I’m not a scholar and I’m only a theologian in so far as “everyone is a theologian,” but I’ve been trying to write a paper comparing and contrasting the “traditional” and “contemporary” services that we have at my congregation, Shepherd of the Valley Lutheran Church. As I posted previously, I am an ardent supporter of using the historic liturgy for many and various reasons and I wanted to study the two services, as our congregation has them, to see how having two services with two different styles might be affecting our congregation. Let me say that our “contemporary” service is much better at proclaiming the Gospel than any “3 songs and a ‘How-to’ sermon” from an Evangelical church. The basic outline has its roots in the historic liturgy and the sermon is the same one as used during the “traditional” service. That being said there are some major differences in the service. If there weren’t I would have no qualms. In all honesty, I wouldn’t complain if the “contemporary” service was TLH (15) or LSB (Setting 3) set to a guitar. It wouldn’t be my favorite, but at that point, I think I could leave it as a matter of style.
I started the research for the paper by reading through journals, papers, blogs, writing down the order of service for both services, comparing the song from each service, etc. etc. But when I came to write the paper, I had a tough time doing the comparison and contrast I wanted to do because things were so intertwined. It just so happened that I was rereading “It’s Time: LCMS Unity and Mission” and Pastor Harrison’s thoughts on addressing controversies by discussing them. In this way, I could layout what I affirmed and what I rejected. This exercise would then become more than just me spouting off about what I liked and disliked, but it would become a vehicle for clarifying my ideas and having them opened for criticism and correction. So, following the format of “The Forumla of Concord” I present my statement on “Traditional Worship”:
[Status of the Controversy]
[1] A concern has arisen about the use of “contemporary” or “praise band led” worship within our congregation. [2] One side holds that “traditional” worship should be the standard for all worship services as it was handed down to us as the tested means for proper Christian worship. [3] The other side holds that worship styles are mandated neither in the Scriptures nor the confessions and as such we have the freedom to worship as appropriate for our local context.
[Affirmative Statements]
[4] I believe that the historic liturgy is the best vehicle for our understanding of worship which is the proclamation of the Gospel in Word and Sacraments, and our response to those gifts. [5] I believe that all previous additions to the historic liturgy were done to enhance the proclamation of the Gospel. [6] I believe that all previous subtractions to the historic liturgy were done to remove things that obscured the Gospel.
mach zehnder modulator[7] I believe the historic liturgy is the best tool for catechesis in the context of worship. [8] I believe the Ordinaries are a vital part of teaching the faith as they ingrain the basic truths of our theology. [9] I believe the celebration of the Church Year and Feast Days enhances our understanding of the faith by continually walking us through the life of Christ, the lives of the saints before us, and our own Christian lives. [10] I believe most of the hymns found in TLH and LSB are good expositions of what we believe and by singing them, we deepen our understanding of Lutheran theology.
[11] I believe the historic liturgy is the best platform to promote unity within and between congregations. [12] I believe that corporate singing and responsive reading display church unity in our response to God’s gifts and provide a shared experience to all participants. [13] I believe the historic liturgy displays unity with the saints who practiced the same liturgy before us. [14] I believe the historic liturgy acts as a sign-post to others with the same confession of faith.
[15] I believe the prominence of the altar, pulpit, and baptismal font in our church architecture enhances the sacramental focus brought out in the historic liturgy.
[Negative Statement]
[16] I reject the removal of the Ordinaries as they are vital parts of the proclamation of the Gospel and catechesis.
[17] I reject the minimization of the Church Year and Feast Days as they are import for catechesis and the understanding that our faith is steeped in historical events of Christ’s redemptive life, death, resurrection, and ascension.
[18] I reject the removal of responsive readings as they are important for our understanding that worship is a corporate activity.
[19] I reject the addition of a “Children’s Message” as this implies a distinction within the church that does not exist; a simple change to “Teaching Message” or something similar would be acceptable.
[20] I reject the use of “praise songs” as they are largely bereft of sound theological content; a contemporary setting for sound hymnity would be acceptable.
[21] I reject the forsaking of the pulpit when preaching as this obscures our understanding that the pastor is called to preach the Word under God’s authority and is not to draw attention to himself.
[22] I reject the use of screens and projectors as they pull our attention from the altar, pulpit, and baptismal font, the symbols of the sacraments around which we are gathered and should be focused.
[23] I reject the use of amplifiers and speakers, and the placement of the praise team at the front of and facing the congregation as these set the praise team apart from the rest of the congregation and detract from the corporate nature of our singing and worship. [24] Ideally, the praise team would not be visible as with the choir, but at a minimum the speakers and amplifiers should be removed and they should be turned in the same direction as the rest of the congregation.
[25] In general, I reject all those things which take away from our distinct theology and tradition as this watering down will cause great confusion in the future amongst the steadfast inside and outside of our congregation, and give comfort to those who would willfully attempt to alter our theology to make it more palatable to the culture.
{ 2 comments }
Brian,
I’ve been following the discussion at BJS about this with great interest. I hope you will find my comments helpful.
I think you should be commended for the spirit in which you are doing this. I don’t agree with the commenter at BJS who thinks you should “shake the dust off your feet” and find another congregation. It takes a lot of patience to educate, persuade and contend for the faith in a way that might move the hearts and minds of those who have a hard time understanding the arguments for traditional worship.
A few observations, if I may;
I think having traditional and blended (or contemporary) options in one congregation is a recipe for strife and division. I have known several LCMS congregations who have tried to pursue this middle-of-the-road approach. The problem is that it divides your congregation into two hostile factions. This will become painfully obvious when you have to call a new pastor, and you will find that all your candidates prefer one approach or the other. Your current pastor may be doing an okay job of keeping most people happy, but his successor will probably be very committed to either the contemporary or traditional form, and will not do a good job of leading the worship that he doesn’t like.
Under “status of the controversy” you seem to set up points [2] and [3] as mutually exclusive. I don’t think this is the case. I affirm that we have the freedom to change ceremonies, as discussed in the Book of Concord. However, Christians who understand scripture in the same way that the Lutheran reformation fathers did quickly come to agreement on the best way to worship; what we now call “traditional.” Lutherans who are under the influence of contemporary trends in American culture and, specifically, the pop-evangelical “Christian” subculture believe the best way to worship is what we are calling “contemporary.”
Traditional worship is more authentically Lutheran, and authentic Lutheranism is exactly the right way to proclaim the Gospel in 21st Century America. We need to distinguish ourselves from the pop-evangelical subculture, not imitate it. Christians in other traditions who are not hearing the Gospel (but lots and lots of law) need to know that there is something different about the Lutherans.
To expand on the point: I’ve worshipped in several very confessional and liturgical LCMS churches, congregations that are in 100% agreement with my own on every point of doctrine. Yet, no two liturgies were exactly the same. Some had individual cups, some did not. Some used Divine Service II, some would never. So, there is freedom in adiaphora, and for good reason.
Yet, these congregations would agree that video screens, praise bands and children’s sermons are generally not appropriate, even though they are very common in other denominations. The discussion is about what is best, not what is allowed.
Finally, a practical suggestion. I presume you are an Issues, Etc. listener? I suggest that you burn the best Issues episodes (such as the current series with Cantor Magness) to CD and distribute the CDs to your fellow parishoners who are open to persuasion on these points. Let them know that you are trying to start a conversation and not trying to condemn the “contemporaries.” This has worked well for me as a way to express confessional ideas in my own congregations, Pr. Wilken and guests are much better communicators than I can be!
Your respect for your pastor and love for your congregation really shows. I pray for your success as you work to persuade and lead them to the treasures that we have inherited in the Lutheran Christianity.
Matt,
Thank you for the very thoughtful comments. I hadn’t thought about what would happen when the next pastor is called. The congregation, at least outwardly, doesn’t overtly take sides, but I’ve always been concerned the effects of having two styles and thought that we are borrowing on a lot of existing capital (the fact that most of the congregation was there when there was only one traditional service).
I agree that [2] and [3] aren’t mutually exclusive and will work on a way to better convey that.
Thank you for the suggestion on burning Issues, Etc. series. I’ve done this a little (I gave out Pastor Weedon’s 10 CD series on the historic liturgy), I just need to find more allies.
Thanks again!
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }