Comments on: Preus and Forke on Worship – Four New Posts, by Klemet Preus

By: Rev. Joel A. Brondos

Rev. Joel A. Brondos — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 05:45:20 +0000

Regarding freedom, note that (1) it is paradoxical, not just existential — Luther’s “Freedom of a Christian,” and (2) it does not stand apart from love — Luther’s Letter to the Livonians concerning public worship and concord.

Regarding the discussion of worship in the LCMS generally, the arguments have been formed around “freedom,” when in truth it is not freedom with which we should be concerned but rather “If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow me.”

One will never get far with those who disparage the historic liturgy by playing on their “freedom” turf. The discussion needs to be founded upon the cross. The question is not “What am I free to do?” but rather, “How does the cross address the devil, the world, and my flesh?”

By: Pastor Tim Rossow

Pastor Tim Rossow — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 21:58:10 +0000

That is a very good point Rev. Lorfeld. I have a hunch that Pr. Preus will be agreeing with you. I have his next two posts on this topic but have not read them yet but get the idea he will end up where you are.

I had that same frustration you had with this post but as I thought about it, I got the impression that Preus is at this point concerned about creating a level playing field on which to have the discussion. That level playing field takes the advantage of freedom away from either side, but of course such a level field hurts the CW cause because freedom is such a great part of thier argument.

By: Rev. Matthew Lorfeld

Rev. Matthew Lorfeld — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 21:40:04 +0000

I would wish to offer a slight corrective, and this may be something to which we are going to elaborate at a later point. Experience has shown, as has Scripture, that “freedom” in itself is neither virtue nor vice… it just is. We rightly confess that in terms of things above us, we cannot by our own reason or strength “choose” God. Thus freedom is inadequate, in fact, freedom apart from the work of the Holy Spirit chooses self above God. But in terms of things where we say there is freedom (and this is where my corrective comes in), where the useage is “Christian freedom,” the norm of using this freedom is deference. For instance, in undergrad at CUW, the Kammerchor on their tour to Brazil was asked to “use their Christian freedom” when it came to the consumption of alcohol (as it certainly would have been legal for the entire choir) and to use this freedom by not drinking. Likewise, it could rightly be said that one is using their Christian freedom that they have been given in terms of “worship” to maintain the rites, ceremonies, etc. that have been received. It’s a small corrective… and yes, a bit of a quibble… but I think it is helpful, especially for Americans who have been under the influence of Arminianism in our society to re-adjust our understanding of “freedom” that is in line with the Lutheran understanding of freedom.

By: Martin R. Noland

Martin R. Noland — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:30:02 +0000

Dear Pastor Preus,

This is a superb summary of the issues and a perfectly balanced position, if one wants to be a Lutheran according to our Confessions and the Scriptures. I hope the District Presidents will especially consider this post of yours.

Regarding the “Some say that” points:

Point #1 – “freedom tempered by love” is what our confessions say about worship when they say “without frivolity and offense but in an orderly and appropriate way . . . Paul instructs us how we can with good conscience give in and yield to the weak in faith in such external matters (Romans 14) and demonstrates it by his own example (Acts 16:3; 21:26; I Cor 9:10)” at FC SD X, 9.

Point #2 – “without conferring with the pastors in their area” has been Lutheran practice for four hundred years. Your uncle’s book on Chemnitz’ life shows how that was done in a Lutheran diocese. Basically, whatever organizational unit (circuit, consistory, diocese) has been in place has been the proper place for discussions in change in liturgy, so that the “region” is united, and the lay people do not switch churches because of liturgical innovations. Failure to work with the brother pastors in your area is schismatic, and schism is condemned by the Scriptures, Confessions, and LCMS Constitution.

Point #3 – “aping American evangelicalism” is condemned by the confessions, which say that worship practices “designed to give the impression that our religion does not differ greatly from that of” other faiths or “that we are not seriously opposed to” them are not adiaphora (FC SD X, 5).

I think where the discussion needs to happen here, at point #3, is what qualifies for “aping American evangelicalism.” Lutherans have freely borrowed hymns and prayers and tunes from every church (ancient, medieval, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Calvinist, Methodist, etc.), so long as the doctrinal content is acceptable. We can’t say that just because something is written by an Evangelical that, therefore, we cannot use it. It may be totally Christian!

So I think the question comes down to “What qualifies as aping American evangelicalism?” and “What practices, aspects, or qualities of non-Lutheran worship are not acceptable to Lutherans?”

You say you will expand on points 4 and 5, and I look forward to those comments.

Again, excellent post, Pastor Preus!

Yours in Christ, Martin R. Noland