, that it has stood the test of time. “Contemporary,” by definition, is always changing according to whatever is, well, contemporary.

In addition, there is another consideration with regards especially to hymnody: camp songs might be great fun when life is mostly good and rosy, but when your world is falling apart and/or you or a loved one is lying on your death bed, what are you going to need? “Shine, Jesus, Shine”? It’s a pretty song. OR, “Rock of Ages, cleft for me . . .”? There is solid, theological meat in the latter hymn.

May the Lord grant us grace to preserve the historic texts for the consolation of His people. Even if they reject them for a while, perhaps they will be able to rediscover them if some will faithfully lift them up and teach them to succeeding generations.

]]> By: Elnathan http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=518#comment-12588 Elnathan Fri, 12 Sep 2008 20:36:32 +0000 http://steadfastlutherans.org/blog/?p=518#comment-12588 The adoption contemporary worship - full blown or in a blended form - is a serious theological matter - not because I/we don't personally like the musical selections, the drums, cymbals, tambourine, etc. but because such worship style is tantamount to conceding that the theology which these evangelical styles represent are correct. To put it another way: when one worships with that style one assumes the beliefs of that style - ie., "Lex orandi lex crendendi." Paraphrased this means the way we worship is what we come to believe. Either the perpetrators of contemporary worship, of those who simply let it happen, are incredibly ignorant of this or they don't care that they are undercutting sound Biblical/Confessional Lutheran theology. It could be either, but in either event, confessional Lutherans must oppose such non-Lutheran theological practices. Will our District and Synodical officials speak up and oppose such errorists? So far, by and large, they have been silent. How long should this silence be ignored? The adoption contemporary worship – full blown or in a blended form – is a serious theological matter – not because I/we don’t personally like the musical selections, the drums, cymbals, tambourine, etc. but because such worship style is tantamount to conceding that the theology which these evangelical styles represent are correct. To put it another way: when one worships with that style one assumes the beliefs of that style – ie., “Lex orandi lex crendendi.” Paraphrased this means the way we worship is what we come to believe. Either the perpetrators of contemporary worship, of those who simply let it happen, are incredibly ignorant of this or they don’t care that they are undercutting sound Biblical/Confessional Lutheran theology. It could be either, but in either event, confessional Lutherans must oppose such non-Lutheran theological practices. Will our District and Synodical officials speak up and oppose such errorists? So far, by and large, they have been silent. How long should this silence be ignored?

]]> By: Matthew Mills http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=518#comment-12486 Matthew Mills Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:50:10 +0000 http://steadfastlutherans.org/blog/?p=518#comment-12486 I think it's worth pointing out though, while conceding the use of non-liturgical worship forms and hymnody borrowed from heterodox sects of Christianity isn't inherently wrong or sinful, I have never heard an explanation of why we should pick them over the historic liturgy and orthodox hymnody that was not inherently wrong and/or sinful. Have you Pastor? In Christ, -Matt Mills I think it’s worth pointing out though, while conceding the use of non-liturgical worship forms and hymnody borrowed from heterodox sects of Christianity isn’t inherently wrong or sinful, I have never heard an explanation of why we should pick them over the historic liturgy and orthodox hymnody that was not inherently wrong and/or sinful. Have you Pastor?
In Christ,
-Matt Mills

]]> By: Steven Bobb http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=518#comment-12460 Steven Bobb Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:59:48 +0000 http://steadfastlutherans.org/blog/?p=518#comment-12460 Kind of like the preacher who gives an inspiring sermon on Easter Sunday, but forgets to mention that Jesus arose from the dead. Kind of like the preacher who gives an inspiring sermon on Easter Sunday, but forgets to mention that Jesus arose from the dead.

]]>