THOSE BUZZWORDS

I know language changes. And some new words are helpful. "Trinity" doesn't actually occur in the Bible. Neither does "Sacrament." Those words were new at one time, and they serve the Church weel. So some of the new buzzwords may be OK. Accordingly, I am going to withhold critique of "missional" as a buzzword, though it tends to irritate me. Certainly the book of Acts describes the mission of the early church, and we have always sent and supported "missionaries". Church usage is normative, so I'll agree with Dr. Gibbs' assertion, made at the conference, that "God is in the gaps" between "Scripture and the Confessions". He works through His church. Through working with the Word, the Church came up with "Trinity" and "Sacrament". So maybe some of the new words like "missional" will turn out OK.

But given the frequency and novelty of some of these terms today, I think it is fair to ask whether the church being shaped by the world - rather than by the Word - when we use so many buzzwords that carry either modernist or post-modernist freight.

Sure, some of these words might serve the Church well. For example, there was much talk of "context". Certainly there is much truth in the proposition that those who preach and teach need to be sensitive to the situation of their hearers. One does not preach in a language the hearers do not understand. One must teach at a level the hearers can comprehend. Properly used, "context" might become a 21st-century American English equivalent of the Lutheran theological Sitz im leben ('setting in life").

But "contextual" if often used in our culture to justify "whatever works", or "what is true for me may not be true for you." It is the way our public university English and History teachers speak. Accordingly, it has post-modern baggage connected to other buzzwords I heard often at the Conference and also at the regional "Blue Ribbon" gathering I attended in Madison: perspective, relative, impact, diversity, empower and community. None of these words are necessarily wrong when used carefully. But they all stem from the world of relativism. So careful use should also mean minimal use, lest the words echo in the body of Christ and overwhelm the commonsense, Biblical way in which the Church has historically spoken: see, confess, convict, nations, save, and communion.

Words matter. They define us. So I think we need ask ourselves a couple of questions. Are we sharing different glimpses of glory in a passionate way so that we can grow stronger by enlarging the numbers of our faith community? Or are we to share what we have seen with our neighbor, that they may know the truth, and be freed to join us at the Lord's table?

The former is the way of organizations marketing themselves to religious consumers. The latter is what we read about in the Scriptures. Can we have it both ways?

LCMS "MTCOW": continued

I think I'll start referring to the "Model Theological Conference on Worship" simply as "MtCow". It wasn't exactly a holy mountain - but we did 'ascend' to the LCMS capital of St. Louis and live in the ether of ideas there for three days. So here is the next of my many thoughts to share:

ON EVALUATING WORSHIP

One of the delegates at my table struggled with the idea that one could "evaluate worship". I found this interesting, since we were all there to discuss the theology of worship and so presumably would have some objective standards. I tried to explain some of the criteria Bishop Stoterau had referenced earlier in our table talk, to little avail. I couldn't persuade her that there were vaild, objective criteria by which one can measure worship.

I thought of her when I filled out the survey asking for us to evaluate every aspect of each service we attended. Would she fill it out, given that she really didn't think one could evaluate worship? Or would she fill it out on the basis of simply sharing feelings or "perspective" - i.e. on a purely subjective, self-expressive level, without any objective basis? I'll have to send her an email and ask.

I suspect that while some of this resistance to evaluating worship is simply the cultural influences of relativism and post-modernism, something else is at play here: the fides quae/fides qua distinction I've noted earlier this blog. If one is exclusively concerned with expressing the fides qua, viewing worship essentially as a means of expressing one's personal faith experience, then one is going to be loathe to make any sorts of value judgments. After all, who can look into another's heart?

I think the biggest challenge facing the LCMS in worship today is to get the "fides qua" folk to understand that those who lead worship are first and foremost responsible for the "fides quae", ie. the faith by which we are saved. Yes, on a personal level, one cannot really evaluate how someone worshipped, but on a corporate level, yes we do dare evaluate: on the basis of Scripture and the Confessions.

That this is not universally understood and accepted by pastors and other rostered church workers in the LCMS is troubling. Faith itself is at risk if worship is not about delivering "the faith once delivered to the saints," but rather about enabling worship that has "impact" and "motivates".

I'll talk about the import of some of the buzzwords I encountered in my next post.

LCMS Worship Conference: The Conversation

I suspect that many of our readers upon reading that title might ask, "Are we still talking about the 'national worship conference' in Seward from 2008?" No, that was the triennial conference hosted by the LCMS Commission on Worship. What just happened in St. Louis was the "Model Theological Conference on Worship", which the synod in convention directed be held in order to attempt to resolve our conflicts over worship. I'm going to have several short posts about this over the next few weeks, as there is much to digest, and as these conferences are now supposed to continue at the District level. But, for now, I'd just like to put two short items:

1 - For those who knew not or new little of this conference, this reminder for everyone about the official purpose of this conference should be helpful: "to build greater understanding of our theology of worship and foster further discussion of worship practices that are consistent with that theology."

2 - And now for my first of many short observations to come that I hope might continue our conversation together on this important issue:

The conference worship was graciously hosted by our brothers and sisters at Concordia-Kirkwood. They have a beautiful facility, excellent musicians, and are a most hospitable congregation. They deserve everyone's grateful appreciation for their efforts. Their musicians ably led the services planned with them by the Commission on Worship. Though the Commission oversaw the planning, I presumed that we had mostly contemporary sounds because of the musicians available, and mostly traditional content liturgically because of the Commission's oversight and because of Concordia's commitment to historic texts. In other words, we were pretty much experiencing worship at Concordia, not "model" worship.

So I thought it interesting that the questionnaire we received about the conference had many questions about the music, ceremony, and rites we experienced together. It appears instead that the several services are being considered as models of the "variety of responsible practices" referred to in the synod constitution (III:7), to which the convention resolution referred and about which we were supposed to discuss at the conference. This was not made clear to us when we gathered. Sure there were many discussions about the services among the delegates - we are pastors and musicians, after all! - but now that I am considering these as models I find it curious that the musical style of 3 of the 4 services at Concordia was identical, and that the "traditional" model lacked the fullness one would associate with model traditional worship (other than the excellent children's choir from the day school that sang a Voluntary).

Indeed, the worship was all on a rather narrow band for a conference that was supposed to discuss variety. I'm not sure why that was. I am sure that we could have had: choral settings of stanzas of hymns, more variety of psalmody, brass, other instruments, and also a more representative example of "real" contemporary worship. (Many delegates commented that if the "contemporary" worship we experienced at Concordia were representative of what is happening in synod as a whole, we would have not had a synod resolution to have this conference to begin with.)

I'm going to ask Commission members for their thoughts on this. I realize there is only so much one can do with five services, but it does seem to me an opportunity was lost.

SHE HELD THAT NOTE!

On the other side of the worship spectrum, a relative of mine reported on worship at her church this past Christmas Eve. The contrast between what was sung at our traditional, liturgical service and what was sung at hers was striking. Here's a taste of what is going on out there in the world of "contemporary" worship, just in case you were wondering about what a "praise band" does on Christmas Eve:

"Don't get so busy that you miss Giving just a little kiss To the ones you love.

Don't even wait a little while To give them just a little smile. A little is enough.

See how many people are crying. Some people are dying.

Chorus: So don't save it all for Christmas Day.

Find a way to give a little love every day.

Find a way 'cause holidays have come and gone

But loves lives on if you give on love."

Etc.

So there you go. The theology of Celine Dion instead of the doctrines of Christ. No Gospel. Just an exhortation to be nice. All year. Not just on Christmas Day. Because it is up to us. "Love lives on IF. . . ". This is what more people hear in Church these days. Including many children. Lord, have mercy!

The performance of this music reinforced the man-centered lyrics. Here's the report:

"There's a girl in the band who usually sings backup, but they gave her this solo on Christmas Eve. The usual lead singer wasn't there, and so she was sort of getting her chance. Well, we all just couldn't believe how she nailed this long note toward the end of the song. It was just amazing. And as she held it we all just started to applaud. It was so awesome."

There are many who want to ignore the worship wars going on in Christendom today, and let everyone do what they think is right in their own eyes in the name of "freedom." Certainly our Lord gives us much freedom in how we are to worship Him, but I don't think this is what He has in mind for us.

I do know that not all churches dabbling in "contemporary worship" would have this song sung in the Divine Service. But this is the well they drink from, and I encounter things like this every time I go on the road and visit a church's "contemporary worship service."

C.S. Lewis used to say that "he who doesn't believe in God will believe in anything." I think it is fair to observe also that apparently he who doesn't sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs will sing anything.

NOEL!

So what's your choir singing for Christmas? We at Liturgy Solutions would love to hear from you. We hope your preparations have all gone well, and that you and your singers make the hearts of all in your sanctuaries glad.

Here at Bethany, we are looking forward to the following highlights:

5pm - Schola Canotrum (and flute trio)
*Quempas Carol
*Ding-Dong, Merrily, on High
*Verse for Christmas Eve (Hillert, from NPH series)
*Willcox descants on "Oh, Come, All Ye Faithful" and "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing"

7pm - Vocal Quartet (w/ Bethany Brass accompanying congregational song)
*Elise B. Calhoon sings "O Holy Night"
*Stanzas of various hymns sung in Liturgy Solutions' arrangements, including:
-Once in Royal David's City
-O Sing of Christ
-Of the Father's Love Begotten
-O Little Town of Bethlehem
*Dr. Jennifer Barnickel-Fitch sings "Gesu Bambino"

11pm - Proclaim
*What Sweeter Music (Rutter)
*Gradual for Christmas Day (Stephen R. Johnson, Liturgy Solutions)
*In the First Light (Glad studio chart)
*Some Children See Him (Burt)
*Willcox Descants (of course!)
*Elise B. Calhoon sings the Wexford Carol
*Choir sings stanza 1 of Stille Nacht (in German)

Christmas Morning - Elise graciously returns to sing Wexford again. (Thank you, Elise!) Many choir members were willing to sing Christmas AM as well, but I didn't plan voice parts accordingly and, with the divisi on the Rutter, Glad, and Burt, we decided not to have those for Christmas morning.

Which leads to my last question, besides what you are singing, WHEN are you singing? Does your choir do both Christmas Eve and Christmas Day? Do they do two services on Christmas Eve (like Bethany's Proclaim did last year)?

"Joy, O Joy, beyond all gladness,
Christ has done away with sadness!
Hence all sorrow and repining,
For the Sun of Grace is shining!" (LSB 897, refrain)

A Sinless Christianity

The hymnody of the Lutheran tradition serves a role of teaching or catechesis. For me, this was a very unfamiliar idea until a number of years ago when I listened to a lecture given by my now, very good friend, Leonard Payton. The idea was clear in his presentation, namely, that the Word of Christ dwelling in us richly is obtained through the appropriate teaching and admonishing of ourselves with Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs (Col. 3: 16). He used the Levitical practice of the Old Testament to illustrate this and pointed to a memorized tradition as being the norm for ancient Israel. When we realize that the Psalms and many portions of the prophets were sung for memory and internalized by the people, we can begin to get a glimpse of what it means for the Word of Christ to dwell richly in us.

Our hymnody teaches on every imaginable doctrinal subject. It is vast and didactic – just like the Psalms. How anyone can use the Psalms to justify simplicity in our worship music remains for me, puzzling.

I was struck by a little tidbit of information regarding a hymn in our Lutheran tradition, All Mankind Fell in Adam’s Fall. A line from this hymn by Lazaraus Spengler is actually quoted in the first article of the Formula of Concord (Epitome), which states:

We believe teach and confess that original sin is not a slight corruption of human nature, but that it is so deep a corruption that nothing sound or uncorrupted has survived in man’s body or soul, in his inward or outward powers. It is as the church sings, “Through Adam’s fall man’s nature and essence are all corrupt.”

It is telling, by the way, that in the Formula of Concord, one of the most important confessional writings of the Lutheran Church, the first article is entitled “Original Sin.” Without sin as the preexisting condition, proper contemplation of the Gospel will be impossible. It is upon this dark canvas of original sin that the Gospel may be painted in all its gloriousness.

I like to listen to a contemporary Christian radio station in my area. I do not listen for the reasons that most people do. I listen to remain aware of the latest in that genre. I like to keep up with the new songs, new artists and what is contained therein so that I am knowledgeable when I speak with friends and colleagues in other denominations. Well, I have been made painfully aware that the music of this genre does not discuss sin. It does not show the depth of the fall. It does not illustrate that “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin…”

No, the concept that this musical genre communicates is that I am troubled and need assistance. Maybe I am depressed. Maybe I am hurting. Maybe I have a bad habit, or see a therapist, or have baggage from my dysfunctional upbringing. Maybe I have a low self-image. At any rate, the purpose for following Christ is that he then gives me the pathway to live victoriously over all these things. Eventually, if I do everything right and follow the “principles” Christ has given me in his Word, I may even be able to stop seeing that therapist, stop smoking, drinking, chewing, or whatever my problem may be.

If this is the essence of sin, we do not need a Savior. There is no original sin in this picture, and, therefore, nothing from which we need forgiveness. The contemporary Christian music genre speaks very little about confession and forgiveness. Christ is not a Savior in these songs as much as a helper and a buddy who’s always there for me in the hard times. Jesus helps me get over my problems, he encourages me, tells me everything is going to be OK and even “holds me in his arms” as some songs say, –– but he does not forgive me! So I can quit smoking, say bye-bye to the therapist, become a better, more positive person, and help lots of other people do the same, yet still die in my sins. Our sinless Christianity cultivates Christians who trust Christ for for comfort, help, and encouragement, but not for forgiveness. Is this the Christ of Scripture, who dies on the cross? For what? To be our life coach or buddy?

The contemporary radio station reflects the thinking of a great many mainstream Christians. Theirs’ is a Christianity without original sin. It is a faith that thinks our problem is far less serious than it is. And hymns like “All Mankind Fell in Adam’s Fall” are not sung in most Christian churches and has even fallen out of use, regrettably, in the Lutheran tradition, from whence it came. When hymns like this are jettisoned, we fallen men and women have very little to remind us of our biggest problem. This leads to our justifying ourselves, rationalizing and thinking that we are not so bad. There really is no true Christianity without the doctrine of original sin. We, as people of the Reformation, need to be aware of this flawed view, so prevalent in our day. To embrace a sinless Christianity is to embrace an impotent cross and an ineffective Christ. Bypassing original sin in our doctrine bypasses the work of Jesus to forgive that sin and leads to a tepid faith that seeks personal achievement and success, dare I say works righteousness, rather than the peace and comfort of sins forgiven.

I am grateful that God, in his grace, uses hymns like All Mankind Fell in Adam’s Fall, to remind me of the depth of my sin, and of God's lavish forgiveness of that sin in Christ.

All Mankind Fell in Adam’s Fall
One common sin infects us all
From sire to son the bane descends
And overall the curse impends.

From hearts depraved and evil prone
Flow thoughts and deeds of sin alone
God’s image lost, the darkened soul
Seeks not nor finds it heavenly goal.

As by one man all mankind fell
And, born in sin, was doomed to hell
So by one man who took our place
We all received the gift of grace.

A Baptismal Liturgy for Post-Modern Americans

THE RITE OF HOLY BAPTISM

P: We rejoice this day in the gift of new life which our heavenly Father bestows upon us in and through Baptism. We are pleased to share this celebration with many guests this day, and so begin by welcoming our visitors today.
C: We welcome you in the name of the Lord.
P: Yes, that's right, we are all glad you are here. And it is OK if you don't participate in the service. We know that the Lutheran service may be foreign to you. But don't worry:
C: We will sing the hymns for you.
P: And pray the prayers.
C: And confess the Christian faith.
P: You can just take it all in, and through the Word you will hear today, we trust that the Lord's will shall be done in your hearts.
C: That's how He works!
P: And if you feel so moved as to join us in worship, the bulletins you received on the way in have the order of service for this day.
C: And hymnals are in the pew racks in front of you.
P: Yes, this is a worship service.
C: We actually believe God will be present with today.
P: And so we consider this sanctuary to be "the Lord's house",
C: Not your house. Not our house. But God's house.
P: And so we do ask that you respect our customs, even though you may not understand or agree with them.
C: For this is where we worship our God. It is a holy place.
P: And so we ask that you not take flash pictures during the service.
C: Such distractions are offensive to us.
P: You may record the baptism with flash-free photography if you wish or wait until after the service, when I will be happy to re-enact any part of the Rite of Holy Baptism for your benefit. But during the service we want to keep the focus on what God is doing today through His Word.
C: For without God's Word, the water is plain water, and no baptism.
P: But with the Word of God, it is a baptism, that is a life-giving water, rich in grace,
C: And the washing of the new birth in the Holy Spirit.
P: So, please, let us turn off all cell phones and flash bulbs and put away everything that hinders us.
C: that we all may hear His Word, and gladly hear and learn it.

the service then continues according to the rite as it appears on page xxx in the hymnal...

---

Yes, the paparrazi were at Bethany again today. Two baptisms in one service. All flash all the time. Our pastors don't want to say anything; our ushers aren't comfortable with addressing this either - even though they have directions about this in the usher manual and it has been brought up the last two usher meetings. And the Elders have put a statement in the bulletin, but the kind of folks who flash away in the Divine Service don't look at the bulletin. They are just here to observe (and record) the Baptism.

So what does one do? I realize my ersatz 'Creative Worship' - style liturgy is over the top. And I hope you got some chuckles out of it. I find the satire theraputic. But the problems remains, and we have no "solutions" for it here at LS. Anyone have any ideas?

I have a feeling we are going to have to endure more and more of this kind of a thing as our national culture become more post-Christian.