Bring back "Issues, Etc."!
Friday March 28, 2008
Categories: Culture
I'm a guest from time to time on Issues, Etc., a smart, lively radio talk show about faith and culture produced by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Come to find out the show has been abruptly canceled. M.Z. Hemingway, an...
Filed Under: LCMS
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Rod, I am not familiar with that radio show, but will take your word concerning its value. I'm always sorry to see smart traditional Christianity go down the tubes, so in that respect I sympathize with your point. However, I do think its worth pointing out that there is a lot more going on in the LCMS than a struggle between traditionalist and contemporary approaches. My wife comes from one of the leading families of the LCMS, whose father, brother, grandfather, four uncles and two cousins have all been LCMS pastors (and dang conservative ones, at that). We belonged to the LCMS for the first 10 years of our marriage, and then left. Her brother, still an LCMS pastor and theologically a VERY traditional guy, says that the church is dying because it continues to cling to a very ethnically German approach (as our country gets less and less ethnic in that regard). My wife agrees. And even though I was only a member of the denomination for 10 years, I agree as well. In the "old style" LCMS circles, if you don't have an obviously German last name you are SOL. Everything in those churches is drenched in German ethnicity (although the people who grow up there don't always recognize it as such). My wife is the first in her particular family to marry someone who isn't 100 percent German (my blood is only 40% German), but because of that experience now realizes how stifling the ethic thing can be within the LCMS. Years ago, the LCMS pushed out the theological liberals and moderates, so there really is no risk of wild-eyed liberalism within the LCMS. The only folks left in the LCMS are pretty conservative in theology. Yes, a few have tried to push the "seeker sensitive" stuff that comes from Willow Creek and other megachurches. I don't like that approach, either. But much of the controversy in the church is not over that. Its really over whether the church should remain an ethnic denomination or whether instead it should tone down the ethnicity in order to serve a population that is less and less concerned with "Germanicity." My wife and I think that if the church is going to survive in this century, it needs to find a way to hold onto theological traditionalism while toning down the ethnic overtones.
But much of the controversy in the church is not over that.
I couldn't disagree more. It is precisely over that. Even though I am Roman Catholic I am of German ethnicity (100%) and half my family is Lutheran. I am well familiar with the LCMS and have always applauded that Lutheran body for its firm adherence to Word and Sacrament in the classic catholic sense.
Issues, Etc. was a fine program, very much for the thinking Christian. It is a shame that it has been cancelled and is further proof of the American evangelical mindset that has invaded the LCMS since the presidency of Gerald Kieschnick.
When Doctor Alvin Barry (who was decidedly NOT German, but Irish) lead the LCMS its doctrinal integrity was solid. The "German" influence has retained many of the Reformation's theologically sound as well as beautiful hymns and has been a bulwark against the syncretism now found in larger Lutheran bodies.
If the LCMS goes the way of Willow Creek it will be a very sad loss for Confessional Lutheranism.
Rod:
Like you, I have been a guest on Issues, Etc. many times. Jeff Schwartz is a class act. It is a real shame what has happened. Thanks for posting this.
Frank
The LCMS is an aging denomination that is not gaining any new members. While one can question the wisdom of the seeker and emerging movements, at least they are bringing people to Christ. It's admirable to support the Confessional types, but they'd prefer to pray alone than bend on how to attract people to Christ.
I feel a strange kinship to M.Z.
Go figure.
at least they are bringing people to Christ. It's admirable to support the Confessional types, but they'd prefer to pray alone than bend on how to attract people to Christ.
Oh that's totally, totally unfair.
Bringing people to Christ? Getting them to stay is another matter entirely. Jesus says that we are to be faithful unto death and He will give us the crown of life. The health, wealth, and prosperity Gospel are foreign to the New Testament.
The "decision" theology of much Evangelicalism is inimical to the Biblical view of salvation, which is worked out in a lifelong fidelity to Christ, not being able to name the date when one was "saved".
Lutherans are among the most gracious Christians on the planet.
Rod,
I don't think that your characterization of emergents as those who go after church marketing is correct. Most "emergent" type pastors and laity are trying to recover the traditional models of church in post-modern ways, as we disdain what church marketing and pop-Christianity has done to American Christianity. Such "emergent" leaders as Scot McKnight, Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, John Franke, Shane Claiborne, Tim Keel, etc. participate in various degrees in what Christianity Today recently chronicled as Ancient-Future worship: things like new monasticism, lectio divina, labyrinths and directed prayer are not proponents of marketing or church growth---these aren't seeker sensitive things here. Seems like this is more a quantity vs. quality issue.
Thom
Leader of EmergentNJ, the cohort of Northern New Jersey
Daniel,
Are they bringing people to Christ or just into the church - usually by holding out a lump of sugar rather than presenting them with Law (when necessary) and Gospel?
Bringing people to Christ? Getting them to stay is another matter entirely.
And the current LCMS Confessional approach is failing on both accounts.
Failing on both accounts? Come visit St. Paul's, Hamel, my friend. We're confessional, liturgical, sacramental. We just opened a daycare/preschool to spread the gospel to little ones in our community; we offer a dayschool education from K-8 together with our sister parish in Worden, IL. We work together with other churches in our area on projects of mercy to assist the poor and struggling. We support a variety of mission projects, choosing a new one each quarter.
Where does the strength come for our mission? From gathering at the Lord's Altar in the Divine Service, feeding on His body and blood, and living out the life that He gives there in the world. We really don't need any "emergent church" - we just need to be Lutherans and not ashamed of it. It's a great joy!
We really don't need any "emergent church" - we just need to be Lutherans and not ashamed of it. It's a great joy!
But as a denomination, the LCMS is losing members. The reason people turn to the emergent church is to see how they are able to get some many people--so many young people--in the seats every Sunday to find Christ.
Outside of the Evangelical movement, traditional churches are having trouble keeping members and attracting new ones. The recent data on the Catholic church illustrates that. The LCMS has declining membership. The OCA has declining membership. While the numbers aren't as steep as the mainline denominations, they defy the notion that conservative churches are growing. They aren't. They, too, are declining.
So we have to ask questions about how we bring more people to Christ and God's work. The emerging churches have one approach.
Again, I'd invite you to St. Paul's. We have so many little kids you can barely hear yourself pray at the late service sometimes. The Lord asks of us faithfulness, not success. When the numbers are there, we celebrate and rejoice. But when the numbers are not there, the assumption is not that the Lord's means somehow have failed and we need to come up with better ones of our own. His Gospel Word does the job or it doesn't get done. Anything that holds one to the Church aside from the Word of the Gospel isn't really holding them to the Church at all - though it may put bodies in the pews. The one thing Issues, Etc. was great on was giving the laity the tools to check out whether what was being handed to them in the homily was Gospel or not. In technical terms: no kerygma, no Gospel! In less technical terms: no Jesus bloodied and dead, risen and glorified and coming again in the sermon, it wasn't the Gospel by which we are being saved. "I was determined to know NOTHING among you but Jesus Christ and Him crucified." When the Lutheran parishes remember that, they have the power of God for salvation and that's all they need.
If you are focused on the number coming in, you also need to focus on the number leaving and where they are going.
I thought the emergent "post-modern" way of doing church was interesting for a while. But I eventually left the church altogether. I wanted nothing to do with any form of church. Ditto for many of my friends. Some of them became agnostics or atheists. Some of us, by the grace of God, came back to the church. What attracted us was the doctrine upon which the LCMS is founded, its Law/Gospel proclamation, its connection to the historic, apostolic faith, but most importantly the means of grace delivered to us in the sacraments.
If you are focused on the number coming in, you also need to focus on the number leaving and where they are going.
I thought the emergent "post-modern" way of doing church was interesting for a while. But I eventually left the church altogether. I wanted nothing to do with any form of church. Ditto for many of my friends. Some of them became agnostics or atheists. Some of us, by the grace of God, came back to the church. What attracted us was the solid doctrine upon which the LCMS is founded (Christ-centered and Cross-focused!), its Law/Gospel proclamation, its connection to the historic, apostolic faith, and especially the means of grace delivered to us in the sacraments.
Mr. Harbaugh,
Your words remind me of something I once heard my beloved Dr. Nagel say: "Uncounted are the multitudes who then write off the faith as just one more instance of being huckstered."
Daniel,
If growth is your modus operandi --
Why not join the Mormons?
They're the fastest growing American church...
And I don't see them doing happy clappy and sticking their finger in the air to follow the latest church fad. I see them teaching their people their faith, and teaching it well...something some LCMS pastors could
take a lesson from.
I'd like to amend my last half-sentence from "some LCMS pastors" and add,
"and the St. Louis LCMS bureaucrats." I know many faithful LCMS pastors who aren't being lured by the Siren Song of happy-clappy modernism.
"But as a denomination, the LCMS is losing members. "
Let me reply: so what.
Is the church's job to remain faithful, and orthodox,
or to "grow" and "increase"? Obviously, it'd be nice
to have both, but if we need to tickle ears to grow,
sorry, I'll take decline instead.
Why is church growth the be-all end-all?
No hard feelings.
- Tim
Is the church's job to remain faithful, and orthodox,
or to "grow" and "increase"? Obviously, it'd be nice
to have both, but if we need to tickle ears to grow,
sorry, I'll take decline instead.
That's fine, I guess, but if bringing people to Christ and God is a purpose of the church, then declining membership and no growth is something of a failure.
Mainline denominations are often lambasted for losing members, using that as a yardstick of their irrelevance and failures. If we are going to criticize the Episcopal church or the Methodist church for losing members for their liberalism, isn't it also to question the LCMS and the OCA for similar losses that could arguably attributed to their conservative nature?
It is the assumption that the losses are attributable to their "conservative nature" or not that is what I find questionable. I've known lots of LCMS folks who have drifted from our Synod after their Church became like the Church of What's Happening Now down the street. Once they got used to the Church of What's Happening Now style, they recognized that the real deal wasn't with the Lutherans playing at it, but with the big non denom place. If the people had been catechized as Lutherans in the first place, they'd never have given up the Eucharist - for that is exactly what they gave up by going to the other.
Church of What's Happening Now -- Flip Wilson, right?
I should have been more accurate - in the case of many of an LCMS parish it's the Church of What's Happening YESTERDAY. Their "contemporary" crew led by balding boomers who always wanted to be rock stars is as painful as watching the geriatric gyrations of Mick Jagger.
Somehow, the whole scene just can't be squared, in my mind, with a congregation celebrating reverently the Common Service and kneeling before the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.
Which one fits with Hebrews 12:28,29?
This is an interesting conversation and one that is multi-faceted.
One one hand there are traditionalist Lutherans in the LC-MS, clergy and lay alike, who feel like the hood is being pulled over their heads by certain St. Louis bureaucrats in regards to this talk radio fiasco. There is also the resentment that seems be held due to the rise of certain Lutherans of an alleged dubious theological leaning, clergy and lay, who want to introduce non-Lutheran practice into the current LC-MS. Does that seem accurate?
On the other hand, there are those, be they "in power in St. Louis" or otherwise, who want to see the LC-MS grow and adapt to what is a new and [perhaps?] cultural reality. I would also hesitate to use the word "emergent" as it is being used today in theological and missional parlance. "Emerging church" and LC-MS Lutheranism, even in it's Willow Creek-ish flavor, are far apart.
Here are a few suggestion from me, who for the record is only a nobody with an opinion [an opinion that some may dismiss for all I know]. Here they are:
Traditionalist Lutherans need to understand, in my opinion, that the cultural context [news flash for some!] is in fact changing. Even with a show like Issues Etc., as good as it may have been, was typically just preaching to the choir of traditionalist minded Lutherans and other conservative evangelicals. Yes, I know there are some who signed the petition saying things like "Issues Etc led me into the ministry, etc. etc.". But generally speaking is was a show of fortress mentality. This leads me to two points further points: The LC-MS has got to let go of its ghetto mentality. I say this not as a negative jab. Yes, you have your history, yes, you have your universities and publishing houses, but you need to dialogue and see what is happening out here in non-LC-MS land. And in regards to media and gospel proclamation, the LC-MS needs to contextualize a bit. Here me out here, please: you are not going to reach the 50 below population of today with printed material with 1970's style bad art, nor are you going to hand them some crusty tract from the Lutheran Gospel Hour, nor can you invite the college girls to the old ladies society coffee and Bible hour. It ain't gonna work. Yes, proclaim the gospel. Yes, yes, yes, don't change that. But traditionalists need to understand a bit about contextualization. This ain't your grandmom's LC-MS anymore. Nor your grandmom's culture.
Well, I gotta tell you that replacing the traditional liturgical focus on the alter and the presence there of the eucharist hosts with a new focus on the "praise team" will do nothing for the growth of my (soon to be former) congregation.
Were you a listener to Issues, Etc., Brian, because it was a show that dialoged significantly with the culture. The assumption of a fortress mentality is quite mistaken. I'm not LCMS by birth. I'm a convert. And I'm a pastor. "Ghetto mentality" is utterly mistaken. If you visit the online petition and read the testimonies to Issues, Etc. impact you see that it was a key driving force in getting the Gospel as Lutherans confess it out of our Churches and into the ears of folks who were not familiar with it at all. Seriously, check it out. If I hear "this isn't your grandmom's church" (or "grandfather's") one more time, I'll have to hit my computer screen. You see, what they are offering IS my grandfather and grandmother's church - they were Baptist and Methodist respectively. :)
But the reason I'm a Lutheran has zero to do with anyone's grandmother and grandfather; it has to do with discovering by the grace of God a liturgical, confessional, sacramental Church where the Good News of Jesus Christ, and Him crucified for us poor sinners, wasn't just what made you a Christian but also what KEEPS you a Christian.
Carl, I'm assuming you mean "altar" and "host", singular.
No! Heaven forbid! I'm not saying there should be an abandoning of the liturgical practice of the church. No. Nor should there be a "praise team" up front. No, the praise "team" is the congregation, the people of Christ gathered in song and prayer around the Eucharist.
All I'm saying is that the traditionalist wing of the LC-MS maybe could be a bit more "missional" [and I realize that word has been hi-jacked for use among the faddish and emergent among us] with a little less frown on the face.
And the moderate wing should quite it with the Willow Creek stuff. Enough already. As someone said above, it's yesterday's song by balding boomers. Be Lutheran. Do Lutheran theology. Worship like Lutherans.
Brian,
Hard to be more missional when one of our prime tools was inexplicably taken away - Issues,Etc., was one of our greatest outreach efforts as a Synod.
I hope Mr. Dreher will not mind if I post this response I wrote some time ago to missiolatry:
Missiolatry is a problem. If our “god” is that to which we look for every good and from which we expect help in every time of need, it’s clear the “god” of too many “Christians” (especially those that go by the Lutheran moniker) in this day and age is missions! If you ask 9 out of 10 members of the Lutheran Church what the Church’s primary task is, they’ll answer without hesitating: “Make disciples!”
I think it far better to say that the primary task of the Church is to worship God. "This is the Christian faith, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity." (Athanasian Creed) Jesus said: "For the Father seeks such to worship Him." John 4.
What is the purpose for the Church's existence? It's purpose does not and cannot cease when time ceases. It's purpose is eternal. This is the way the very first book of Lutheran Dogmatics (Melanchthon's 1543 Loci Communes) puts it: "The human race has been so created and then so redeemed that we as the image and temple of God might celebrate the praises of God, for God wills to be known and worshipped."
The relationship of this to the task of the Church in this age is then clarified: Christ has sent His whole people into this world to speak the Word that rescues people from their false worship (their idolatry, which leads only to eternal death), and brings them with us into the worship of Him who alone is LIFE, the Blessed Trinity.
This helps prevent us from thinking about the Church in the shallow way of a "come on in so that you can go out and get some more" club. WHAT are we calling people into? WHAT are we calling them away from? We call them into the worship of the Blessed Trinity, which is faith, the receiving of the divine Life of God through the gifts He gives – and one of those gifts is the liberation from individualism and the gift of true communion with each other in His Body. We call them away from the worship of false gods, which is death. As long as the Church is in this world, she is to work tirelessly at this, but it is not her ultimate vocation. Her ultimate vocation is found in that which she does now which she will continue to do forever.
The Psalmist exhorts "Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good! Blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him." Too many nowadays seem to describe the Church's life not in the "tasting and seeing." Just in the "inviting." But I am convinced that our evangelism efforts falter because our people are not tasting the goodness of the Lord! You see, if you enjoy something, you praise it to others.
Think about it. If you enjoy a movie, you say to others: "You have got to see this!" If you enjoy a restaurant, you say to others: "You have got to eat there!" If you enjoy a book, you say to others: "This is a must read!" We praise to others that which we natively enjoy. We can’t help ourselves!
So back to John 4. The woman tasted the living water (note that she left her bucket at the well!!!), and then goes to her countrymen and tells them: "Come and see a man who told me everything I ever did!" She drank from the living water, and so she invites others to taste and enjoy it with her.
The answer to solving the wimpy witness is never to beat people over the head with the so-called "Great Commission." It is to get them to drink deeply of the living water, and then they too will be crying out with the Spirit and the Church: "Come, and drink freely of the water of life!" (Rev. 22)
Lord, deliver us from the sin of missiolatry and help us to truly find our life in worshipping You and receiving Your gifts and grant us the grace so to enjoy Your bounty that we constantly summon others to the Feast of Life, through Christ our Lord. Amen.
Re: "the geriatric gyrations of Mick Jagger" as put so eloquently by Mr Weedon.
I whole heartedly agree.
This is especially true when interacting with my generation, the children of the 80’s, and 90’s. We are the Most-Marketed-To Generation. TV, Billboards, Internet–a cradle to grave marketing assault. When the church has tried to compete with this, it has done so poorly. My generation sees right though lame attempts by the church to present, as relevant, pop culture that is, at best, 5 years behind the curve.
People desire reality, not marketing gimmicks. People need to see Christ on the cross.
The purpose of the Church is to faithfully proclaim the Word of God even when the culture is against the truth or even against the ideas that there is any truth. If we look at Scripture, we see that the prophets were almost always in the minority and would be considered unsuccessful by modern standards. Jesus was evidently unsuccessful and should have changed His ways. People left Him when He proclaimed the truth. The chief theologians even sought to kill Him. But Peter said,"Lord, to whom shall we go. You have the words of eternal life." It is our job to proclaim that Word in season and out of season.
The LCMS was neither my grandmother's church (UCC) or my grandfather's (he was pretty eclectic). I was brought to an LCMS church because my mom didn't like either the Methodists, Mennonites, or Assembly of God in my hometown. But I later came to appreciate the church body for the liturgy & the reverence for Holy Scripture & the Lutheran Confessions & most especially the Gospel of Jesus Christ crucified for me, a sinner. But now I see it trying to follow down the pop Evangelical path.
I would contest the assertion that some of these so called contemporary focused churches actually bring in new Christians. All the studies I've seen indicate that such churches generally bring in Christians from other church bodies. They don't bring in huge numbers of truly unchurched people, & if they do, they don't focus on discipling them. See Willow Creek's recent admission of failure on this matter. And about the same number of people brought in by the front door are leaving by the back door, either burned out on emotional fad driven trends or they go off seeking something even more exciting.
Also the idea that we have to get busy & get engaged with the culture, which usually means going along with the culture, is not something new to American Lutheranism either. Both CFW Walther & Charles Porterfield Krauth had to deal with it.
Just some thoughts.
Folks, all I am saying is this: First, I abhor the influence of pop-evangelicalism methodology into the liturgical practice of the church catholic. I would hate to see Lutherans in the LC-MS adopt practices such as Willow Creek, the emergent movement, Rick Warren, etc. You have no argument from me here. Let me repeat, I abhor the influence of pop-evangelicalism methodology into the liturgical practice of the church practice.
What I am saying is this: there are those who, and I *think* I would identify the traditionalists of the LC-MS as complicit here, who seem to be heavy on dogmatics but light on praxis in regards to *missionally* living out the faith. I'm speaking here of the life of the church lived outside of the church building as one of mission, service to the poor, gospel proclamation by word and deed, etc. Not simply supporting what has traditionally been understood as "evangelism". [I'm also not speaking of praxis in regards liturgics. Heaven knows you all can argue the angels off the steeple when it comes to the fine points your liturgy.]
And while I'm at it, Lutheran traditionalists seem angry all of the time. Please, smile a bit. It's okay. Really.
Now, as far as "engaging the culture" or contextualization of the gospel. I am not talking about importing a foreign gospel and revising the orthodox one you already have! No! All I'm saying is that if a tattooed spiky haired lesbian college kid comes into your circles and says she's struggling with what she was taught as a kid about God, maybe you should say, "Hey, I'll meet you at the bookstore or the pub or the wherever, and we can struggle with this together". My impression from certain traditionalists is that you would instead say, "Here, here's a quote from Martin Luther and a pamphlet on what we believe. Would you like to come to our Lutheran Ladies League coupon cutting social?".
In the end, I'm more concerned about the frowning fundamentalist attitude more than anything.
I did happy-clappy "culturally relevant" church for 18 years. It brought me to Jesus initially, and it kept me because it was entertaining enough. But the lousy doctrine left me empty and I gave up and stopped going to church. It was confessional Lutheran doctrine, liturgy and the sacraments that brought me back and made the scriptures come alive in a historical light and an outside-of-me way.
Brian,
Rest assured, the traditionalist Lutherans I am always around and serve are not a glum sort at all. They love to have a beer, relax, shoot the breeze about almost any subject and they laugh a lot.
Pax!
" ... but if bringing people to Christ and God is a purpose of the church ... "
Well, I'd argue that the church's job is to administer the sacraments and preach
the gospel. What do you mean by "bring people to Christ"? Yes, part of
the job of the church is catechize it's members.
Sorry, I guess I don't know exactly what you mean. I apologize for being
so dense. Mom always said I got the short end of the stick when it came
to brains.
- Tim
I have been listening to Issues, Etc., since the days of Pastor Matzat. It was one reason why I became a Lutheran. In 2 Kings 5, God worked through the waters of the Jordan to heal Naaman. The understanding of God working through means which I finally understood, thanks to Pastor Matzat, made me a Lutheran. As I continued to listen to Issues, Etc, I came to a greater understanding of and appreciation for a sacramental, confessional, creedal theology. I don't consider it to be conservative but orthodox. I think to call it conservative is to completely mischaracterize it.
I consider the show under Pastor Todd and Jeff to be a seminary for the layman. One of the finest series I heard on Issues, Etc., was between Pastor Todd and a Pastor Weedon on the Liturgy. I cannot speak highly enough about this series. If anyone wishes to an orthodox view, this would be a tremendous place to begin
Interesting video entitled "The Poverty of Liberal "Pastoral Care"
@ http://cyberbrethren.typepad.com/cyberbrethren/
It has been my understanding that the LC-MS in its leadership has in fact been moving towards a moderate model of seeker worship for some time. Can this be confirmed? I am also confused that if there is such a strong base of traditionalists in line with the goals of Issues Etc, then why is its current bishop a moderate? At least it seems that he is a moderate based on some of the verbal opposition that he receives from traditionalists. And are the traditionalists content in remaining the in LC-MS?
I am also interested in the use of the word "mainline" as it pertains to the LC-MS. Would this be a fair description? It seems to me from my visits to a few LC-MS churches that it has the flavor or smell, if you will, of the mainline with a certain measure of fundamentalism.
Mainline? Anyone?
"It has been my understanding that the LC-MS in its leadership has in fact been moving towards a moderate model of seeker worship for some time."
What is a moderate model of seeker worship?
That would be a model using seeker methods while still being set in a liturgical or semi-liturgical context. In this case, a Lutheran context.
Brian,
You might find this informative:
http://www.firstthings.com/blog/2008/03/28/the-lcms-mess/
It seems to me from my visits to a few LC-MS churches that it has the flavor or smell, if you will, of the mainline with a certain measure of fundamentalism.
I suppose it depends on what you view as the mainline thrust. If you define mainline by theology then the LCMS has very little in common with mainline churches. We do often share in common liturgical settings, but that's where the similarities end. As a former mainliner, the typical sermon would be about "life principles" and how we can learn a little more through our experiences about God, blah, blah, blah...In a traditional Lutheran setting you'll be reminded of your sin, told to repent, and then be given the sweetness of the gospel.
It's two similar settings with very different points of emphasis.
On whether LCMS is mainline or not, the following might be of interest, from First Things:
http://www.firstthings.com/blog/2008/03/28/the-lcms-mess/
And are the traditionalists content in remaining the in LC-MS?
I actually posted on this here. The answer for me is "yes, but..."
That would be a model using seeker methods while still being set in a liturgical or semi-liturgical context. In this case, a Lutheran context.
One of the things I've found is that there really is no moderate model. Some LCMS leadership has bought into this idea, but in the end there is liturgical worship and there is seeker-sensitive worship. A seeker model, no matter how modified, always has as its foundation the idea that conversion and discipleship hinge on the style in which the gospel is presented. The traditional liturgical model starts with the idea that God does all the work of conversion and He creates disciples through the power of the Gospel as offered through the means of grace (Scripture, Baptism, the Eucharist).
So, let's say there was a spikey-haired lesbian who comes to my church and asks me what she must do. The first thing I'm going to do is give her the law and encourage her toward Christ-centered, cross-focused repentance. Once she has repented I'm going to give her the full sweetness of the gospel. And then I'm going to encourage her to live this same model every day for the rest of her life, for there is no getting beyond the gospel message in the Christian life. Liturgical worship is ultimately recognition that the patterns of worship develop patterns for daily worship and repentance.
What I'm not going to encourage is modification of the liturgy to accommodate the cultural tastes of the unconverted. The way the church worships and the way culture speaks about faith and relevance have no similarity. The spikey-haired lesbian will, of course, be uncomfortable with this change in emphasis but it is ultimately the only thing that is good for her. I've experienced the same in my conversion to the LCMS. I kicked and screamed (internally) for a year-and-a-half, but I now wouldn't trade the liturgy for any form of the seeker-sensitive pap, no matter how modified. The traditional liturgy is a teacher that encourages people to a truly deepened spirituality. It doesn't have the appeal of contemporary worship's instant gratification, but it does drive you more and more deeply into the heart of Christ.
I was speaking with the church organist at Easter Vigil and she offered a sentiment that I also share. Our pastor has been faithfully encouraging people toward a historical, liturgical practice of the faith and it is finally starting to sink in. Her statement..."This is the first Lenten season where all the secular stuff hasn't mattered. I feel like I'm wrapped in a blanket by Christ and the church."
That's the power of liturgical worship. We cannot modify it.
You are right, perhaps, about liturgical settings. I was speaking more about praxis and the use of "Stephen ministers", outreach via social activities like Ladies guilds, etc. I think for many, especially younger people, the LC-MS logo equates to a older mainline church that simply can't grapple with, or doesn't want to grapple with, the complexities of the post-modern world - be they philosophical ones, theological ones, social ones, etc. [And I'm not using "postmodern" in the overused trendy way one often finds the term.] The LC-MS traditionalists I know are quick to offer a simplistic Luther quote and be content to stay within the confines of the LC-MS and the institutions of its sub-world.
By fundamentalism, I mean that the LC-MS traditionalists will often times let you know about what they *don't* believe as opposed to what they in fact do believe. This goes back to the fortress mentality that I mentioned a while ago.
But even in LC-MS churches that are not moderate or seeker styled, I have heard the mainline sermon you describe.
I feel compelled to say that I have appreciation for older LC-MS folks. Perhaps if the true moderates of the LC-MS had their day 30 or so years ago, we wouldn't be stuck with the polarity of hardline LC-MS traditionalists and loosey-goosey ELCA radicals.
I think for many, especially younger people, the LC-MS logo equates to a older mainline church that simply can't grapple with, or doesn't want to grapple with, the complexities of the post-modern world - be they philosophical ones, theological ones, social ones, etc.
I think this view is borne more out of what people want the church to be rather than what the church should be. Lutherans use apologetics and outreach ministries, but we don't view those things as what the church is primarily for. The church is, to a confessional Lutheran, a place where God feeds His sheep through Word and Sacrament. The reason there isn't a lot of variation in the way we present that message is that everybody's need is the same. All are sinners. All break the laws of God. All need to repent. All need to hear the words of forgiveness and receive our Lord's Body and Blood in the Eucharist.
That view does not exclude other forms of ministry. Truly, if you want wonderful examples of what churches that have their priorities in order can do in the community, visit Pastor Weedon's St. Paul Lutheran in Hamel, IL and/or, I would humbly submit, my home congregation of Trinity Lutheran in Worden, IL. In both places the world's difficulties are dealt with as needed and I've sensed no unwilligness to deal with tough issues in either congregation.
What we don't do, though, is ground the church primarily in philosophy or social issues. I like how the late Gerhard Forde put it in his book, On Being A Theologian of the Cross:
This is not to say, however, that the language of affirmation, comfort, support, building self-esteem, and so forth does not have its place...The danger and misuse comes when such language displaces or obscures the ultimate...Penultimate cures are mistaken for ultimate redemption. When that happens the church becomes predominantly a support group rather than the gathering of the body of Christ where the word of the cross and resurrection is proclaimed and heard.
I find this conversation interesting. I never listened to Issues until downloading a few of the podcasts (after the archives were reinstated). I found out about it from reading the Corner at National Review last week. Loved the couple of shows I heard. Wish it were back because the shows I listened to were substantial and current.
What I find interesting is the dynamic between the two factions in LCMS that have been revealed to me. I'm not originally Lutheran, but was Baptized as an adult in my current LCMS Church. Therefore I don't have a natural feel for these factions, and really only see it through the contemporary vs. traditional worship prism. And from this viewpoint, I find the arguments, um, silly. The Gospel is the Gospel is the Gospel, and as long as it is proclaimed along with the Law, why be bothered about the trappings around it? I love Lutheran doctrine, but somtimes I get the sense that congregations are more concerned with how it is presented than what it says. And this applies to both sides.
If more modern aspects of worship service perform the same function as the old hymns (beautiful though they may be), why not use them? If the older style of worship works better for your congregation, why not stay with it? Maybe I'm missing the point. When choosing a church to attend, I always put doctrine above style, but I sure would love to have the style (contemporary) that reaches further into me.
BTW, whenever our congregation sings a hymn from the 1800's, I joke with my wife that it must be a contemporary service. ;-)
Mr. Oglesbee,
If you search Issues, Etc. archives you can find a 10 part series that I did on the Historic Liturgy. I'd invite you to take a listen and then see if your view changes in anyway (it may or it may not). Wishing you every good thing in Jesus our Lord!
Hey Rob, Pastor J here. (Cyberspace is crazy, huh?) As your pastor, I assure you that the factions within the LCMS are divided at a deeper level than mere preference over musical style, that the more foundational divisions are over how God does His work of saving the lost, the nature of the Church and the Office of the Holy Ministry, the place of the Lutheran Church among other Christian churches, the role of the Confessions, and even the interpretation and role of Scripture.
Certainly, these have implications for the worship life of the church, and this is the most visible place where these more fundamental differences play out.
:) And yes, when we do a hymn from the 1800's, we are doing contemporary worship, as when we do hymns from the BC 1400's (Song of Miriam and Moses,) the BC 900's (David's Psalms), the AD 100's (the Gloria,) the Early Church Period, the Reformation, the AD 1970's, AD 2008, and Eternity (the Sanctus). These are all contemporary because we sing them, well, today. Of course, we are also doing traditional worship when we sing all those hymns as well. :)
I was just passing through while trying to find info about what happened to Issues, Etc., and I wanted to make a quick comment about Rob Oglesbee's question.
The error that so many people (on both sides) make in these "worship wars" discussions is basing everything on stylistic preferences. When traditionalists dismiss contemporary worship based on personal preference (e.g., "I just like the old style so much better"), I think, unless they have adequate reasons behind those preferences, they're just as wrong as contemporary worship proponents. The real reasons to protect the liturgical worship service from "contemporary" styles have nothing to do with what we like or dislike.
Rob says, "When choosing a church to attend, I always put doctrine above style, but I sure would love to have the style (contemporary) that reaches further into me." The problem is that the "style that reaches further into me" is subjective. No matter what style you choose, you're going to have a few people that love it, some people that kind of like it, a lot of people that tolerate it, and a few people that absolutely hate it. If you really wanted to please everyone, then you'd have to do a rap service, a rock service, a heavy metal service, a country western service, a blues service, an electronica service, a folk service... Some churches do offer services like that, but seriously--how divisive is that?
Many of us who oppose contemporary worship recognize that not everyone finds traditional hymnody moving. But think of it this way: one of hymns' strengths (as a generalization) is their substance--the fact that the best of them express profound theological truths in clear yet poetic ways. Their words teach us and comfort us. But if you're too busy being emotionally moved by the song's musical content, are you really paying attention to the words you're singing? That can be true no matter the worship style. I say again, then, that worship style should not be based on personal preference.
I assure you that the factions within the LCMS are divided at a deeper level than mere preference over musical style
Hey Pastor J. Yeah, I realize that, I'm just saying from a lay standpoint, that's where I perceive the divide exists (as you noted a bit later). As long as that visible issue is unresolved, the deeper issues will never be addressed. Therefore it is probably wise to ensure that where interest for contemporary worship exists, that the Pastor strongly encourage those aspects that do not conflict with his views on the deeper issues.
These are all contemporary because we sing them, well, today.
Cute observation. ;-) So you would have no objection to keeping the words of these hymns, but changing the tune and accompanying instrumentation to reflect radio play song styles?
Granted, as Jason T. said (to paraphrase), you can't please everyone, and:
The real reasons to protect the liturgical worship service from "contemporary" styles have nothing to do with what we like or dislike.
...so what are the reasons?
But if you're too busy being emotionally moved by the song's musical content, are you really paying attention to the words you're singing?
Interesting, I think you're saying someone is emotionally moved by the "beat" instead of the words in contemporary songs. I would argue that the simplicity of verse of many contemporary worship songs are their strength. Especially those based on various Psalms.
I'm sure I have more to say here, but the wife is pushing me off the computer. Pastor Weedon, I'll look up that series. Is the first one titled, "The Funeral Liturgy I"? If not, I couldn't find what you were referencing.
Thanks,
Rob
Just wanted to add (now that I have the computer back), that this is the reason why Issues is important. Its an intellectually honest program that can educate people like me on those topics that underlie the visible, whether I agree with the hosts or not. ;-)
Rob,
My experience (and I'm saying this as a layperson, as well) is that most laity also perceive that the divide is simply over musical styles and not over anything substantive. But not only are the issues much deeper, they are also much wider--pulling at that one little string reveals an intricate weave that includes all of our beliefs and practices. That's why a well-catechized laity is so vital to the church--so that the weave doesn't become unraveled at the smallest tug. For what it's worth, I commend you for your interest in the subject and for trying to learn about it--it's more effort than I've seen from many life-long Lutherans.
One of the issues at the heart of the matter is this: Why do we go to church in the first place? We go to receive forgiveness of sins, to hear God's Word, to hear God's Law and Gospel applied to us, and to strengthen our faith. We also respond by thanking God for His gifts. The purpose of going to church is not to have an emotional experience. Whether or not we feel anything during the service--and whether or not we even enjoy the service--is irrelevant. God's Word and sacraments are effective regardless of how we feel about the service.
Our culture, on the other hand, is one of emotional manipulation. We're constantly bombarded by marketing. Everything we do has to be fun and enjoyable. Do what feels good, right? If it doesn't make you feel good, it's not worth doing. Pop culture especially is all about manipulating us so that we buy into current fads. Pop music is highly, highly emotional stuff. For the most part, it's not about conveying ideas, but rather about conveying feelings. Ideas are controversial. Feelings are universal. You'll get more people to buy your album if you make them feel something than if you make them think about something.
Music is powerful. Musical style is not, as you suggest, neutral. And I say this as a musician and composer. It's very easy to manipulate people through music. In the worship service, the focus is entirely on Word and sacrament given to sinners for the forgiveness of sins. Music--along with everything else in the worship service--should act to serve that focus. When you take a musical style that is inherently based on conveying powerful emotions and try to make it subservient to something that is an inherently objective message, you create a massive incongruity. When you start introducing incongruities like that into your worship service, they tend to spread. And then, finally, when your practice ceases to match your theology, often it's your theology that changes to resolve the incongruity. That's why there are so often a whole host of other things that tend to go along with a change to contemporary worship styles. And that's why so many confessional Lutherans are adamant about retaining historical liturgical worship.
I found an article on the Concordia Theological Seminary website that actually does a much better job of explaining this. Perhaps I should have just linked to this and saved you my pontification:
http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/1176
Your questions about music, style, and worship are directly answered in the sections beginning on page 53 and page 55. The entire article is quite good, even though it's pretty thick reading.
In light of the CHANGE PROCESS I have seen taking places in the LCMS church I am still a member of as well as other LCMS Churches in the Palatine, IL area; I am not surprised by the decision to drop the Issues Etc. program. I suspect the sound doctrine discussed on Issues Etc. was the real reason for the program being canceled. The change process I have personally witnessed taking place in LCMS Churches is dependent upon keeping church members ingorent of sound Doctrine. It appears to me that THE TRUTH of God's Word is the real problem for LCMS and that there may have been to many people listening to the show.
I'll say it again and our Bishop [president] Rev. Kieschnick has reminded us before many times too: this ain't your grandfather's Lutheran Church!
Jason wrote: Music is powerful. Musical style is not, as you suggest, neutral. And I say this as a musician and composer. It's very easy to manipulate people through music. In the worship service, the focus is entirely on Word and sacrament given to sinners for the forgiveness of sins. Music--along with everything else in the worship service--should act to serve that focus.
I agree, music is one of the most powerful forces our senses can encounter. I think manipulate is a strong word, but it definitely emphasizes and enhances sympathetic emotions.
I read the relevant parts of that document you linked. Valid points, but I disagree with the conclusion. As you say, music in worship must serve the purpose of God and be used to convey the Truth. And music is neutral. The background and circumstances of the people in the congregation change this. That's why I say you must use the style that suits your congregation. Context matters.
Hypothetical: place two songs side-by-side, same Truth being conveyed, one song in a traditional style and instrumentation, the other in contemporary style and instrumentation. I would argue that the one that writes the word more effectively on the hearts of the congregation is the preferred one: it is a better vehicle for the Word. This is why it is vital for the Pastor (or the music director, if the discernment is there) to be involved in the music selection. Unfortunately, I think most Pastors are too busy with other parts of their calling to want to bother with this and therefore prevent an alternative to traditional hymns from becoming viable (and no, I'm not talking about my current Pastors ^_^ ).
I really think we are saying the same things, just coming to different conclusions. I prefer contemporary style because I participate more. I try participating in singing older hymns, but I find the music so distasteful most of the time that I just stand there reading the words, or wondering when I'll be able to mow my lawn or wash the car. Which is a shame, because the words can be quite beautiful.
For me, traditional songs and styles (80% of the time) are very blunt instruments for writing upon my mind and heart.
I am new to this site, and new to father zakaria's sites as well,God bless this saint, he suffered humility, he suffered pain, he is wiling to give his life for the love of jesus our savior, but God has a big plan for our beloved father, and i am thankful to the US government for providing protection to the Man of God, I read and write arabic as well, I never had the chance to understand the quran simply because it was written in classic arabic poetry, and mohammad himself challenged any one to come with one phrase like it, from those who did challenge the quran and came with stronger and better poetry, is Musaylimah from yemen, who was followed by the entire peple of yemen in the life time of Mohammad, and 5 more, Mohammad set his warriors to conquer all those who challenged him with better verses, all were killed by Mohammad,the point is father Zakaria knows the classic arabic, and understands the "SAYINGS IF MOHAMMAD" which are considered God's unsent verses "AL-HADEETH" in Arabic or in common arabic ahadeeth al-rasool" which translates the sayings of the prophet, thank gGod those sayings were kept in every Moslim home and mosque and library, including libraries in the us, and sadly not one person talks about it or expose it either because they have no guts to speak about islam and expose it or because they dont want to hurt the moslims feelings , while moslims have never respected a non-moslim feelings now father Zakaria expose islame and ask moslims to read thier own books and discuss it not just read it and obay it blindly, mohammad was a child mollester , he declared in one hadeeth that while he was carrying a naked famale infant,he had a great sexual urge, and father zakaria when he bring these points he point with proof , which book or how many books repeat the same story and make sure it is in the hart of the library of the greatest and in every Islamic library, it seems to be a natural thing to our moslim friends cause the arab nature is bragging about sex in the open, now someone will accuse me of lying , and as the moslims always ask "PROVE IT BEFORE YOU SAY IT"my answer to them open father Zakaria's site and read it with open mind and heart , may be this will be the turning point in your lives to see and hear the truth. I will write more later on , I have a lot to share about this evil man Mohammad
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.