Great stuff!!

This is an excellent article. I have been trying to contact Pr. Rippy without success. I thought I had located him in England, but apparently he’s no longer there. If anyone knows how to contact him, I’d appreciate it.

Pastor Rippy is back in the U.S…out on the West Coast, I think, and currently without a parish.

Those of you who are currently without a pastor, the material referenced in this thread will give you a good way to present his name to your Call committee.

EJG

“…most CW songs are predicated upon this singular concept (spirituality is feelings and feelings are given by the spirit without means…”

Since when is it appropriate to relegate the third person of the Trinity to a small “s” status? And why can’t the Holy Spirit create faith in such a manner that the emotional feelings are sometimes stirred up? Are Lutherans supposed to be like Vulcans in their Sunday worship, always worrying that to get emotionally involved in worship is a sign that one has adopted Pentecostal theology? Are emotions in worship the result of our fallen nature? If they are not, than are they connected to the new nature apart from the Holy Spirit?

The author writes: “The proper, highest worship is to acknowledge one’s sins and to seek forgiveness- the ebb and flow of worship: God forgives; we praise Him (Ap. IV, par. 154; Ap. IV, par. 310; LC, par. 16; AC XXI par. 3; Ap XXIV, par. 71f)”

That sounds good, and Lutherans who use CW should have this as their emphasis, but the author really should have provided online links to the Book of Concord and the Bible to prove his point. The way he gives paragraphs references are very sloppy and confusing. He should be providing specific chapters and verses that are easy to look up online.

Since when is it appropriate to relegate the third person of the Trinity to a small “s” status?

Really? You’re going to try to make a case based on a typo? Pr. Rippy obviously capitalized Holy Spirit all over the place in this article. Good grief.

And why can’t the Holy Spirit create faith in such a manner that the emotional feelings are sometimes stirred up? Are Lutherans supposed to be like Vulcans in their Sunday worship, always worrying that to get emotionally involved in worship is a sign that one has adopted Pentecostal theology?

Why can’t you argue without speaking falsely about what Pr. Rippy wrote? He never said that God’s Word doesn’t stir the emotions, but only that stirring the emotions is not a means of grace, etc. Contemporary worship practitioners (like their mentors, the Baptist, Methodists, and Pentecostals) have long stirred the emotions without content; Lutherans have long stirred the emotions by content.

That sounds good, and Lutherans who use CW should have this as their emphasis, but the author really should have provided online links to the Book of Concord and the Bible to prove his point.

When he wrote the article, one couldn’t really do such things the way we do them today. It is a ridiculous thing to gripe about, simply showing that you have no real basis for disputing what he has written.

EJG

BTW, #3 is exactly the sort of inane post that anonymity invites; no one would actually write such rot if he had to sign his name to it.

EJG

To dispel any myths, I wrote this paper when I was in Grand Rapids, MI. I went to Northeastern England to serve as a pastor at St. Timothy’s Lutheran church in Sunderland and get an MA Creative Writing from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. After the degree was finished we moved to Boise, ID to be near my 3 young children’s grandparents Well, and because we had no other place to go.

For those who wish to contact me with substantive civil questions in regard to this or any other topic may contact me. Send an email to Norm Fisher (click the link above the comment box) and he’ll pass the mail on to me. To be honest, I’m a little leary to put my e-mail out on such a public site. I’ve been beaten up quite a bit over such topics from fellow Christians and do not look forward to another ad hominem laced e-mail from an anonymous source. It’s bad for my health. But, if you do have earnest questions and are willing to be civil, I would be more than happy to answer any e-mails that come into my in-box. The Lord enjoins upon us to love one another, let us hold this ever before us as we send our anonymous words into the great ether of the internet.

In Christ,

Sean L. Rippy

(( edited by Norm Fisher to remove his email address; people can contact me with their questions, and I will forward them ))

Rev. Stefanski: What’s with the lizard?

Anonymous: You can find all of these documents at bookofconcord.org.

Ap = Apology to the Augsburg Confession
LC = Large Catechism
AC = Book of Concord

The Roman numeral will get you to the correct article and the other number refers to the paragraph.

Rev. Stefanski: What’s with the lizard?

That’s just a closeup of one of my roommates in Minuwangoda, Sri Lanka. This little gecko was the only thing I could find to use for Gravatar that would be recognizable back before Mr. Fisher gave us a larger avatar image here on BJS.

EJG

What I’ve never been quite able to figure out in all this mess is why cultural Lutherans who have adopted charistmatic bendings in their theology and practice are so staunchly determined to retain the right to the name “Lutheran” and so insistent that they are not charismatic? I really don’t understand it. What’s to be gained? As many of our LC-MS-CW mission plants have realized, the word is pretty much a hindrance to “Church Growth.”

I do understand that “charismatic” often has implications such as Benny Hinn might call to mind – but even so – if one believes that one’s emotions are the means by which the Spirit is known to be present, why be upset when it is pointed out? Why not embrace what you believe and follow it with intelligent conviction?

I really don’t get it.

The commonly understood definition of emotion as found in Wikipedia: “The English word ‘emotion’ is derived from the French word émouvoir. This is based on the Latin emovere, where e- (variant of ex-) means ‘out’ and movere means ‘move’, The related term “motivation” is also derived from movere.”

The Bible states in Galatians 5:22 that “)the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,”

Are these fruit only intellectual attributes of the new man or do the attributes connect with the entire body, soul and spirit – emotions included? The Apostle Paul prays to the Father: “I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith.” (Ephesians 3:16) Why couldn’t God use emotions and passion to “move” people to good works? And if he does, why wouldn’t we say the Holy Spirit was not involved?

CW gets it right. Hyper-traditional worship advocates would be happier living on the planet Vulcan. The only valid critique of CW is that sometimes they miss out on this aspect of worship:

“The proper, highest worship is to acknowledge one’s sins and to seek forgiveness- the ebb and flow of worship: God forgives; we praise Him…”

the link goes to a mp3 file on the issues,etc archive, that unfortunately is compromised – only a few seconds long. Does anybody have a link to the complete hour show – Oct 23, 2003?

Jim (#11) This works fine for me .. I’ve listened to the whole hour. Perhaps try right-clicking and saving the file to your computer rather than playing it from the web?

I just tried again .. I’m able to click near the end of the segment and listen to random sections of it. This is with left-click on the link under the player icons.

Anonymous #10 misses the argument and throws in an ad hominum to boot. Brilliant.

The problem has never been that emotions are bad. What is bad is using emotion as a metric for the work of the Holy Spirit. The fruits of the spirit are gifts — not measurements, not goals.

I dare say that if during the service you aren’t crushed by the Law and uplifted in thankfulness by the Gospel, then the pastor should turn up the amplifier on the truth, not just the instruments.

Pastor Rossow,
Is it maybe time that anonymous not be allowed to remain anonymous. It seems to be getting more biting all the time???

As one who is also anonymous, I defend his/her anonymity. Like me, he may have good reasons for remaining incognito, and frankly, I don’t see her comments any more biting than those of some who are not anonymous.

Although anonymous, I must confess to being a visitor from the planet Vulcan. I’d like to respond to anonymous’ defense of CW’s emotional content. While earthbound I played keyboard in a contemporary praise band. After a few months, I noticed that we had added a couple of songs to our beginning of CW service from three to five. Then a curious series of events took place: at one practice, the leader asked us to play a bit louder. Later, the drummer was then asked to emphasize the beat more. Then I noticed that we would repeat the last verse of a praise song not once, but two or three times during worship (each time louder). One day I came to practice and someone had placed a mike on the “sound” side of the upright piano. We now had about four mikes, and even the more “worshipful” (= slow) songs were getting louder. When I beame almost physically ill from a bad case of tinnitus I had to quit the praise band.

The role of emotions cannot be underestimated. The problem is that they become, as Dan (#13) has noted–an end in themselves. We want to “feel good.” Then the “good feeling” tranlates from music to the preaching, and the shape of the entire service. So we put “Shine, Jesus, Shine” (with its great theology) at the end of the service, with at least two or three repititions of the last verse, played fffff. The Law gets de-emphasized, except as a way to better living, and the Gospel becomes a “given.” You know, “Jesus died for you, so you better get to work.” I’ve been a part of it and seen it in other places, too. We have to increase the dosage of emotional stuff in our CW, because the old dosage doesn’t satisfy any longer.

But out here on Vulcan, a liberal dose of the Law, and a healthy injection of the Good News, a hearty (“f”) singing of “Behold a Host Arrayed in White” and “For All the Saints,” all in the context of Divine Service IV, and an emotion-laden trip to the altar, and I can assure you, we Vulcanites will leave worship with tears in our eyes, and a spring in our step. Vulcan may seem light years away in a theological space ship, but you may be surprised that it is quite close, and a rather delightful place. We’d love to have you visit us.

As one who is also anonymous, I defend his/her anonymity. Like me, he may have good reasons for remaining incognito, and frankly, I don’t see her comments any more biting than those of some who are not anonymous.

I’m sorry, but I’m just not bright enough to understand why someone should be able to make accusations, lead people astray, and teach false doctrine under the cover of darkness. It seems to be protecting the freedom to teach falsely–maybe an American value, but certainly not a Christian one. Allowing this person to post under the cover of anonymity, is participating in his/her descent.

EJG

Let me be clear, emotions can be good gifts of God. I am by no means a Vulcan. Worship is not an act of pure logic or reason nor should it be. On the other hand, the Bible says that emotions and desires are untrustworthy, 18 “But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean.’ 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20These are what make a man ‘unclean’; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him ‘unclean.’ ” Matthew 15:18-20.

13”When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.” James 1:13-15.

Following your heart (an emotional euphemism) can lead to great sin. I’ve seen it in my own life many times.

Whether one enjoys the music of liturgical or contemporary worship is irrelevant to the purpose God would make of worship. I do not defend liturgical worship on the grounds that it is more enjoyable than contemporary worship. Nor do I defend liturgical worship on the grounds that it is more intellectual (Vulcan like) than contemporary worship. Quite on the contrary I have seen people moved to tears in both types of services- by a liturgical hymn or a contemporary song. Rather, I defend liturgical worship on the grounds that it follows the Word of the Lord and the Lutheran Confessions while Contemporary Worship has adopted theologies and practices that are contrary to the Word of the Lord and lead good Christians astray.

I have given several examples of this fall away from the Word of the Lord in my paper, however the example under current discussion seems to be the particular statement that Christians dare not equate spirituality with emotions as contemporary worship does. In other words, to feel good about something, to enjoy it, to like it, even to be motivated to do something does not mean that it is from the Lord.

I find it hard to believe that any Christian would disagree with this statement, and I pray that it is nothing more than a simple misunderstanding of my words.

Specifically, Anonymous #10 stated:

<>

The issue at stake is not whether God “can” use an emotion to “move” people to good works, it is how do we, as Christians, receive God’s gifts, whether they be the spiritual gifts you quoted from Galatians or the sanctification that moves us to do good works you mentioned above? Contemporary Worship and Contemporary Worship songs teach us that these gifts come from an emotional worship service, an emotional sermon, or an emotional song. The Word of the Lord says that all gifts from God come through His Word and His Sacraments whether we have a positive emotional experience in the worship service or not.

The emotions that a contemporary worship service tries to evoke are fleeting, shadowy emotions that fade quickly with the troubles of life rather than the true spiritual gifts mentioned by St. Paul in Galatians 5- offered to all believers through His Word and Sacraments. The very fact that any Lutheran can equate a contemporary worship service with the spiritual gifts in Galatians 5:22 should show that our theology has been changed by the infiltration of contemporary worship.

Another major issue is whether these emotions are, in fact, reliable marks of what IS a good work. Can we determine whether a worship practice is good or bad based solely on whether we like it or not? Can we determine whether an act is good or bad based solely on whether we are passionate about it? As we’ve seen above, God’s Word says that emotions are affected by sin and are unreliable.

How then are we to determine what is Good, Right and Salutary? The Word of the Lord alone. 15 “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” 2 Tim. 3:15-17.

Contemporary Worship, on the other hand, leads Christians to determine what is Good, Right and Salutary based on Scripture and their feelings, at least as it pertains to a worship service. For example, sermons are judged not on whether they adhere to the Word of the Lord but on whether they are emotionally pleasing. The Scriptures say, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” 2 Tim. 4:3. The idea here is people love to listen to preachers that make them feel good rather than what pertains to the Word of the Lord. I have seen Lutherans mislead by a great speaker.

The Music is judged not on whether it clearly expresses the Word of the Lord but on whether it is pleasant to listen to. I have seen Lutherans singing and clapping to heretical songs because they are pleasant or fun and the words are vague enough to justify any theology.

In several of the churches I have pastured, I have met people who consider a worship practice spiritual based on the good feelings it engenders. They compare the liturgical worship service with the contemporary worship service and declare that they do not feel the Holy Spirit in the liturgical worship service in spite of God’s promise that He is present in His Word and Sacraments.

The responses I’ve received i.e. “The liturgical worship service is not Spiritual.” “I don’t feel the Holy Spirit in the liturgical worship service”- shows that people are equating a feeling of happiness or joy with the presence of the Holy Spirit. What are these people looking for? What is the point of worship to them? It is not to receive Christ. It is not to be forgiven. It is to receive a certain feeling. This, not the Word of God, is their primary argument for the inclusion of contemporary Worship and other practices that are contrary to the Word of the Lord. If it feels good, it is good.

Let me give examples. If you don’t feel happy after Communion, does that mean that you have not received the Holy Spirit or forgiveness? Of course not, yet that is precisely where this theology leads. If it feels good, it is good, but if it doesn’t feel good, it isn’t good. Therefore music, theology, and practice are all judged not on the objective word of the Lord but by the subjective emotions. I do not mean to suggest that they completely reject the Word of the Lord in place of what feels good, but rather that they use emotions (specifically feeling good) as a primary tool in interpreting the Word of the Lord and Godly practice.

By focusing upon the happier emotions separated from the context of sin and forgiveness, contemporary worship and contemporary worship songs mislead Christians into believing that worship is for receiving the Holy Spirit apart from the Word and Sacraments, the mark of which is the joyful feelings they have. It misleads Christians into believing that true spirituality is a joyful feeling rather than the gift of Christ to a sinful person- a gift that is given not only for forgiveness of sin, but also for the strengthening of our faith and the moving of us to do good works. And it misleads Christians into believing that if it feels good, then it is good. If the pastor pumps me up or if the songs are fun, then whatever they teach is okay, as long as the heresy isn’t too terribly obvious.

I can not tress enough the subtle influence these contemporary worship practices have had on Lutherans. It is like a frog in a kettle. If the heresies were obvious, the Lutherans would have jumped out of the pot a long time ago, but because the heresies are subtle, and the wording in many contemporary worship songs vague enough to justify their inclusion, we are boiling to death in a soup of our own making. We can see this change in theology by talking to the lay adherents of contemporary worship.

By focusing on our emotions and our response of praise, rather than the gifts of the Spirit through the Word and the Sacraments, contemporary worship deprives our fellow Christians of true faith, love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, kindness, gentleness, & self-control, replacing them with the false, fleeting emotions of a moment. Worship then becomes a pep rally rather than a place of forgiveness. People come to get their spiritual fix (an actual phrase I have run across by these adherents) rather than Christ and Him crucified. The Worship service itself becomes a means of grace for providing a good feeling (the Holy Spirit) that is supposed to help Christians get through the days, the weeks, the months and years.

In short, according to the Word of God, emotions, like all things, must be weighed against the Word of the Lord. True spirituality can not be equated with emotions. And whether you like something or not does not mean it’s Good, Right and Salutary.

If I understand what the anonymous commentator #10 wrote, and I pray I do not, at best, by equating the gifts of the spirit with the emotional impact of contemporary worship, he has unknowingly placed the subjective, fickle and unreliable emotions of an individual along side of the objective word of God in matters of faith. At worst, he has replaced the Objective Word of God with the Subjective emotions. Luther himself called those who believed that emotions are a sure sign of the Holy Spirit “buzzing flies”.

May the Lord protect us from such unscriptural influences.

Rev. Sean Rippy

Johannes, I wrote:

[Granting anonymity] seems to be protecting the freedom to teach falsely

Let me put that another way, by means of illustration. One the various email lists that I have managed for the past fifteen years or so, anonymity is sometimes (albeit rarely) granted. There is a condition to that anonymity, however: the anonymous person is known to me to be someone who will generally come down on the right side of an issue. That is, it is not an assumed blanket ‘right’ as it seems to be on blogs. We have a definite position which we are advancing, and those who wish to contradict it don’t deserve special privileges, whereas those who are teaching correctly but are vulnerable to whatever sort of attack may be granted such a privilege.

Thus, I don’t have any real trouble with your PSEUDOnymity (whereby we may not know you in an offlist manner, but have a frame of reference from the body of your posting and imagine we would be willing to grant such pseudonymous posting if we knew your situation, but I have trouble with the blanket approach to ANonymity, whereby the false teachers are treated equally with the true, and where their lack of a consistent reference point makes conversation nearly impossible. (Even the person who was posting as ‘Martin Luther’ last year at least gave us something other than a shape-shifting target.)

I hope the above clarifies my position.

EJG

With regards to being anonymous, there is such a thing as protecting one’s personal identity.

This does not have to do with whether I am pro or con on any given subject. It has to do with keeping a private life and identity.

If I knew anyone on this blog personally, I would have no problem sharing with you the man behind Iggy Antiochus.

Even if you are using your real name here, you are still anonymous in the sense that I don’t know you apart from this blog. I get a feel for who you are, but I really don’t know you.

I’ll save my real name for those relationships that are not based solely on my blog comments.

E.Stef: Thank you for elaborating on your insistence on real names.

A blog with a position to advance won’t keep opposing views away just by asking for a real name. Generally, though, the blog’s readers have been squashing the opposing views with their responses, which then tends to keep them away.

I will say, at least you know I have a pseudonym, where as if I said I was Bob Johnson you would be left guessing whether I was using a real name or not.

Anonymous = J. Knauft? I think I recognize the style of argument. If so, please let us know; if not, my apologies

Rev. Rippy @ #18:
That was the best and clearest refutation of CW I have read, and I’ve read and written plenty.
To those of us who, in our defense of liturgy, cite the killing of the Law as a necessary part of the service: it is most certainly true. But, we have to remember to whom we speak. We’re speaking to those who’ve already embraced the Law–insofar as they comprehend it–as their Everything. Even their Gospel is Law, because it proceeds from their presumption that they must feel something, in order to have been graced during their divine service, and, if they subsequently feel that something, then they’ve been graced. The Word of the Lord, that says grace comes to them freely thru that Word and the Sacraments, is of no avail. Why? Because they obviously do not believe it, else they wouldn’t have to be whipping themselves into ecstasy.
You can leave a liturgical service feeling just as dissatisfied, depressed, lonesome, gloomy as when you went in. We don’t always have a spring in our steps or glee in our hearts. But, the Good News is that, regardless of how bound you may feel, you are forgiven and set free because of Christ, and not because you feel it.
My pastor always cautions us to not believe in our belief. It’s taken years of hearing that to comprehend it. If I had to rely on my heart to even remain close to Christ, or on my emotions to see that Christ is in me–well, thanks be to God, who has thought of absolutely EVERYTHING, I don’t have to. Indeed, I dare not.
Perhaps, because of Rev. Rippy’s own experience in the belly of the beast, he’s better equipped to articulate the whole thing. And our friend Anonymous is doing a good job of showing just how deeply afflicting the reliance upon emotions can be; how that turns one from mere despair at the woes of the world, to despairing of the very Word of God.

A blog with a position to advance won’t keep opposing views away just by asking for a real name.

Indeed–and keeping them away is not the goal. Opposing views give one the opportunity to bring greater clarity. However, allowing those who come from the wrong general perspective to stand on equal footing with those who do not breeds confusion. It is akin to puttimg the hymns of false teachers in one’s own hymnal (something that C.F.W. Walther stood against, but that the LCMS now has no problem with, showing that I would have been more comfortable with blogs in the 1800s).

Wrt the ‘virtual anonymty’ of those who use their names: no, sorry…those who use their names have to answer for what they say–and even what they allow. Dave Benke petitioned the Council of Presidents for my discipline for having had the audacity to allow people to tell the truth about him while using their real names; I can only imagine the result of such a plea if I had been allowing people to ‘attack’ him while hiding safely under the anonymity of their bloggernames. My district president at the time (the Rev. David Callies) found that I had done nothing wrong, but if I had allowed such nameless accusations to be made, I probably would have been out of the LCMS three or four years earlier.

EJG

EJG

Pastor Rippy,
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!
CW is just a brand spankin’ new & shiny model of the GOLDEN CALF OF ISRAEL. MANY in the camp FELT what they saw & heard, but BELIEVED NOT & when left to THEIR FEELINGS, they did what? Made the golden calf as a “replacement” that gave them a “fix”, of their “feelings”. The modern church saw numbers drop, souls fall away, churches fail, & MANY did what? Built the “golden calf of Contempo Music & Worship”. Go back to Exodus 32, read it, and parallel this current situation. There is nothing new under the sun folks. Sheep are sheep, and always will be. They follow the “fix”. I was taught, when I doubt, go to those who came before you, IE. HIS WORD & our foundations & OUR FIRST LOVE. Ah, what did GOD, DO, in Exodus 32, not men, GOD? Now, fast forward to this time we live in in Hiss Church on earth, HIS people. We see MANY fleeing, from every demomination, FROM FEELING FAITH BASED congregations to…KNOWING FAITH BASED congregations. I leave labels to those more wise than I. Actions vs feelings. May the Lord Almighty protect & preserve the “simple minded” from the feeling based Believer, Pastor, Congregation or Denomination. A tree is known by it’s fruit, & feeling based ANYTHING, needs a “fix” to continue.
If you want to know what the fruit of a “CW” based church is, listen & watch what one of their members does or says on a bad day. Thanks, but no thanks!!! Humans (feeling based i.e. FALLEN) fail & change, He changeth not, His mercies they fail not. Feelings betray & fail, HE NEVER HAS, ISN’T, AND NEVER WILL!!!

Again, just a word about anonymity & pseudo’s. BE MINDFUL, NOT ALL THAT COMMENT HERE CAN GIVE THEIR NAME/S. Many a situation, calls for using these & rightly so!

Should you choose to condemn the practice, you, in fact, LESSEN the impact of what important info you may have to give or say. Personally, if that arguement is put forth, I SKIP THAT POSTING. Be mindful, you are dealing with, most, likely, LIKE MINDED BROTHERS OR SISTERS. And, if you should find you are not, do you really want petty arguments like-

“You wouldn’t say that with your real name” to gauge that conversation?

No, I cannot believe anyone would.
Think of others before your preferences, please.
We can’t all, and some don’t, get past it, or don’t comment.
Sorry for spelling, not “feelin’ it” at the moment.
Ironic & topical, yes?

As one who puts his name to his words, I tend to mis-trust some anonymity as well. Especially if you are attacking something on a website. That seems more of a cover than anything.

As one who has defended CoWo previously, I don’t want to repeat anything and everything said already, but let me just explain why articles like this are not convincing.

1. Because our situations are so different from the one described. I’ve been to plenty CoWo services. Some of them doubtless do have the point of pumping up the crowd into a frenzy. But not all.

I mean, seriously, think about it: is it really that hard to keep a service focused on Christ? If you are a Lutheran pastor (which I am, in case there was any questions), and you yourself know of the critical importance that Christ is to your own life, is it really so hard to keep Christ as the center of your service?

Pastor Rippy, evidentially you had people pushing you a certain way. I don’t. So, that is why this essay doesn’t strike home.

2. A misunderstanding of what people want/need.

In this article, you see a couple times with people coming up and asking for something from the pastor. More “meaningful” worship or sermons that are pertinent to their life.

Well, why is this? I think it is too easy to write off people and say “Well, they are just looking for ear-tickling things” and the like.

But what is being show is that there is a disconnect between what the Pastor thinks he is saying/doing and what the people are hearing. And that should give us pause.

It is all very well to insist that traditional worship is meaningful–that is, it draws people’s attention to the one thing that they need–but if people are saying “It doesn’t” then, whose fault is this exactly? Their fault? Perhaps–people sometimes can interfere with their own worship–but perhaps the issue is with the presider.

If people don’t understand the point of worship–or why you are doing what you are doing–then perhaps you need to explain things. For me, CoWo always lends itself for explanation. So, you can talk exactly about the meaning of the Lord’s Supper, you can speak to what you are confessing and why.

So, perhaps the criticisms are off…but perhaps they are not.

Especially too the sermons. We can speak about Law/Gospel all we want to–but Jesus’ words and Paul’s words both talk to people about their lives.

3. Music. Everyone criticizes the music of CoWo. And some rightly so (my CoWo has never done “Shine Jesus Shine” or “Sprit Rain” or anything like that). At the same time, if we want better songs, we can invest time and effort into having better songs.

The problem is, if the very esse of CoWo is unChristian by nature, why bother?

But then, arguments like this just don’t convince me that the esse of my CoWo services are anything except Christ.

But I was drawn here by one of my parishoners who would tend to agree with Pr Rippy. Which is fine by me–I think that when you are doing something different each and every week, it pays to have someone keeping you honest. I just think that this ought to be the point of discussions like this, rather than seeking to eliminate CoWo.

Pastor Louderback,
Have a care for which & for whom you speak, forthwith, you may have no working knowledge,per your own post. If you read the other posts here, by PASTOR RIPPY, or those who along the same lines have posted, those who have PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED THIS GARBAGE, you take rather a narrow view, forgetting the damage done to those who have been harmed by this.
We don’t leave contact info, blog or email capabilities, for a very distinct reason/s. Have a bit of care for others, sir. Business/employment contracts, may, in point of fact, INCLUDE, anon or psuedo’s, for postings,comments by blog, tweet, or etc., in those contracts of employment. How could you know such, you have an employment outside the “business world” so to speak.

Your post, as is per your own perspective, not all perspectives. It is the “walk a mile in my shoes” priniciple. They may be too small, or too big, but you can walk a fair bit, KNOWING NOT FEELING the poor fit, and place yourself in who’s shoes in which you walk. Knowing that, sir, makes all the difference in the scenery,situation & KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE WHO’S SHOES YOU UNWITINGLY WEAR, or may experience on THEIR way. It ain’t about you, this is bigger than that. I would pray, as you hold the Divine Office, one such as you would be aware of it & remember it, your will counsel others on it, considering it is a brother of THAT SAME OFFICE THAT SPEAKS HERE.
Take a bit & have a bit of care when posting here, it is what we may be called, & you who may hold the Office, vow & are instructed to do, is it not?

“Me thinks thou dost protest too much” Shakespeare

Pastor Lauderback wrote:

“I mean, seriously, think about it: is it really that hard to keep a service focused on Christ? If you are a Lutheran pastor (which I am, in case there was any questions), and you yourself know of the critical importance that Christ is to your own life, is it really so hard to keep Christ as the center of your service?”

This isn’t really a direct address to any of the points made in the paper and is somewhat of a strawman which doesn’t really need answering, however to respond, “Apparently it is difficult to keep Christ at the center.”

Beyond those Lutheran Pastors I’ve talked to who believe Christ in the confession and absolution is enough and the rest of the service should talk about relevent issues like a better marriage etc, beyond those Pastors, I’ve met Pastor’s who can parrot the Lutheran party line very well. Christ in the center of the worship service. Law/Gospel sermons. He forgives, We respond. Law always condemns. These have been drilled into us at Sem. And yet their actions in the worship service (their version of the confession and absolution, or the Creed or the benediction etc) their choice of CW songs and their sermons indicate that they have a very different idea of what these words mean. I.e. taking the best construction that they aren’t just giving lip service to these words but actually believe they’re acting according to them, their theology is just plain different.

In point 2 Pastor Lauderback says there is a misunderstanding of what people want/need.

With this I agree wholeheartedly. CW tries to provide something people want- but do not need- an emotional lift and relevance to daily life that is expressed through selfhelp steps. Liturgical worship provides something people need but don’t always want- Confession and Christ-whether they understand how that relates to their daily life or not.

Pastor Lauderback wrote:
“Well, why is this? I think it is too easy to write off people and say “Well, they are just looking for ear-tickling things” and the like.”

While it is true that pastor’s should always question what’s going on with such comments and get to the root cause, I think you can see by my paper that I did not come to these conclusions overnight. When a parishioner says, “They prefer, “Shine Jesus Shine” which you yourself do not use, with all of its false doctrine”, When they say “do not preach the law, so that we feel bad but preach the law in a way that makes us feel like we can do something for Jesus,” When they say, “I want to have a happy feeling in worship,” They are looking for ear-tickling things.

Another example of people rejecting what is Lutheran about the worship service are those who are able to leave the truth of the Lutheran church in order to attend a CW serice at the Evangelical church.

“But what is being show is that there is a disconnect between what the Pastor thinks he is saying/doing and what the people are hearing. And that should give us pause. ”

Are you really going to argue that people don’t understand the simple words of the liturgy? That they don’t understand they are confessing their sins and the Pastor in the stead and by the command of Jesus is forgiving them? That they don’t understand they are receiving Christ in, with and under the bread and wine for the forgiveness of their sins? That the people don’t understand a sermon so simple it is repeated every Sunday- you’re a siner and Chist died to forgive your sins? In my conversations, people have been very clear about what they understand in the service and sermons and yet they want something else.

I have had many conversations with my parishioners and what I have come to understand is that the people I’ve talked to are not looking for what the liturgical service provides. Or, to put it another way, they’re not exactly adverse to receiving Christ, but they want something else. Something that they feel CW provides and that something as I’ve seen in my conversations is always related to emotions. While the CW works at changing metaphors for the confession and forgiveness that are supposed to communicate better to the people, they often communicate heresy. Are the people complaining about this? Not usually. It’s new and novel and therefore emotionally pleasing.

It is also interesting that this is precisely one of my arguments against CW. Many Lutheran pastors think they are communicating Lutheran theology through the CW and yet if you speak to the laity, you will find that the laity are understanding something different. And watch how easily they switch from Lutheran churhes to Evangelical churches. This shows they don’t want what Lutheran’s give, they want the emotions of CW.

Pastor Lauderback wrote:

“It is all very well to insist that traditional worship is meaningful–that is, it draws people’s attention to the one thing that they need–but if people are saying “It doesn’t” then, whose fault is this exactly? Their fault? Perhaps–people sometimes can interfere with their own worship–but perhaps the issue is with the presider.”

This is a perfect example of the change of our Lutheran theology. The point I was making by using the meaningful phrase is lay people connect usefulness of Worship with the emotional tag- meaningful. Worship doesn’t have to be meaningful in this sense at all because worship gives Christ whether it makes us feel good or not. Pastor Lauderback defines “meaningful” as drawing attention to Christ- but that’s not the point of worship either. Liturgical worship doesn’t draw attention to Christ- it doesn’t point to Christ- it GIVES Christ through the Word and the Sacraments and this event isn’t necessarily meaningful in an emotional sense at all. I receive Christ, faith, life, salvation and all the gifts of God through the Word and the Sacramnts whether I feel like it or not. When I confess my sins and the pastor forgives, I am forgiven, whether I have a complete understanding of this event or not. The Objectve reality is that the Word and the Sacraments have meaning because they forgive sins, whether we feel good about that or not. To put a specific face on it when asking those who say such things as “I want a more meaningful worship service,” whether they understand that Christ is present in His Word and Sacraments, they can respond with a “Yes,” but that’s not what they’re looking for. Christ is a past event.

Pastor L also wrote:
“Especially too the sermons. We can speak about Law/Gospel all we want to–but Jesus’ words and Paul’s words both talk to people about their lives.”

What exactly does this mean? Is Pastor L here agreeing with my assesment of CW sermons? That they are not focused on Jesus but on how to be a better wife/husband etc? In my first reading of this I understand the Pastor to be saying that Law and Gospel sermons do not relate to people’s lives by the very nature of being Law/Gospel. This I do not understand. It has long been the Lutheran contention that a person becomes a better wife/husband by confessing ones spousal sins and receiving forgiveness through the Word and Sacraments. My marital problems at least have never been an issue of a lack of knowledge about what I’m supposed to do, but rather the lack of sanctification to do it- where do I become a better husband? I’m sorry 10 points to try don’t work- it’s just more law that my sinful Adam immediately rejects when the going gets tough. So How

Again we seem to come back to a theological difference between CW And Liturgical Worship in their understanding of the means. Pastor L. here seems to be saying that Law/Gospel i.e. confession and forgiveness is not enough for Sanctification- i.e. our daily lives. But rather something else is needed- a discussion of people’s lives beyond a discussion of Law/Gospel in people’s lives. In other words, he seems to be hinting that a straight rendention of the text showing people their specific sins (not general sin) and Christ’s forgivness is not relevant enough. This is certainly a change in theology.

Near the end Pastor Lauderback states:

“The problem is, if the very esse of CoWo is unChristian by nature, why bother? But then, arguments like this just don’t convince me that the esse of my CoWo services are anything except Christ.”

What then do you believe to be the esse of CW? What makes it so distinct from Liturigical worship that people change from Lutheran churches to Evangelical churches in order to find it?

If you believe this to be the case, do something for me, strip away everything that is liturgical in your service until you are left with only that which is CW- i.e. the esse of CW that people are clammering for. That which distinguishes CW from liturgical worship. What do you have left? Emotion- sometimes called Evangelical Style.

Indeed why bother with the unChristian style of CW that leads astray through subtlty if not intent when Christ alone apart from the false evangelical influences exists in Liturgical worship? At best CW is a tainted service affected by the unBiblical dross of evangelical style leading your people astray, at worst you lose Christ all together. Do not be fooled by your good intentions Pastor Lauderback, there is nothing good in that which is distinct in CW. Please, for the sake of your people, before CW prepares another of your members to slide through the wide doors of the Evangelical church next door, return to the sound Biblical forms of liturgical worship where Christ is offered unadorned but untainted.

Rev. Sean L. Rippy

Pastor Rippy,
How I wish there were more like you, I pray you write & post here again, & any congregation who may receive you as it’s Pastor, is truly blest indeed!

ALL THAT COMMENT HERE CAN GIVE THEIR NAME/S. Many a situation, calls for using these & rightly so!

I’ve been doing this internet stuff for around 25 years. There are very FEW legitimae reasons for anonymity, and a lot of people who have deluded themselves into thinking that they apply to them.

Should you choose to condemn the practice, you, in fact, LESSEN the impact of what important info you may have to give or say.

The fact that you (say that you) skip the post desn’t lessen its impact. On the other hand, everything that an anonymous person posts–unless they give an actual means for verifying everything they say–is suspect at best.

But, please DO feel free to skip my posts.

Be mindful, you are dealing with, most, likely, LIKE MINDED BROTHERS OR SISTERS.

I see very little evidence of that. If one is ‘likeminded’ with me, he insists on integrity and accountability. When the president–whether Kieschnick or Obama–criticizes the bloggers, it has the appearance of being correct because of the large number of them who lack the courage of their convictions to be held accountable for what they say.

You can be right all day long, but if you don’t have the guts to be put to death for it, there’s no reason for anyone to listen to you and ACT on what you say.

And, if you should find you are not, do you really want petty arguments like-

“You wouldn’t say that with your real name” to gauge that conversation?

Calling that “petty” is simply absurd. Anonymous posters–such as the one accusing Pr. Rippy on this thread–make accusations contrary to the 8th Commandment precisely because they can do so without DOING WHAT LUTHER SAYS and presenting their case to the proper authorities. Instead, they sneak out and throw stones and then run off with no way for the legitimate authority to follow up. Anonymous folks simply stir up emotions with no acceptance of responsibility.

Business/employment contracts, may, in point of fact, INCLUDE, anon or psuedo’s, for postings,comments by blog, tweet, or etc., in those contracts of employment. How could you know such, you have an employment outside the “business world” so to speak.

If your business won’t let you post with your name, there are two remedies: 1) not posting; 2) permission individually-granted by the site admin for you to post pseudonymously (as I made clear in a previous post). It is the blanket allowance for anonymity without the admins having approved it that allows for the drive-by rubbish that was thrown at Pr. Rippy today.

BTW: Those who have been around can tell you, if Pr. Louderback and I agree on something, it’s got a really good chance of being correct. (It’s sort of like an Alexandrian and a Western text agreeing, for those of you into textual criticism.) AND PLEASE NOTE: neiter of us are saying that the anonymous or pseudonymous are being intentionally ‘dastardly’, or any such thing…just that it makes one wonder why he should trust someone who is unwilling to ‘sign his work’; it seems very much UNLIKE John the Steadfast and the other laymen who risked their lives by signing the Confessions.

EJG

#9 by Revfisk — September 7, 2009 @ 9:37 am:

“What I’ve never been quite able to figure out in all this mess is why cultural Lutherans who have adopted charistmatic bendings in their theology and practice are so staunchly determined to retain the right to the name “Lutheran” and so insistent that they are not charismatic? I really don’t understand it. What’s to be gained? As many of our LC-MS-CW mission plants have realized, the word is pretty much a hindrance to “Church Growth.”

What is to be gained, you ask? Where do you think all those ABLAZE! dollars go? You can act pentecostal, claim a “link” to the LCMS and you go to the top of some list for $$$$$$$$$$

See Jefferson Hills Church and The Alley.

Pastor Rippy,
I apologize for how the topic of your article became so clouded and forgotten. A great aritcle derailed, again.
It should be about WHAT people write, not about the name or lack thereof which they write under. Pastor Rippy, I do hope you have more articles here in the future. You have quite a lot to teach & tell of.

It should be about WHAT people write, not about the name or lack thereof which they write under. Pastor Rippy, I do hope you have more articles here in the future. You have quite a lot to teach & tell of.

Which you know only because he–who is currently without a Call to a parish and may be hurting his chances of ever receiving a Call in the LCMS by writing what he has written–had the guts to sign his name to his theology.

EJG

I know nothing of who writes here, unless I choose to backtrack, & betray the trust of posting here, which I would never do, as I would not want it done to me. I don’t care who needs a call, it is not for me to decide who deserves one or not, I am not an LCMS member, and from previous posts Pastor S, neither are you. LCMS members take precedence, they come before you & I, & jolly well should.

Dutch, #35 makes absolutely no sense. You referred to Pr. Rippy by name. You were able to do that because he gave his name.

But, whatever. There’s no sense discussing anonymity with an anonymous poster–there’s nothing to be gained, as the only one who has the potential to be harmed is the one whose name is known.

Pr. Rippy’s article speaks well beyond the bounds of the LCMS, as other bodies (like WELS, for instance) are infected with this same rubbish–and always will be, growing worse all the time, because laymen will join whatever they consider a ‘good’ congregation near them, having no understanding of the doctrine of fellowship. (Then again, since most ‘confessional’ pastors disagree with the Church’s historical understanding of that doctrine, why would the laity know better?)

EJG

(Then again, since most ‘confessional’ pastors disagree with the Church’s historical understanding of that doctrine, why would the laity know better?)

Please expound, if you would, for this anonymous reader.

(Then again, since most ‘confessional’ pastors disagree with the Church’s historical understanding of that doctrine, why would the laity know better?)

Please expound, if you would, for this anonymous reader.

If you would, please read the short study Guilt by Association.

This paper, which puts forth the doctrine and practice documented as being that of the early Church in Weber Elert’s Eucharist and Fellowship in the First Four Centuries and taught by, e.g., C.F.W. Walther in his Theses on Communion Fellowship with Those Who Teach Differently, has been resoundingly rejected by a number of Missouri’s ‘cream of the crop’, who prefers to have a slightly revised ‘open communion’ or ‘selective fellowship’ policy (as do some outside of the LCMS, such as the Rev. Jack Cascione; PLEASE NOTE: the ULMA, of which Pr. Cascione is a member does not endorse on their website what he endorses on his parish website).

If those who visit this site would like to endorse that paper’s teaching, I might have to revise my estimation of the LCMS’s pastors, but from what has vocally and harshly been said so far, with every sort of attempt to label and name-call by those who are ‘of repute’ in the LCMS, I would have to see a lot to make such a revision.

EJG

Thank you.

Pastor Rippy,

It’s L O uderback. Not Lauderback.

This isn’t really a direct address to any of the points made in the paper and is somewhat of a strawman which doesn’t really need answering, however to respond, “Apparently it is difficult to keep Christ at the center.”

Weeel….I disagree. What you put forward is that the esse of CoWo is not Christ. I just think that most Lutheran pastors I know are all about Christ. Why would their worship be otherwise?

Sermons as well as services. You know?

Are you really going to argue that people don’t understand the simple words of the liturgy?

Yeah. I don’t think the words of the liturgy are that simple necessarily. God of Sabaoth? And with your spirit?

Plus I think that the form is one that gives people pause and can stand in their way of understanding as well.

I have had many conversations with my parishioners and what I have come to understand is that the people I’ve talked to are not looking for what the liturgical service provides. Or, to put it another way, they’re not exactly adverse to receiving Christ, but they want something else. Something that they feel CW provides and that something as I’ve seen in my conversations is always related to emotions.

Well, perhaps they express it in terms of emotion–but can’t we see it simply in terms of preference?

Some people like liturgical worship. They could do the same thing week after week after week.

Some don’t.

Some people like hymns–the forms, the structure, the style they take. Some don’t.

I mean, if the people are still looking for Christ, why can’t we give them Christ in another form of worship?

After all, you have stated the truth: they very well might leave the Lutheran church and go to a Evangelical cowo service. Ought we not for the sake of the truth of the Gospel have Lutheran CoWo services so people don’t leave?

Worship doesn’t have to be meaningful in this sense at all because worship gives Christ whether it makes us feel good or not. Pastor Lauderback defines “meaningful” as drawing attention to Christ- but that’s not the point of worship either. Liturgical worship doesn’t draw attention to Christ- it doesn’t point to Christ- it GIVES Christ through the Word and the Sacraments and this event isn’t necessarily meaningful in an emotional sense at all. I receive Christ, faith, life, salvation and all the gifts of God through the Word and the Sacramnts whether I feel like it or not.

Mmm…I would submit that if a person does not understand that they are receiving Christ and this is a good thing, that some fault may lie with them, but some fault may also lie with the presider. Or with the form of worship that might simply not communicate Christ to the individual.

In my first reading of this I understand the Pastor to be saying that Law and Gospel sermons do not relate to people’s lives by the very nature of being Law/Gospel.

Sorry. That was not my point. My point is that Law/Gospel sermons can indeed be not meaningful to people and that is wrong. They ought to be meaningful to people. Sermons ought to address people where they are, with what they are struggling.

Paul spoke about being a better husband, a better wife. So should we. Christ spoke about issues that touched individuals lives–so ought we.

It has long been the Lutheran contention that a person becomes a better wife/husband by confessing ones spousal sins and receiving forgiveness through the Word and Sacraments.

Yeah…I think that you ought to do the dishes for her occasionally as well.

Paul does not say “Confess your sins’ he says “Love your wives.” He says “Love is patient, love never ends, love doesn’t insist on its own way.”

You know…I mean either Paul tells us how to live out lives in vocation or he does not. I don’t think he just says “Ask for forgiveness.”

Pastor L. here seems to be saying that Law/Gospel i.e. confession and forgiveness is not enough for Sanctification- i.e. our daily lives. But rather something else is needed- a discussion of people’s lives beyond a discussion of Law/Gospel in people’s lives.

This would be absolutely correct. Sanctification does not merely consist of Confession and Forgiveness. Look at the small catechism. Going on about husband and wife Luther writes “We should fear and love God so that we lead a sexually pure and decent life in what we say and do, and husband and wife love and honor each other.”

“Leading a sexually pure and decent life in what we say and do” is not the same as confessing and being forgiven.

Don’t hear me wrong: Yes, Law and gospel is essential. Yes, it is at the core of our theology and teaching. Yes, we sin and fall short and we need to know of the forgiveness that comes in Christ.

But I remember a prof saying “Lutheran sermons are not merely ‘I feel bad; I feel good’” I tend to agree.

What then do you believe to be the esse of CW?

I thought I said this clearly: Christ.

The form of liturgical worship interferes with people hearing Christ. That is why they leave and go to Evangelical services.

Please, for the sake of your people, before CW prepares another of your members to slide through the wide doors of the Evangelical church next door, return to the sound Biblical forms of liturgical worship where Christ is offered unadorned but untainted.

Which is funny really: because won’t they leave then anyway?

Once again: why are they leaving?

I appreciate the tone of your dialogue and hope we can continue the discussion.

Dutch,

Gotcha. But then, I do mean what I say and I say what I mean and I am who I am.

What exactly do you fear by using your real name? Serious. What is the threat?

Pastor LOuderback,
Have ya looked at the recent article about Synod SUING 4 mature ladies, for fighting for a church? Oh, that would be why. I WOULD LOVE NOTHING BETTER THAN LISTING MY FULL GIVEN NAME INCLUDING MY MAIDEN NAME, BUT MUCH TO MY REGRET MY HUSBAND’S JOB & MY HEAD FORBIDS IT. I do have to answer to the one I am bound to, ya know?
Dutch is my NICKNAME, & those who read this site, & who PERSONALLY KNOW ME, know exactly who it is that posts here. They do, you don’t. Even Pastor Stephanski respects that aspect. I happen to have rather an unappetizing name, & prefer my nickname. Sue me, oh wait, the LCMS does that.
I forgot.

Pastor Louderback wrote:

“Weeel….I disagree. What you put forward is that the esse of CoWo is not Christ. I just think that most Lutheran pastors I know are all about Christ. Why would their worship be otherwise?”

As I wrote in my response to you, the reason is because I’ve seen it. I’ve seen pastor’s who can say the words we were taught at Sem. and whose actions show they either give lip service to those words or the words mean something different to them. One could argue that a Mormon is all about Christ as well- it’s just that he means something completely different than we mean when he’s talking about Christ.

Also, Christ may be present, which I believe He is in your service, but with the CW stuff comes other, tainted stuff. Stuff you may not even be aware you’re teaching your people. The question at the end of my post was- Why use a tainted service when you could just give them Christ?

Which you seem to answer by saying:

“Plus I think that the form is one that gives people pause and can stand in their way of understanding as well.”

This really didn’t address my experience that the people often do know what’s going on in the service. I agree that most laymen don’t know what “sabaoth” means or even “with thy Spirit” neither of which is that important to the overall understanding of the service- but they do know they’re confessing their sins and receiving forgiveness during the Confession and Absolution. They do know the basic idea of the sermon. They do know they are recieving Christ’s body and blood for the forgiveness of sins. So yeah, I would say the liturgy is pretty clear.

As to CW worship, I have found that it has communicated Evangelical theology even when it may be understood correctly from a Lutheran perspective. The liturgy doesn’t have that problem due to its variable culture and time testedness. Is that a word?

As to understanding, I have found that CW services are even worse for understanding since you only get to see them once and then they’re gone. The phrases often leave me scratching my head. What is this Creed supposed to mean? What is this confession supposed to mean? Sure, if I turn off my theological brain, the words will flow past me and they sound so comforting and generally Christian and emotionally pleasing that it doesn’t bother me- but if I actually look past the emotional gooshiness of the general Christian sounding phrases I’ve found much that was vague and quite frankly meaningless or heretical.

You have attested that the form of liturgical worship may stand in the way of peoples’ understanding. This is a typical plea for CW- We must adapt in order to communicate better to the people. While saying this you haven’t addressed yet the views that I’ve experienced that in fact we communicate Christ less throuh CW forms than through liturgical forms. In my questioning of my members as to what they are understanding I have found that CW forms tend to communicate Evangelical theology and emotionalism rather than I’m a sinner, I need to confess. I recieve Christ in the Word and Sacrament. & Because Christ is working through me through His means I can lead a sanctified (imperfect) life. 1 example of the Evangelical theolgy I have seen expressed in CW forms is the use of the Law and sanctification. The Benedection for example becomes a admonition of law to go forth and live a good life. The form, songs, etc. of CW advance the Evangelical theology that the sanctified life is a matter of us trying harder rather than Christ changing our hearts and minds gradually through His Word and Sacraments. Sanctification is as much about Christ as Justification. I live a better life when I confess my sins and receive Christ- not just for forgiveness but also to change who I am that I am better equiped to live the sanctified life.

Pastor Louderback wrote:

“I mean, if the people are still looking for Christ, why can’t we give them Christ in another form of worship?”

There are many forms of worship that are sound and Biblical without giving an unclear sound. I mentioned several in my paper- matins, the different styles in LSB and the German Mass. The hymns are also of varied styles. Others can prob. be created. I also stated that this is the very question I posed at the beginning of my journey into CW. If it’s just a matter of preference then What’s the Big deal?

My entire paper is predicated on this fact- I tried to do what you suggest. I tried to give them a truly Lutheran CW service. What I found is- It isn’t possible because the very nature of CW is, in fact, NonLutheran.

I believe your sincerity in your attempt to give your people a Lutheran CW service- however I think you may not know what you’re actually teaching your people through CW. I myself was surprised when I started talking to people about what they were understanding by the service and songs. Even how there theology was changing.

Again Pastor L:
“After all, you have stated the truth: they very well might leave the Lutheran church and go to a Evangelical cowo service. Ought we not for the sake of the truth of the Gospel have Lutheran CoWo services so people don’t leave?”

That they DO leave for Evangelical CW proves that they are not concerned with the Lutheran faith but with the emotions of the service and the false view of the Law. I have yet to see an Evangelical service of any kind that gives Christ. They rarely talk about Christ for goodness sake, let alone have the Word and the Sacraments.

Pastor L:

“Mmm…I would submit that if a person does not understand that they are receiving Christ and this is a good thing, that some fault may lie with them, but some fault may also lie with the presider. Or with the form of worship that might simply not communicate Christ to the individual.”

I’m beginning to wonder what you mean by “communicating Christ”. I have yet to meet a parishioner who doesn’t understand that they are forgiven for Chrit’s sake in the Confession and Absolution or that They are forgiven in a Law/Gospel sermon or that they receive Christ in the Lord’s Supper for the forgiveness of their sins and the strengenthing of their faith.

In other words, I’ve never contended that people don’t understand that they’re not receiving Christ in the liturgy, simply that they want something along side of Christ- they want an emotional spirituality that is not Biblical. They want UnLutheran theology and practice.

On the other hand, I have met parishioners who have been led to believe by CW that their emotions in worship are the same as the gift of the Holy Spirit, who believe that Worship is supposed to happy all the time, who believe that Sanctification is primariliy an act of the will rather than an act of God through His Word and Sacraments. Even had some members who were pentecostal “lutherans” because of CW.

Pastor L:

“Sorry. That was not my point. My point is that Law/Gospel sermons can indeed be not meaningful to people and that is wrong. They ought to be meaningful to people. Sermons ought to address people where they are, with what they are struggling. Paul spoke about being a better husband, a better wife. So should we. Christ spoke about issues that touched individuals lives–so ought we.”

If I misunderstood, I apologize, however I’m not certain you understood my point. My point was Law/Gospel sermons are relevant simply by the very nature of them being Law/Gospel sermons. By Law I mean specific law that addresses people where they are and with what they are struggling.

In relation to Being a better husband- the Lutheran understanding about how to become a better husband is to hear where you have sinned (either by reading the Bible or hearing a sermon on it or the admonistion of the pastor or wife etc). Confess your sins. Receive Christ. Why? Because the receiving of Christ is not just about forgiveness as you seem to imply in the next statement, but is indeed about sanctification as well. In other words once we have recieved Christ through His Word and Sacrament we are changed to be a better person. It is Christ, through His Word and Sacrament that makes us a better person.

Which lead to Pastor L.:
“Paul does not say “Confess your sins’ he says “Love your wives.” He says “Love is patient, love never ends, love doesn’t insist on its own way.”

This issue here does seem to be growing into an honest disagreement. From my understanding of a Lutheran Biblical perspective Paul’s statement to “Love your wives” is Law that can but condemn us- (the law ALWAYS accuses) the only response is to confess my sin before God that I haven’t loved my wife as I should. Now how does that help me love my wife? Because the means of grace provide all of God’s gifts, including the gift of love as Galatians says, “love, joy, peace, patience… etc”

Also, “love is patient, love never ends…” this is law as well. I am never this perfect- the Lutheran response? Confess my sins. Then through the means of grace I am actually better able to love my wife the way God intends me to love her- though always imperfectly this side of heaven.

The question is the means of Sanctification- of being a better husband- Do we attain it through trying harder and following a process of steps or through Christ and Him crucified? CW teaches that a person becomes a better husband by trying harder and following certain self-help steps even a rereading of the law in its 3rd use. This either creates hypocritical pharisees who actually believe they are loving better or despair in those who see their true condition before God.

As I stated- knowing what God wants of me as a husband has never been an issue- being able to follow what God wants me to do as a husband is the issue. I can’t follow God’s will for me in this area no matter how many so called 3rd use of the law sermons one may preach because I am sinful and unclean and don’t want to follow Him. The solution then is not to try harder but to get a new heart and a new mind that actually does want to do what God wants me to do- This new heart and mind only comes through the Word and the Sacraments as Christ is given to us. Christ transforms us through His Word and Sacraments- slowly yes, but transforms us nevertheless.

So from a Lutheran perspective- at least as I understand Luther- Confession and Forgiveness is the only thing that gives us the ability to follow God’s law. The means of Sanctification is the same as the means of Justification.

If you are mainting that a straight rendention of the text showing people their specific sins (not general sin) and Christ’s forgivness is not relevant enough for a Christian’s daily life then this represents a change from tradtional Lutheran theology and one that I see as influenced by CW.

Pastor L:
“Sanctification does not merely consist of Confession and Forgiveness. Look at the small catechism. Going on about husband and wife Luther writes “We should fear and love God so that we lead a sexually pure and decent life in what we say and do, and husband and wife love and honor each other.”

What then does Sanctification consist of if not Confession and the means of grace? Where else do we receive such Sanctification? No Where else that I’m aware of. I suppose the implication in your words is action is necessary as well as forgiveness? To actually live a better life? Let me be clear, I never said Law/Gospel meant only confess and be forgiven and then keep sinning against your spouse. My point was from where does the ability to act as a better husand come? CW says it comes through admonition or encouragementand and a repeating of the Law in its 3rd use (which most of us already know anyway). Lutheran theology has said “NO, it comes through confessing your specific sins and receiving Christ not just for forgiveness but also for Sanctification. That He may make us into better husbands. The Book of Concord says- Good works are necessary, not necessary for salvation but as necessary as it is for the sun to shine. I.e. True faith WILL NECESSARILY lead to good works not because of our efforts but because Christ is working through us. For as Luther said, “You must first be a fig tree to produce figs.” i.e. you must first be good in order to do good- And only God can produce fig trees. i.e. good people. And this He does through His Word and Sacraments as we confess our sins and receive forgiveness. Unfortunately we will never attain perfection here on earth.

Furthermore, what you quote from the SC is from the Ten Commandments which is law. No one is able to follow this law in its perfection and all should confess daily for their sins against this law.

Pastor L:

“But I remember a prof saying “Lutheran sermons are not merely ‘I feel bad; I feel good’” I tend to agree. ”

I don’t recall saying such a thing either.

Pastor L:
“The form of liturgical worship interferes with people hearing Christ. That is why they leave and go to Evangelical services.”

The second part of the sentence doesn’t make sense to me since they don’t hear Christ in Evangelical services either. At least not from a Lutheran perspective. They hear mostly law. If they are going to an Evangelical service it’s because they want something other than Christ alone. This also has been verified by my conversations with those who have left for Evangelical services. Some of which I have recorded in my paper.

As to the first part- as I’ve said, in my conversations with people, this simply doesn’t track. Few, if any, have ever had a problem understanding that they are forgiven for Christ’s sake in the Confession and Absolution. That they are forgiven in the sermon. That they receive Christ’s true body and blood for the forgiveness of sins in the Lord’s Supper. Rather they leave because they want something else in addition to Christ and His forgiveness- if they see any real need for a continuing receiving of Christ in the first place.

I have tried to lay out in my paper how I talked to my parishioners about what they want and why. What they told me was, they want emotional spirituality, they want 3rd use sermons that make them feel they can do something for Jesus(and not specific law that makes them feel guilty), they want songs that focus on them doing something, etc.

Pastor L:
“Which is funny really: because won’t they leave then anyway? Once again: why are they leaving?”

They leave because they have been taught Evangelical theology through Christian Radio, Christian Bookstores and CW services and songs- first in our Lutheran Camps and then in our Lutheran Sunday Schools and finallly in our Lutheran CW services. We have opened the door to the Evangelical church. We have prepared them to enter their gates. In essence their confession of faith is essentially Evangelical and they will seek that which is Evangelical. If it be in a watered down Lutheran CW service so be it.

How is what we preach, teach and practice in our services any different than the local Evangelical church? If there is little difference, or if the people can’t see the difference that should give us pause.

I could never leave the Lutheran church no matter how boring it may be or even if the service was completely incomprehensible to me if for no other reason than because all other denominations are unfaithful to Christ. That anyone could even think about such a thing shows, in my opinion, how we have not done a good job in catchizing our people to understand the real dangers of other denominations and rather have helped them on their way out of the Lutheran faith into the arms of the Evangelicals- and please spare me the strawman that I’m saying only Lutherans will go to heaven.

Rev. Sean L. Rippy

I found it interesting that way back in this thread, the fruit of the Spirit were listed as proof the Holy Spirit being discernable as acting via how we emote. The classic list was cited: “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,”

Now I may be wrong, (and I am not from vulcan – I like to weep in Church when grace permits it) but it seems to me that there is only ONE word listed that that biblically *might* be categorized as emotion: joy – and THAT as often connected with suffering (aka Ja 1:3) as with happiness.

Otherwise, love is a verb, peace is reconciled relations in action with others, patience is the OPPOSITE of emotion: its’ what you exercise *against* your emotions -, goodness is civic morality, faithfulness is faith. There are two more listed in Scripture (in the next verse) – gentleness – not an emotion – and self-control – definitely not an emotion, but again, the means by which we contain our emotions and restrain the flesh.

Why do I bring this up? Because while I enjoy fine emotions and wish I had more of them, Scripture simply does not permit us to attribute emotions to the third article of our creedal faith. Emotions are of the *first article*: ears, eyes and all my “senses.” In this way, they are simply not a determinative factor for whether or not the Spirit is active, which, consequently IS what charismatic theology believes, teaches and confesses by practice, AND which the vast 99% majority of all CoWo services press for.

Finally, Pastor Louderback has said that “Christ is the esse of CoWo.” This in itself ought to demonstrate how he himself has bought into this very charismatic theology. If in fact CoWo is simply a style, then Christ can in no way be its esse. Style may be itself of bene esse, but never esse. To say that Christ is the esse of a style of song is to demonstrate precisely the false theology which is at the root of this diabolical movement to divide the churches.

It is not easy to keep Christ at the center of the service, even when there is a good liturgy. Most Lutheran pastors I know are not all about Christ, but all about themselves (and I raise my hand!) How much less when the power of the service rests on the creativity of one man, week in, week out, rather than on the efficacy of the Word of God to work even when our emotions are out of wack.

Quite simply,
justification based faith fosters humility
sanctification based faith fosters arrogance

If sanctification is required, not justification alone, then there are degrees of salvation, as sanctification in this sense is based on HUMAN & FALLEN FEELINGS WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO THE INDIVIDUAL. Salvation then is subjective per individual. Justification is by Christ Alone, by HIS DEEDS, JUSTIFIED. I have never read Christ sending the Twelve out after, to emplore those who departed for lack of Faith, “wait…we will give you more upbeat messages, more of feeling based liturgy, jazz up our music, you can have more empowerment, more quantity of what ever you “seek”, just come back ” No, it was the opposite. He is who He is, He is the I AM, easy for His,but impossible to the world. Where is that in any CW service or message? Nowhere.

Christ chooses us, apart from Him, & w/o THE HOLY SPIRIT DOING THE CHOOSING, how are the fallen & condemned capable of choosing Him? We can’t, why, because HIS WORD SAYS SO.
CW is a P T Barnum based theology, you give um a bouncy tent type service, you get bouncy tent type members. You give them BIBLICAL LITURGICAL SERVICES, you get Biblical, firm members. Your choice.

Pastor Rippy,

I actually go by Pastor Louderback more than Pastor L, but I’ll let it go.

Just a quick note for you to understand me and where I see the discussion.

When you say “As I wrote in my response to you, the reason is because I’ve seen it” for why CW is not Christ-centered, I think “Well, come and worship with me.”

You know? Is the issue merely one of our experiences dictating what we see as CW?

My position is that CW can be Christ-centered worship. My position is that is has to be–once again, you are right about the point of worship. If we are not delivering Christ, what is the point?

In this way, I need something more than “This is my experience,” because while I do not want to diminish your experience, that is not my experience.

I’m sure that people reject liturgical worship (or at least certain elements of it) because they think it is too Roman Catholic and leads away from Christ. That might have been their experience, but once again it is not mine.

they do know they’re confessing their sins and receiving forgiveness during the Confession and Absolution. They do know the basic idea of the sermon. They do know they are recieving Christ’s body and blood for the forgiveness of sins. So yeah, I would say the liturgy is pretty clear.

Well, why have the other stuff if they understand this then? Why drape this with language that doesn’t speak to them or that needs to be explained every time a visitor comes to church?

I’m going to come back to the same point several times, because I think it is crucial: your argument is that people just want a certain emotional feeling and that is why they look for CW. My argument is that they are looking for worship that they understand and that communicates Christ to them where they are.

The “emotion” that they talk about is merely a symptom. What it comes from is their being able to understand and hear the message of Christ–and to respond is praise to Him for what He has done.

If you look at what you have written above, that is a pretty accurate summary of my CW service. Those are the elements that are continually present and I put them there in order to connect the people to Jesus Christ. Without having to explain what I mean.

Now, some people like it. Some don’t. That’s how it goes.

but if I actually look past the emotional gooshiness of the general Christian sounding phrases I’ve found much that was vague and quite frankly meaningless or heretical.

And that is not very good worship is it? Who would want that? I don’t.

But that is not the esse of CW. That is what you have experienced.

Once again, I think Lutheran pastors ought to be able to use phrases that are not just vague and meaningless and heretical. You know?

You have attested that the form of liturgical worship may stand in the way of peoples’ understanding. This is a typical plea for CW- We must adapt in order to communicate better to the people.

This is actually the only reason to do CoWo isn’t it? I mean, it is indeed the very core of why you would make a change.

The Benedection for example becomes a admonition of law to go forth and live a good life.

Once again, I don’t understand this. I mean, I understand your words, but how hard is it to have a Benediction that brings blessings?

You, as a pastor leading a CoWo service, have the authority to say what you want. Why not say something about the blessings of God? Once again, how hard is this? I mean, either you are presiding over the service or you are not.

Now if your complaint is that others do this, well, they too can be educated. The difference is, I think we need to approach education in terms of “Here is how to do CoWo better” and you think it in terms of “We can’t do this.”

Does this make sense to you?

My entire paper is predicated on this fact- I tried to do what you suggest. I tried to give them a truly Lutheran CW service. What I found is- It isn’t possible because the very nature of CW is, in fact, NonLutheran.

I understand that. The problem is, it does not ring true to me at all. Which is why I am writing this. I’d hope that you would see my own perspective and the reasoning from that perspective. Hopefully, our perspectives and pasts will be useful in providing leadership for the future pastors who will be doing CoWo.

Because plenty of pastors in the future will. CoWo is not going to disappear any time soon from our Synod. I think we need to make it the best it can be.

That they DO leave for Evangelical CW proves that they are not concerned with the Lutheran faith but with the emotions of the service and the false view of the Law. I have yet to see an Evangelical service of any kind that gives Christ. They rarely talk about Christ for goodness sake, let alone have the Word and the Sacraments.

While I always like a blame the victim mentality, the problem is it is not helpful to the situation. The fact is that people are leaving. So…what do we do? Try to do liturgical worship even better? Is that what your solution is for this? Or…what?

<b.The question is the means of Sanctification- of being a better husband- Do we attain it through trying harder and following a process of steps or through Christ and Him crucified?

It is both. I don’t want to get too distracted by the whole sanctification issue. I would point you to Pastor McCain’s website and his discussion of sanctification. I hold to his position on the issue.

I don’t recall saying such a thing either.

It comes across that way to me. See–some people just don’t get what we are really saying.

I have tried to lay out in my paper how I talked to my parishioners about what they want and why. What they told me was, they want emotional spirituality, they want 3rd use sermons that make them feel they can do something for Jesus(and not specific law that makes them feel guilty), they want songs that focus on them doing something, etc.

And I am not interested in this either. But from my conversations, that is not why people go to CoWo worship. At least not the ones that I speak to about the issue. Once again, our experiences are different. Where you stand depends on where you sit.

How is what we preach, teach and practice in our services any different than the local Evangelical church? If there is little difference, or if the people can’t see the difference that should give us pause.

I think you are right about that. But then, our liturgical worship services are very close to Roman Catholic services–but there are still differences. If the form of CoWo is also similar, that does not mean that it is the same.

But you have already stated what the difference is: Christ. If Evangelical services are just law, then our own CoWo services can be completely different in a proclamation of Christ.

I could never leave the Lutheran church no matter how boring it may be or even if the service was completely incomprehensible to me if for no other reason than because all other denominations are unfaithful to Christ.

Many lay people don’t have the same opinion. But more importantly, many unchurched don’t have that position at all. So, how do we reach out to them?

That anyone could even think about such a thing shows, in my opinion, how we have not done a good job in catchizing our people to understand the real dangers of other denominations and rather have helped them on their way out of the Lutheran faith into the arms of the Evangelicals- and please spare me the strawman that I’m saying only Lutherans will go to heaven.

Oh, trust you me, I argue plenty of times about how historic Lutheran fellowship position is a soft-exclusionary position. I have no reason to take the debate up with you. But once again, you think the response is really one of catechesis? We have not taught our members well enough about the wonders of the liturgy?

I don’t know. I wonder whether that is the proper diagnosis. I think some just don’t like to worship in a liturgical style.

Pastor Fisk,

Finally, Pastor Louderback has said that “Christ is the esse of CoWo.” This in itself ought to demonstrate how he himself has bought into this very charismatic theology. If in fact CoWo is simply a style, then Christ can in no way be its esse. Style may be itself of bene esse, but never esse. To say that Christ is the esse of a style of song is to demonstrate precisely the false theology which is at the root of this diabolical movement to divide the churches.

Uhhh…but isn’t Christ the esse of liturgical worship?

I mean…isn’t liturgical worship a style of worship?

I guess what I am saying is that the point of CW is to point to Christ and bring Christ to the listener. That is also the point of liturgical worship. There are any number of different ways that one might do this.

This is of course in contrast to a position that says “The esse of CoWo is Satan,” or something else like that.

Make sense?

It is not easy to keep Christ at the center of the service, even when there is a good liturgy.

Sure. It is not easy to write a good sermon either.

Most Lutheran pastors I know are not all about Christ, but all about themselves (and I raise my hand!)

I agree with this as well.

Not that you are all about yourself–but that I am all about myself. This is indeed a weakness for all of us.

How much less when the power of the service rests on the creativity of one man, week in, week out, rather than on the efficacy of the Word of God to work even when our emotions are out of wack.

Well, Christ doesn’t say “Take it easy and follow me!” He says “Pick up your cross.” The call of the pastor is a serious one and so we need to work hard to try to be sure that our actions point towards Christ and not away from Him.

I mean, we write a sermon every week, even when our emotions are out of wack. So we design a service every week, when our emotions are out of wack. Just like we counsel people, teach confirmation, etc, when we are out of wack.

Welcome to the world of being a pastor.

At the same time, because I know that I think about myself, I don’t think it is as hard to point to Christ. Because I have experienced His grace and salvation. That is not that hard to speak about honestly to others. And that is what CoWo is about right?

Dutch,

So, you think that if you post something you will get sued? For defamation of character or something like that?

I think libel laws in America give you pretty good connection. And I promise not to sue you.

Is that good enough?

I mean…isn’t liturgical worship a style of worship?

Y’know, that’s kinda funny. NOW it is considered “a style of worship.” Previously, it just WAS worship.

That is, there was worship. Then some folks came along and introduced ‘something else’ and insisted that it, too, was worship, and that both what was and what was coming were just ‘styles’.

It reminds me of the ABC Family network. Originally, it belonged to the 700 Club. They made it into ‘The Family Channel’ and sold it to Fox, making it ‘Fox Family’; they sold it to ABC and now it is ABC Family (with a huge disclaimer before the 700 Club comes on, something that they, apparently, made a part of the sales contract with Fox; and speaking of KFUO…). What is ABC Family’s motto? “A Different Kind of Family”…because it is no longer promoting ‘traditional’ ones (you know, the only kind their used to be).

ELCA now promotes ‘a different style of marriage’. But in the beginning, there was just one…and nobody would have referred to it as merely a ‘style’.

EJG

Pastor Louderback,
Are you speaking of my use here of my personal nickname, or refering to posting document links?
You are a Pastor, I would not presume or assume the in depth sem instruction, nor Divine Office & the delicate issues of an office I have never held. I have no personal knowledge or experience, that would not be wise, & one tends to expose their ignorance when one does that.
However, I played in the playground with the big kids in the business world of government contracts, I know what those contracts are, secrecy agreements/contracts are, signed my fair share, & asked others to sign them. I am painfully aware of what can happen if they should be broken or violated. I also understand, if a document is obtained from a locked secure site or source, obtained outside that locked secure site or source, it does or should cause one to ere on the side of caution. The last one I signed expires in October of this year, 12 years, to be exact.
Which is an aspect of Pastor Rippy’s article here, to ere on the side of caution, souls are at stake in this.
I would never have addressed your comment, I do so only because of the office you hold. Any questions?

Truly liturgical worship is not a style at all. It is a theology. This again demonstrates the vast unawareness of the actual status of the controversy which becomes mark of those who promote CoWo. Revivalists of every form will with one mind insist to their death beds that this is only a debate about style, always in the bald face of the constant statements from more conservative types that style is not what we’re disturbed about – not really.

Yes, Christ is the esse of liturgical worship precisely because liturgical worship, classically speaking, is not a style, but a pattern of sound words about Jesus. CoWo, by nature, can be nothing of the sort because its esse is change – it is an “unpattern.” One can as much claim that Jesus is the esse of contemporary worship as a movement as to claim that 4 oclock is the esse of time.

If the argument is about style, then its about bene esse, and that is an important debate – but it does not break fellowship. But the argument from the liturgically-minded in this war is precisely that we are concerned that the esse of the Church is stolen by CoWo double precisely because the theology of this wind of teaching has made “style” a matter of the “esse” of the Word’s efficacy in the churches, which is nothing short of a crass Pelegianism in missiology. *That* is the status of the controversy.

I apologize for using Pastor L. It was late and I was tired.

Pastor Louderback wrote:

“My argument is that they are looking for worship that they understand and that communicates Christ to them where they are.”

And my argument is they are looking for worship they can feel and aren’t concerned as much with Christ where they are but with a practical message. To put it bluntly, I’ve never met a person who wants CW who wants what you say above. I’ve occasionally met a few who said they want to hear Christ in the service and then once that statement is explored mean something different than we Lutherans mean. I.e. they don’t want to hear Christ’s word of Law and Word of Gospel but rather connect Christ with a happy feeling, much the same as Pentecostals tend to connect the Holy Spirit with a happy feeling.

“But you have already stated what the difference is: Christ. If Evangelical services are just law, then our own CoWo services can be completely different in a proclamation of Christ.”

The moreso as we rid ourselves of the taint of CW style with its focus on Law and emotions. And the more you realize the taint of CW style, the more you’ll find the end result being Liturgical Worship, in my opinion of course.

“Well, why have the other stuff if they understand this then? Why drape this with language that doesn’t speak to them or that needs to be explained every time a visitor comes to church?”

Again, I’ve found that people understand most of the language (liturgies update language by the way and still keep it Biblical language wheras CW uses words outside the Bible.) Visitors who are not Lutheran need an explanation precisely because they are not Lutheran- or at least not yet Lutheran. This is where catechesis comes in. If an Evangelical or Baptist comes into a Lutheran church and feels at home that should be a huge warning bell that the service isn’t Lutheran. We are different, we have different theologies- those different theologies are going to make them see our Lutheran services as different until they are taught the errors of their denomination and the truth of the Lutheran Biblical faith. That’s why they call it a conversion. You seem to make the assumption which is a common CW assumption that all Christian denominations are basically the same and one should be able to come into a Lutheran service from an Evangelical service and feel right at home. Or that a nonChristian who has never been taught anything about Christ ought to be able to feel comfortable in a worship service and understand what’s going on. For the nonChristian, they can not understand without the Holy Spirit. They must be taught.

The worship service is not for the nonChristian primarily it is for the believer- the one who has been taught the Lutheran faith. No one who has been taught the Lutheran faith can understand our worship services anymore than they can understand our doctrinal positions. To make our services understandable to the visitor is to remove essential elements of the Lutheran faith or to put it in language that can be understood diffently depending upon your view. Visitors can understand the words but they can’t understand the meaning behind them until they have gone through Catechism.

This goes to the root of the argument that you may not know what you are teaching by the changing of the Biblical language in the service. The liturgical language preserves the truth of God’s Word. CW language in so far as it’s human does not. It is maleable at best in its understanding and wrong at worst. And many of the Biblical quotes in CW are quoted out of context and usually in such a way as to highlight the Evangelical understanding of those passages.

“The difference is, I think we need to approach education in terms of “Here is how to do CoWo better” and you think it in terms of “We can’t do this.”

No, I thought in the same terms as you did, until I found out that we can’t make CW better because it’s not Lutheran or Biblical.

“But that is not the esse of CW. That is what you have experienced.”

The esse of CW can’t be Christ as you have stated simply because it comes from and is used in denominations that do not have Christ in their services and yet still have CW. The primary argument of CW advocates like D. Luecke has been that CW style is neutral and must be infused with the Christ of the Lutheran substance- that is at least a tenable position. But not that Christ is the center or essence of CW. In other words if you can strip Christ out of a CW service and still have CW as is done in other denominations then it’s not the essence of it.

Unless you are defining having Christ differently than the common Lutheran understanding. I suppose it might be worthwhile to ask what exactly do you mean by giving Christ? I’ve made an assumption that we’re talking about the same thing and that may be unfair.

Christ is not the center of liturgical worship either by the way. We had to change the RC mass in order to bring it back in line with the Biblical faith.

What is the difference then? Liturgical worship uses Bible passages almost exclusively. And those “human” words that are used have gone through thousands of years of doctrinal review so to speak. The end result is a worship service that is totally centered upon Law and Gospel. Christ alone.

In an effort to communicate Biblical concepts better than the Bible can, CW uses human words and metaphors- moving us away from the Words of the Bible and to the individual interpretations of the hearers. It places one more obstacle between us and Christ. At best these words and metaphors are maleable in their understanding and at worst they are wrong.

And when Bible passages are quoted (almost never exclusively- the commentary on the quotes providing yet again an obstacle to the unadulterated Words of the Lord) they are often quoted out of context or in such a way that agrees with the Evangelical understanding that so many of our parishioners are listening to on Christian radio and in Christian pop/rock music.

CW also uses songs that are noted for their ambiguity of understanding. I have yet to find a CW song that was theologically specific enough, like say a Luther hymn with all its verses, that an Evangelical would not feel at home singing it- heck the Evangelicals wrote the songs. And while every dog has his day, an Evagnelical or any other denominational song writer for that matter, can’t go far before he’s stepped on Lutheran toes. Even their understanding of faith is different than ours.

Why the necessity for a new service every week, by the way? Why not make up 1 or 2 or 3 CW service and go with that for the rest of time? Changing it and perfecting it? In my talking to others, it’s because the people want novelty and emotion and I don’t think we ought to pander to this particular request. For some people, the same thing over and over again quickly gets boring (well for most people- me included), and I believe this is a result of our sinful Adam which should be crushed by the law and forgiven for Christ rather than pandered to by creating new worship services over and over. This is one aspect of the style of CW that I think is a result of listening to sinful Adams rather than giving the people what they need.

“Once again, I think Lutheran pastors ought to be able to use phrases that are not just vague and meaningless and heretical. You know?”

Great! That, at least is good news. Now the problem may be that I don’t think any pastor wants that either and yet it is done. so it might be worthwhile to see some examples of what you think are not vague, meaningless or heretical CW creeds, confessions/absolutions etc.

“While I always like a blame the victim mentality, the problem is it is not helpful to the situation. The fact is that people are leaving. So…what do we do? Try to do liturgical worship even better? Is that what your solution is for this? Or…what?”

To begin with, the very fact that they are leaving shows us a very imporant thing about those who advocate CW- they don’t have a Lutheran understanding of the faith. If they did, then they could not join any other denomination. This then hints at a solution- better catechesis of the Lutheran faith.

It’s vital to understand what the problem actually is before we provide a solution. If the problem is, they’re leaving because they’re not Lutheran, then we need to do everything we can to make sure that our teaching, words and deeds scream Lutheran while at the same time showing our congregational members the dangers of the other denominations just as much as we show them the dangers of the other religions. We teach what it means to be Lutheran better than we currently are (which I suppose is another discussion and to me part and parcel to the whole CW issue as I believe Lutheran pastor’s have not taught their flock very well since at least the 50′s) and teach against the evil distortions of the other faiths. Teach them to beware of going to Christian Bookstores. Teach them to beware of listening to Christian Radio or tv. Teach them to beware of the false messages in Christian music. Teach them to beware of the false pietistic messages not only in CW songs but also in some of the hymns that are in our hymnals.

The root of the CW problem goes back farther than the current CW trend and involves the inclusion even in TLH of hymns that have helped shift our people’s views of the Lutheran faith ever so slightly until today they are prepared for the more overt messages of CW songs and style.

The Bible says in Matthew 28 to Baptize and teach everything Jesus has commanded us. The Word of the Lord is the only way that people will be converted to the Lutheran faith. CW has made the assumption that to keep these people from leaving- rather than God doing something, I/We must do something. We must compromise with the culture in order to keep the people. I believe in the power of the Word of the Lord to change people’s hearts and teach them the truth of God’s Word- which is the same as the truth of Lutheranism. For those that are converted to Lutheranism, they will never leave the Lutheran faith for the Evangelical faith regradless of the style of worship. They will not be able to.

“Many lay people don’t have the same opinion. But more importantly, many unchurched don’t have that position at all. So, how do we reach out to them?”

This may be another difference between us. The unchurched or at least, unChristian can not worship. It’s impossible since they lack faith, and while a chance hearing of a worship service or a faithful hymn or a faithful sermon may bring faith through the Word and Sacrament, the worship service is not primarily for the unChristian. It is for the believers. The unchurched must be taught before they can understand any worship service- even the CW worship service. They can emmote better in a CW service and that drags them in, but they don’t understand it any better than they can understand the liturgical worship service.

For the unchurched that have a Christian background that is not Lutheran, again, they will not be able to understand the Lutheran substance of a CW service any better than the Lutheran substance of a liturgical service until they are taught from the Word of the Lord. They will go along with their false understanding of the faith until someone corrects them. And since CW words are not distinctively Lutheran and can lead people in many different theological directions, and since pastors will not usually address the false theology of the denomination that they may have come from in catechism classes, that may be a long, long time if ever.

“But once again, you think the response is really one of catechesis? We have not taught our members well enough about the wonders of the liturgy?”

Yes and no. I think we have to think beyond teaching our members the meaning of the liturgy. I think the answer is to teach our members all of what is means to be Lutheran. I don’t think we’ve done this well since the 50′s. Sure, having a section in the Catechism class and Bible Studies about the understanding of certain aspects of the liturgy may be helpful, but for the most part I’ve found that the more people understand Lutheranism and believe in it, the more they understand Lutheran liturgical worship.

For example the members of the church I’m currently attending (not as a pastor) have been taught so thoroughly that the ones I’ve talked to, would never attend any other church than a Lutheran church (and not all of those mind you) and would never even think of attending a CW service in any church Evangelical or Lutheran. The Pastors have taught them the truth of God’s Word from a Lutheran understanding and the dangers of the other denominations including the dangers of CW services. We even have a few converts from the Evangelical churches.

I don’t doubt your intent to bring the Word and the Sacraments centered on Christ to your people, however I just don’t think you understand the taint of CW. It sounds as if you have cleared away some of the more obvious problems of CW, but I’m convinced that as long as a church has CW the service gives an unclear sound- a tainted Christ. And that taint will only be removed as you continue to remove the CW substance and replace it with Lutheran substance.

“It is both. I don’t want to get too distracted by the whole sanctification issue. I would point you to Pastor McCain’s website and his discussion of sanctification. I hold to his position on the issue.”

The main point for this discussion is how is Sanctification used in the Worship service? Have you been influenced by CW style to do something that isn’t Lutheran?

Because the Law always accuses, the Worship service is not the place to retread the Law and call it 3rd use. In fact, you can’t preach 2nd use without understanding the 3rd use. I.e. you can’t understand your sin before God without understanding that this is what God expects of the Christian. When you preach 2nd use- you’re preaching 3rd use. When you preach 3rd use, you’re preaching 2nd use. 3rd use without the Gospel or at the end of a sermon ala Law/Gospel/Law creates either hypocritcal Christians or despair depending on how the hearer hears it. A well taught Lutheran will always hear 2nd use no matter how much you intend it to be the guide (another plug for better catechesis)- only Reformed and Evangelicals and those outside the Lutheran faith lap up the 3rd use as only a guide.

In other words any pastor that tries to bring self-help into his Law/Gospel sermon with steps and encouragement to do better, is in fact accepting the Evangelical position on this and not the traditional Lutheran position. The steps and encouragement are useless. They can do nothing for us, because the problem is our sinful Adam and not a lack of motivation or emotion or even knowledge. You’re people already know what they’re supposed to do for the most part, if for nothing else than because of the 2nd use. Repeating the Law and calling it 3rd use isn’t improving their knowledge any. Christ alone is our sanctification. And if there is any fight against the old Adam to change my ways, it’s from the New Adam as strengthened by Christ through the Word and the Sacraments, not self-help steps, not encouragement, and certainly not closing with a section of Law.

I acknowledge, by the way, the struggle with those who would believe that- I’ve sinned. I’m forgiven. Now I can sin again. This is due in part to a lack of good Lutheran education of the laity and in part to pastors who do not provide specific law in their sermons but rather a vague law that “We’re all sinners. Christ died for you.” End of sermon. This is just as wrong as ending with Law, though on the opposite side of the horse.

“I think some just don’t like to worship in a liturgical style.”

I agree that this is central to our disagreement. If you diagnose the problem differently, you’re undoubtedly going to come up with a different solution. But part of the disagreement may also be in whether liking a worship service should even be an issue. There are many things I hear from the pastor that I don’t like, but I still need to hear it. We agree on that, I’m sure. So what if worship is like that? We may not always like it, but it’s what God wants us to have. To put it another way, I’ve met very, very few even in the CW camp who HATE liturgical worship, they just have a preference.

When asked why would God want us to have Liturgical Worship and not CW? I would say because CW leads us away from Christ, while Lutheran Liturgical worship gives Christ and nothing but Christ. or to put it in your situation Lutheran CW provides Christ in so far as it’s Lutheran and Evangelical theology in so far as it’s CW.

Also, I made the point at the beginning of the paper that I actually like CW songs and music from a human stand point. I like the music. I’ve been moved in CW services. I understand what people are feeling when they say they like a CW service. I even understand what they’re looking for. On the flip side, I’ve sat in liturgical services (more than 1) that I couldn’t stand- the organist was having a hard time. The timing on the hymns was so slow as to literally be unsingable. The sermon was stock. A bad day for the pastor (it happens to all of us). I couldn’t say I enjoyed the service in anyway shape nor form. Yet in the two situations I got nothing but Christ in the liturgical service and got little bit of Christ in the Lutheran CW along with a whole lot of Evangelical law, and Pentecostal emotion. I know, you’re situation is different. So go ahead, show us how it’s different. Give us some examples of a pure Christ CW service.

In Christ,

Rev. Sean L. Rippy

Let me apologize for poor phrasing in the above post #53 in relation to Christ being the center of liturgical worship.

I agree with Pastor Fisk that truly liturgical worship is the sound pattern of words about Christ and that in the example of the RC mass in the above response, they had taken those sound words and added a human understanding, much the same as CW- in this sense, they departed from a truly liturgical worship.

Thus when I said that “the center of liturgical worship isn’t Christ” I was using a short hand and poorly chosen phrase of “liturgical worship” for that which passes as liturgical in other denominations.

I’m sorry for the misunderstanding I may have given people.

Rev. Sean Rippy

Rev. Louderback,

Thank you for participating in this debate. I disagree with you and your position, but I appreciate your willingness to mix it up with us here. Please help me understand your position better by considering my responses to some of what you have written.

You wrote, “You, as a pastor leading a CoWo service, have the authority to say what you want.”

As I understand it the words of the Divine Service are solely the words of God from Scripture. I don’t mean to take your words out of context, but you almost make it sound as if a pastor has some kind of authority in the Church apart form Christ and His word. Presiding over the service means in the stead and by the command of Christ, right? Pastors are not going it alone when they preside.

You wrote, “The fact is that people are leaving. So…what do we do? Try to do liturgical worship even better? Is that what your solution is for this? Or…what?”

The solution is to be as faithful to Christ and His word as we possibly can. He will gather His flock when and where He chooses. The congregation on earth is but a remnant of His flock in His kingdom.

You wrote, “Many lay people don’t have the same opinion. But more importantly, many unchurched don’t have that position at all. So, how do we reach out to them?”

Show them the mercy of Jesus and share the faith Christ has given us. Make disciples and baptize. Tell them what the means of grace mean to us and put them into contact with Lutheran pastors of congregations who can teach them even more and one day administer the sacraments to them. I know many people who have become Lutheran and who love the traditional liturgy. Some of them have even come out churches which practice CW.

You wrote, “When you say ‘As I wrote in my response to you, the reason is because I’ve seen it’ for why CW is not Christ-centered, I think ‘Well, come and worship with me.’”

Many of us can’t come to worship with you any time soon, so maybe you could provide for us one of the services you have designed and let us compare it to one of the Divine Services which have survived the test of time and have been handed down through the centuries. Show us Missouri Synodors how we can improve on God’s word recited in the Divine Services.

You wrote, “Well, why have the other stuff if they understand this then? Why drape this with language that doesn’t speak to them or that needs to be explained every time a visitor comes to church?”

Isn’t all of Lutheran liturgy simply the texts or language of the Bible? Words and language we constantly need to read, learn and meditate on. When you preach there is probably an element of teaching as well to help your congregation better understand God’s word. When you are teaching your potential and life long members in Bible study and catechism classes you are teaching them the same Word and biblical language that are in the Lutheran Liturgy.

Thanks once again for your engaging us in debate.

In Christ,

Ross

And thank you Rev. Rippy for your fine defense of the faith.

As a lifelong Lutheran, former choir director, and all-round music lover, I have struggled greatly with the concept of CW. My congregation offers both forms of worship and justifies this as “personal preference”. Those who disapprove of CW are to keep their mouths shut or risk being scolded or run off by the pastors. Unfortunately, many older, wiser congregants don’t want to “get involved”, and think that “we have to learn to accept change.”

I have tried to determine whether or not I am being unnecessarily judgmental, but after much soul-searching, I keep coming back to the same conclusion. I believe that CW is very much a “dumbing down” of worship. For example, most of the songs are simple phrases that are repeated over and over, ad nauseum. Also, as has been previously stated by others, it very much encourages emphasis on whipping up an emotional frenzy rather than teaching/learning the Word. It is a meal consisting only of whipped cream, skipping the meat and potatoes.

I find the whole spectacle quite embarrassing, because I feel that it fails to give God the fear and respect that He deserves and demands. Having the praise team and praise band up in front where everyone can see and hear them is another example of these people focusing on themselves and their needs rather than humbly coming together to receive God’s gifts in worship.

I am not an old fogy, because I have no problem with listening to modern Christian songs on the radio or at concerts, but they have no place in a house of worship on a Sunday morning. The argument of “keeping the youth interested” is also not valid, because all three of my children were totally horrified when CW was introduced into our church, and they continue to be as offended by it as I.

When our latest pastor introduced CW to our congregation, he,too, claimed that he would be able to make it very properly Lutheran. But as you have pointed out so capably, this was not possible. The sad thing is that he remains very proud of this “accomplishment”, and it is very disheartening to me to feel that I, without the benefit of seminary training, have more wisdom and discernment than the man who shepherds my entire fellow flock.

Thank you very much for allowing me to make these comments.

Shauna: Question: You state that your church offers it as a “personal choice”. Do they do it as 100% of the churches that I’ve seen — traditional is 8AM service and contemporary is 10:30 service? I’d just ONCE love to see them reverse the order of the services, and see how many CW “lovers” are willing to show up at 8AM for service.

If we would be honest with ourselves, we’d admit that most of what passes for CW is hardly contemporary. From what I’ve seen (and I’ve seen plenty), it’s “70′s” not “Contemporary”. If it were truly contemporary, I doubt that anyone would show up.

On the other hand, I’ll venture out on this liturgical limb: Some of the musical settings of the liturgy in LSB are very poor, and could use some melodic sprucing up. They are practically a-tonal, and the organist is challenged not to make the accompaniment sound like “oom-pah”. I have sung in church choirs for 60 years, and directed one for 25 years, and have selected a lot more than one Twila Paris song for choirs. But I know a good tune when I hear one, and I know a poor one, and I know good and proper lyrics & texts as well. What’s more you can’t substitue “Lamb of God” for the Agnus Dei, word-wise. Divine Service IV has all the elements of “orthodox” liturgical worship, and the hymn tunes it uses for the settings are far superior to some of the difficult tunes in other services.
So I raise the question–is it the words or the music that is at the root of the controversy?

I will now run for cover…..

It’s kind of the lack of both, Johannes, vs. grounding in both.
Lack of the Word vs. Word-soaked.
Lack of musicality vs. sophisticated and erudite musicality.
Music is about more than emotional expression, and emotions are more than frenzy or experience.
You are out on a liturgical limb, definitely. I’d put down that saw.

Shauna,
You wrote,”I find the whole spectical quite embarassing, I feel that it fails to give God the fear & respect He deserves and demands”.
In the gambit of comments here, longwindedly my own, I have yet to have seen it spoken so well, and so truthfully.
Well said & well done Shauna, well done.

Calling all Pastors & Elders,
I will put forward a challenge to you all. I am a mere
pew- sitter, but I did this, to UNDERSTAND, the comparision & analogy Christ uses in regards to ALL OF US, & YOU DO COUNT.
Find someone, or through someone, who owns a “herd” of sheep. Find out what animal they use to be the “sentry”, they would be the “shepherd” & “flock” self explaining. Check out & remember the definitions of those terms. Don’t ask many questions before you go into the pen, what to do or not do, just go in. It MUST BE A PEN, as it has 4 walls or fences, (IE church walls). I will give a hint, don’t take anything with you, but what you wear, just walk in, close the gate and sit on the ground…then wait, time is relative, & it may take a while, just WAIT.
Be mindful & aware, of all you see, in regards to what I said above, sentry, shepherd, & flock. Don’t do anything, just sit & watch, and wait. REMEMBER WHAT YOU OBSERVE!!!
The flock will send the youngest, the lambs, even this late in the season. They, ARE DISPOSABLE, replaceable….in spring (hint, hint). Make mental notes, of EVERYTHING THE FLOCK, SENTRY, & SHPEHERD DOES OR DOES NOT DO.
Christ’s comparision is exact, and from my mind & experience, RATHER GENEROUS, at that. Go, find someone, do this, and wait, watch, and give a report here at BJS,of what you saw, in regards to CW, CM, ABLAZE!,TCN, ETC.
I have, I can, I did, for my OWN benefit, to understand what Jesus said.
He most loving & generous indeed. Then, and only then, will you begin to understand the weight of the office you hold, understand who you are given charge over, and how important it is with what Pastor Rippy found, what has been spoken of here, etc. Why, would you place, those put in your charge, KNOWING FULL WELL THE CONSEQUENCES OF THOSE CHOICES, THAT WHICH WILL BE HELD TO YOUR ACCOUNT ALONE, WHY WOULD YOU, HAVING THE SLIGHTEST DOUBT, PLACE WHAT GOD HIMSELF GIFTED TO YOU, ALLOW SUCH A PERIL OR DANGER? I challenge you all, who hold the Divine Office, or elder, to try this.
The OFFICE, is DIVINE, not the one who holds it.
THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN, & CW & CM, REPLACING WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND TRUE, AFTER CENTURIES, REPLACED FOR WHAT GOD HIMSELF HAS NOT ORDAINED NOR TESTED. From what I read here, & what I have personally seen, not felt, SEEN, I trust not that which has not been tested, by better men than we (ok I’m a girl so work w/me here).
My soul is not worth a wager or guess, let alone a “feeling”. Endevor to accept my challenge, you may learn a fair bit of what Christ was so lovingly generous in comparing.

Pastor Mark,

Hello Dear Brother,

Before I comment, I must say that I support much of your rationale IN A LUTHERAN CONTEXT. That is partly why I had to leave and become Orthodox according to my conscience as it is shaped by the Tradition (which includes chiefly Scripture, but also handed down Liturgies with actual names attached to them [Chrysostom, Basil].

When you say that it is possible theoretically for an individual to construct a Christ-centered Divine Service in a particular time and place- you are correct. However, history teaches us that such individuals or movmements inevitably tend to go array without more stringent contraints, or rudders. The Orthodox Church has its Bishops to ensure Liturgical “God-centeredness” by guiding us in that Church to remain faithful to what has been handed down to us (= Tradition). Thus the Faith is safer (although to still be contended for) in the hands of celibate Episkpoi than it is in the hands of mere Presbyters such as you (in a Lutheran context) and I (now in an Orthodox context)- let alone in the orbit of untrained “lay music ministers and SMP “Vicars”. It is all about catholicity! Read Saint Vincent of Lerins for more on that.

Peace

Friar Hackney,
Forgive me, should you not be Friar Hackney, which was ordained at St Elias in March, curious thing though, should you be the man, what would an ordained, in the Antiochian Orthodox Church, (or shall we speak plainly),
Greek Orthodox Church, want or hope to gain, with a small, inconsequencial Lutheran & in the eyes of the church I believe you to be from , who view Lutherans as apostate or lost, or fallen…
why a site, such as BJS?
What is it you seek out here, for your own benefit, or for a benefit not to be found likely here?
Should you not be the man, do I beg of you forgive the/my confusion. Do please clarify, as I have not at this point read a post from such a one from such a thing.

Susan, you and I are usually on the same page, but this time I beg to differ with you, from out here on my theological (or musical) limb, with saw in hand (a musical saw, of course).

As much as I love the liturgy, whether TLH, or LSB, I don’t find the liturgical tunes necessarily either sophisticated or erudite. I’ll put my musical sight-reading skills against almost anyone, and yet, after more than a year of using the LSB, I still struggle with some of the settings. For instance, DS I, the setting of the Gloria, p. 154, is not particularly melodic, but jumps all over the place. Most of the phrases have an eighth-rest before commencing with the melodic line, and the effect is very oomp-ah, especially as the organ is busy doing its own thing in a somewhat steady beat, adding to the oom-pah effect. This detracts from the words, and, in my opinion, degrades them. It may be an attempt to bring a somewhat contemporary “feel” to the liturgy, but that attempt falls flat in my opinion (no pun intended.) OK, pun intended!
The offertory in the same service, p. 159, is marginally better. Here are the marvelous words of Psalm 116, and the music just rambles along somewhat aimlessly, with the organ again oom-pahing its own thing. If I were to suggest a “sophisticated and erudite” melody for this text, it would be “Canonbury” L.M., a melody by Robert Schumann (See LSB 551). It would take some creative poet to set the words to this tune, of course. Here is an elegant melody, joyful, singable, not CW, hardly a “German dirge”, and I have no doubt it honors this particular text.
Enough said–I got places to go and things to do, and I have risked offending you, Susan (I hope I didn’t), and whomever wrote those LSB tunes I dislike. The saw is about half-way thru the branch, but it’s a rather thick branch, being so theologically Lutheran.

If this posting is still around tomorrow, I’ll continue my tirade. I’m afraid to get started on what I consider to be some of the user-unfriendly and musically deficient hymn settings. I think I’ll save that. I wish to emphasize that LSB has much to commend it, and I did vote in favor of it at Convention. I’d give it about a B+. I’d vote for it again.

If anyone wished to join me out here on my theological limb, please bring a few sandwiches and a pitch pipe.

j

To answer my fellow blogger’s question, my congregation’s traditional service is indeed at 8 am, with the contemporary at 1045. This was decided by a cleverly crafted “survey” which quite obviously steered the congregants to agree to that arrangement, although no one seemed to notice the bias in the survey. Now the children’s choirs and special events are ALL done at the contemporary service, because of course no one wants to get up so early with a bunch of kids! So we are raising an entire generation of Lutherans who have no idea what liturgical worship is.

Dutch,
We have a number of Lutheran (ex pastors) who think they have accomplished something by moving East. I don’t know why Pr. Rossow should be “happy” for this one, as (if I understand it correctly) they trade justification by faith alone for obedience to “tradition”. (Moreover the Orthodox have as many sects and variations as western protestantism; you don’t hear about that.)
The sainted Kurt E. Marquart, having been born in Russia (or what is now claimed by Russia), had Orthodox relatives and I heard him speak on the subject. There is also a discussion in the Issues Etc. archives with him and Tod speaking of (eastern) orthodoxy. Worth listening to!
As to what this gentleman is doing here… the Antioch Orthodox in America are so few that any clergyman coming in is a Bishop, but he needs a flock.

So we are raising an entire generation of Lutherans who have no idea what liturgical worship is. –Shauna

Exactly!
We already have a generation well over 21 defending the system as “what most people want” so the scheme is working well.

Helen adn Shauna–re: Lutherans who don’t know what liturgical worship is. That’s only the half (or 1/3) of it. In deprving them of liturgical worship (even if Johannes doesn’t like the tunes), they are starving the children theologically and may in fact, be leading them away from the faith. The Pied Piper of Hamelin (or St. Louis) played a popular and bouncy tune, I suspect, and all the young people loved it–probably had a great beat. But, in marching or dancing to that bouncy tune, they disappeared. If there were a “big box church” (or “Santanasium”) in Hamelin, that’s where they might be found. You are correct–although I’d put quotes on the name “Lutheran”, if you get my drift.

Sandwiches, anyone?

I have to say that I agree with some of the comments by the poster of #66 above, though not necessarily for the same reasons he proposes.

I was listening to an NPR “All Things Considered” broadcast one day in the early 90′s. They had as a guest on that program Thomas Day, who had just published a book entitled “Why Catholics Can’t Sing: The Culture of Catholicism and the Triumph of Bad Taste.” As the interview progressed, it turned out that Day, the head of the music department at a small private Eastern college, was almost always able to detect a student coming from a Roman Catholic background by the disjointed, unsingable chord progression in their class compositions. He went on to point to the negative influence that Irish folk melodies (mostly from Celtic and Gaelic) had on that religious denomination’s music in North America.

I bring this up in point reference to a similar progression that LCMS hymnals seem to have taking during the latter half of the 20th Century. The Lutheran Hymnal contained liturgies that were not only scripturally based, but were set to simple melodies that were singable by almost anyone. The next work, Lutheran Worship, published in the late-70′s/early-80′s time frame as a post-ecumenical bailout effort with some of the soon-to-become ELCA predecessors synods, began the down hill slide, containing some liturgical arrangements that were down right difficult for the average layman to sing. The latest work is just another step down in that same direction.

While it is important that our liturgies contain scriptural lyrics, it is also important that they are set to melodies that are singable by the average non-musically talented individual. Although I agree with many of the comments above about CW music containing wording that is largely “me-centered” instead of God centered (and even un-scriptural in many cases), one of my second complaints about it is that much of cannot be sung by anyone but the very talented vocalists. What good is any of it if hardly anyone can sing it? It is simply a demonstration of arrogance on the part of the praise teams or choirs, looking condescendingly upon those average folks who don’t seem to be able to measure up.

This attitude, too, comes from American Evangelicalism whose views are that, if one is musically talented, then he/she must use that “gift” to the fullest in order to have genuinely worshiped, seemingly leaving everyone else behind in the process, if necessary.

Helen,
I agree, how is it mere sheep see a mayhaps” disguise, & others don’t? I/we have no clue. If this isn’t what is referenced by the verbage, nor what I could “search”,
then the error & fault lie completely with me alone, but… if it is, using the office as a cloak for designs & agendas is unseemly at best, deceit at worst. Sad that those who depend upon, are forced to test & search WHAT & WHO they are asked to depend upon.
Did ya ever think, we would ever have to think, let alone pen these things? If we know what the Word says, yes we should have, we just not may have thought it would be refering to the days we dwell in. Dark but exciting days, but that greatly depends on what & Whom you place your trust & faith on.

You silly confessional Lutherans, don’t you realize that the hymnal does not appeal to the unchurched? I mean, come on, surely you know that worship in the Lord’s House is supposed to be an evangelistic endeavor – an opportunity for unbelievers to gather and decide whether or not to give their lives to Jesus. Gee whiz, read your Bible will ya? Worship in the Bible is always for the unchurched. The Tabernacle (and, later, the Temple) was erected to be a place where the unchurched would be welcomed and hopefully converted to the true faith. And then, when Jesus comes, He clearly demonstrates that His Father’s House is to be a place of informality and entertainment. Why do you think He becomes angry and turns over the tables? It’s because those tables had hymnals on them and He wants to make it clear that He is not into formal rituals and such. All people are welcome to worship as they please in His Father’s House. And, consider the way the early church worshipped. They met informally in homes and did whatever the Spirit moved them to do. Usually, they met in the homes of unbelievers and asked them how they wanted to worship and then did whatever pleased them. They certainly did not have hymnals, for Pete’s sake! Their liturgy was free and open to whatever the unchurched wanted. All you have to do is read the book of Revelation to see that worship is for the unchurched, and that true worship is not liturgical, as you falsely believe. What’s wrong with you people? Don’t you have a heart for unbelievers? There are people going to hell out there and all you’re concerned about is getting your liturgy correct? Give the people on their way to hell what they want. Conform the church’s public worship to their wants and desires. Hymnals do not appeal to the unchurched. Get rid of them, then. Why would you place a stumbling block before people. How will they be able to make a rational and personal decision to accept Jesus as their Lord if you people don’t get them through the door by giving them what they like? You confessional Lutherans need to get with it!

George in Wheaton, Welcome to the limb–it’s thick enough for both of us. Would you like Peanut Butter and Jelly on white, or Ham on rye? Pass the milk, please. (No Kool-aid up here).

j.

Pastor Messer,
What a cheeky fellow you are, TOTALLY RIGHT AS IT IS BIBLICAL, but cheeky, very cheeky.
Thanks for the “cheeky” grin, much needed at this point I wager.

Johannes & George from Wheaton,
Boy, I sure do hope you all are sittin’ in a mighty big tree, cause there are more people in it than just the two of you! Are sandwiches required or elective?

Dutch – forget the sandwiches. A dram of bourbon and a healthy chaw of tobaccy will suffice. (non-Pietists, remember)

George in Wheaton,
Ah um…a wee Dram or boot & tobaccy okay? Unbefitting a lady, YES I KNOW, but a Pimm’s or bubbly doesn’t cut it for me. Ich bin Deutsch, so you can fill in blanks, & I’m doing low carb, so bread is out anyway. Thanks for inviting me to the Crow Feast Party. Before I get there, let me know if ya’ll here any cracking wood noises.

Pastor Rossow,

Thank you for your kind words. I took them in context, and knew that you did not intend to confirm me in my Orthodoxy. I especially commend you for seeing the necessity of having a Liturgy with a definate name and structure in order to preserve the faith.

Dutch,

I do not know what much to say about your post. It speaks for itself.

As for Orthodoxy, it does not limit God’s work outside of the former’s canonical boundaries. Like Lutheranism, it often accepts baptism done in the name of the Triune God, and receives converts by Chrismation and reception of the Eucharist.

Why do I dialogue with Christians of other Traditions of my own? You may want to reverse the question and ask “Why not?” I just finished reading an excellent post on another Lutheran blog where the pastor in charge set forth a great challenge for Orthodox on a Biblical perspective on the wrath of God.

Now if the adminstrators of this site want to limit this blog to “Lutherans only”, I will gladly exclude myself. But the day may come where we (and other creedal Christians) will need each other more than you would ever know. Was Dr.Robert Preus and Dr. Rosenblatt out west out of line when they not only dialogued with, but also formed the “Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals?” At times they would go at it with the Reformed, but it was all in love. If I ever get testy, or cocky, or am out of line with what I say- please forgive me. But any true theological discussing will include hyperbole, passion and at times what appears to be condescension. But when the dust settles, all of us will stand before the same judgement throne.

May God have mercy upon, us and save us!

Helen,

I did not mean to ignore you. Actually, Protestant converts are given much less importance than would clerical converts to the LCMS. In other words, clergy who convert to the LCMS are very likely to receive decent pay, benefits and health insurance. Nothing wrong with that- the LCMS is much larger probably than all Orthodox bodies combined!

In contrast, converting clergy who are ordained to the diaconate or priesthood oftentimes are “worker priests” or earn much less than those serving in the LCMS. Thus, we are hardly viewed as “prizes” or “important”; indeed, oftentimes it is quite the opposite- and probably rightly so.

Peace in Christ

Pastor Rossow,

One more thought. The Western Rite of the Antiochian Orthodox church preserves the ancient Western Liturgy of Saint Gregory the Great. Possibly google it, and you may find some helpful ideas or guidance by examining it.

In Christ

Just got back from my son’s first football game, (full tackle)!
I know someone who was engaged to a member of the Greek Orthodox Church, & wanted to know more about it.
There is a great piece about Pope Saint Gregory I,
St Gregory the Great,
Sr. Catherine Goddard Clark M.I.C.M.-Pope St Gregory I
or you can just google by each title given.

Johannes: Have not been a victim of the oompah-treatment by the organist. But then, I’m the organist, and any oompah on the organ is strictly for Lawrence Welk fans.
I guess you’re looking for something more melodic than chant.
Personally, I think our liturgy may be too accompanied overall, regardless of organists’ errant styles. I imagine that traditional church-folk have become as dependent upon accompaniment by an instrument, as CW congregations are upon a big screen. While us traditionals depend upon an organist’s lead (often at our peril), the CW’s follow the bouncing ball.
But I don’t know any lovelier sound than our small Wed. nite congregation, praying Vespers a cappella.

Susan–I misspoke. I think it’s very difficult for the organist to avoid the oom-pah effect, but, of course, it can be done correctly. I don’t consider the two examples I gave as chant. They are neither melodic nor chant, as far as I’m concerned. If I recall correctly (and the organ part is no longer printed, for reasons that escape me), the organ is playing in half notes, while the “melody” line is moving right along in quarter, eighths, sixteenths, dotted quarters and who knows what. I’m sure that if done right, the oompah disappears. You may be right about more organ than necessary. And don’t get me wrong–I love chanting–it’s not just about melody. But nobody wants to take the time to do chant well–it’s got to “move along”, so much is lost. If you’re going to set the liturgy to something other than genuine chant, then it ought to be singable, reverent, elegant, etc.

I hope I’m making myself clear here.

Rev. Messer makes an incredibly important point. If, as he says, worship is not for the visitor, but for the worshipper–the Christian, then we ought to revisit this whole business. Genuine liturgical worship is counter-cultural, and so, it needs to be learned. That means it needs to be taught. The pastor’s membership classes should include lots of teaching about worship, and the prospective new members need to be brought along somewhat gradually. This opens up a new perspective on worship that needs study, and if I’m correct, a completely new approach. We come to receive God’s gifts–forgiveness of sins, life and salvation–things that are transcendant. Worship needs to be approached that way. One more reason why CW (with or without screens) cannot measure up–it is about as transcendant as a football game.

Back to the limb…(sawing sound…….)

The pastor’s membership classes should include lots of teaching about worship, and the prospective new members need to be brought along somewhat gradually.

Of course.

EJG

Rev. Stefanski–thanks for the “Of course!” But I have to wonder if it’s happening. My guess is that it is not, your “Of course!” notwithstanding.

j

Rev. Stefanski–ooops. I missed the link to the book. Looks like something that ought to be in pastor’s library.

Are you going to write one on Contemporary Worship?

Ooops–time to duck for cover again!! Just kidding. Honest. Really.

j

Johannes, for the ‘Contemporary Worship’ version of the book, you just use the same book…but only read the white space.

EJG

Rev. Stefanski–Let me see if I have this right: The content of that book on CW equals the content of CW. I think that may be an overstatement. I’ll check it out.

j

Friar Hackney,
I never intended to confront you on any personal level, HOWEVER, I am a child of the past, both present & distant how ere you may choose to find thus. I do understand the great differences of our preceptions of the faith, I do know who, Pope St. Gregory, Gregory the Great, Santos Gregor, is, as I am also a child of world/chruch history. If I ran rather rough shot, as in bull in fragile geschaft, forgive me, I beg you. You are new here,(AT VERY LEAST, NEW TO ME HERE). I have seen 3=5 ELCA families depart the Lutheran demonination in preference to the Roman Catholic one. I do & is understandable, look upon such injections with a degree of suspicion. I do grieve the fact, that by my inept verbage, I gave you cause, for my words to you to doubt your Faith, as both of ours, are rather, different. You just seem, as I have been here since January 2009, to be the first, of the “Returned Orthodox” faith, to comment here, on rather a sticky wicket of a subject.
We or some, have read comments from the Vatican or those subject of the Vatican, have made the call for “repentance” for all Lutherans, “maybe they will depart their heresy, repent, & seek out the TRUE CHURCH”. (My Italian & Latin are sorely lacking, spoken per the recent ELCA decision. I read many an EU & International paper every morning, so I have a very immature knowledge of such. Forgive any inference that I doubted you committment to CHRIST HIMLSELF:

SOLA SCRIPTURA, SOLA FIDE, SOLA GRACIA, SOLA CHRISTOS.

That error was mine alone. So much for limb sitting.
I am rather a “top chef” of how to plate crow, how to make it palpable, never tasty, but palpable, as not to choke on said when consuming.
However, as most here are rather unaware of,
Pope St. Gregory the First, St Gregory the Great, Gregory the Author, I do beg more info for their sakes.
LCMS website has a fair bit, however, it does negate what it posts, depending upon the date published.
I am truly sorry, if I personally offended you, however, you must take into account (though you may not be aware) of my experience, my departure from LCMS to WELS, and the reasons therein. I offer my hand in conceedence, do you offer yours? I do pray so, as I intended to confront you post & stand, Fr., not your personal Faith. Curious, how is it the “capital letters, a note of respect” are rarely
used, here, there or anywhere?

As the volunteer choir director at my church, I have occasionally written worship services that make substantial use of contemporary music (with the oversight of my pastor). My approach involves applying a rather strict filter to any music being considered. Songs must be:

1. Doctrinally sound.
2. Singable.
3. Clear in what its lyrics communicate.
4. Not overly repetitious.
5. Without language that says, in effect, “This is what I’m doing for you, Lord.”
6. Without language that focuses on — or seems to require — feelings of personal spiritual elation. (Certainly the focus is best on the Reason for joy, regardless of the degree to which joy might be felt at the moment.)

A very small fraction of the published music that I have reviewed passes that filter. But among the pieces that make the short list, the use of selected contemporary songs within a familiar liturgical structure has had the effect — as God has given the grace — of eliciting among our church members a refreshed appreciation of what our worship entails. Some lyrics that have been consistently fitting are these:

Between the confession and absolution:
“Create in me a clean heart O God and renew a right spirit within me.”

Following the absolution:
“The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases. His mercies never come to an end. They are new every morning. Great is Thy faithfulness, O Lord.”

Where the Sanctus is normally sung:
“Alleluia, for the Lord God almighty reigns! Holy, holy, you are Lord God Almighty. Worthy is the Lamb. Amen! ”

Before communion:
“Come let us worship and bow down.
Let us kneel before the Lord our God, our Maker
For He is our God and we are the people of His pasture
And the sheep of His hand.”

Post-communion:
“My God, you are my God, and I will ever praise you.
I will seek you in the morning, and I will learn to walk in your ways
As step by step you lead me. And I will follow you all of my days.”

Closing:
“He who began a good work in you will be faithful to complete it.”

We continue to use hymns with the contemporary liturgy. A well-crafted contemporary service conducted with due reverence will not clash with the musical idioms common to our cherished Lutheran hymns, I should think, but accommodate expressions of worship from many times and places.

Dutch,

Orthodoxy has even responded to its various challenges by developing in its praxis. That is why it now has only celibate Bishops, but ealier in its history it knows that it once had married ones. In the same way, I was trying to be helpful to my brothers by suggesting a real, named, identifiable Liturgy. As for Gregory the Dialogist (as he is known in the East), the Western Liturgy bears his name. I ask that at his intercession the many godly western christians may once again find stability in what was once their heritage and treasure; and the means by which they received the body and blood of Christ.

Friar Hackney,
God’s Grace & Peace be to you! I am SO VERY THANKFULL YOU RESPONDED TO MY COMMENT TO YOU, I have watched, as I offended you, & have offered my hand, in philos (I’m a girl, so I don’t the latin term for it) to you.

Friar Hackney, in what you so lovingly wrote, that would be the sticking point for us, would it not? The definitions of praxis & orthodoxy, between you & I. I am aware (though inept & immature as I may be) the basic definitions of yours, as you are aware of mine. Mine, myself, mine, have always begun to be defined, beginning with a Book, or rather a love letter. And of course, a list, of 95 questions, nailed to a door, by a wee man named Martin Luther. That is where we so very much differ, you & I. How could I return, to something, which was “exposed & questioned” so eloquently, to be out of orthodox, according to the Scriptures, over 600 or so years ago, by so much better than I? My intercession, knowing full well your great concern for me & those here, has always depended upon, began, and shall end with SOLA CHRISTOS.
Christ promised us that in His Word, above & beyond the created. Hence one of the many differences in our orthodoxy & praxis. I do pray, you have found His Peace & Comfort in what you sought, as I, have so mercifully & Grace filled, found in mine, (S.C, S.F, S.S. & S.G!). I do pray you can take the offer of repentance as to my offence to you, but that, is all I can truly offer in this. I cannot depart, that which has, been proven true, in the Faith & Denomination, in which I have been instructed, tested, and accepted. As you, have chosen yours.
Most respectfully,
In Christ Always,
Dutch

My apologies.

There have been several good questions and comments asked of me here and I have not gotten back to them.

I’m sorry about that. I do not mean to do a drive by or some hit and run. I do intend to answer questions and give responses and continue the discussion.

I beg for a bit more time that’s all. Of course, threads like this have a life cycle and this one might be dead already. Nevertheless the issues that are being discussed are not dying out soon. So for me the discussion is still important and one I would like to continue.

Just not yet. Not today. Thanks for your patience.

@Rev. Eric Stefanski #4
The typo has been corrected. Also, the references to the Confessions have been adjusted, where possible, to the locations of the bookofconcord.org references.
Thank you, Pr. Rippy, for this article.